Rejection of science and/or factual information in favor of feelings

Great Debates
1

My family and I have recently adopted a dog from the SPCA, and I’ve been doing my research on what to feed him.

I’m amazed at the level of nonsense that’s out there, how much is marketing driven, and more importantly, how much of it is swallowed hook, line, and sinker by anxious “pet parents”. (a different threat, probably for the pit).

Anyway, after reading through a mountain of these web sites, board posts and the like, it seems to come down to the same old things we see in politics and the wider world. That is, people reject the science-based, factual information in favor of stuff that makes them feel better or that sounds more right to them.

Dog-food point: There are a couple of industry organizations, the AAFCO and the WSAVA which set standards for dog food. One (AAFCO) is a broader animal feed industry group, and the other is a small animal veterinary association. There are only five brands of dog food that broadly meet both sets of standards - Purina, Eukanuba, Iams, Royal Canin, and Hill’s (Science Diet). These all use a fair amount of grains and by-products, so the ingredient lists aren’t exactly appetizing.

Meanwhile, there are a slew of “boutique” foods that are very intent on “clean ingredients” or non-byproduct ingredients, and they come with mountains of marketing nonsense about dogs eating like wolves, being carnivores, and so forth. Some of these diets can even cause problems in dogs fed with them long term.

But the people out there are absolutely hung up on the idea that some boutique brand must be better because it’s first four ingredients are “Chicken, turkey, salmon, whole herring” instead of “Whole grain corn, meat and bone meal, corn gluten meal, and beef fat”. Considering that dogs only need something like 25% protein and 10% fat in their diet, along with all the usual vitamins and minerals, the second one seems more well rounded, if less “pure”.

But people will feed their dogs the first, because it’s “higher quality ingredients”, rather than the second (good old Purina Dog Chow) that’s had decades of results, long-term feeding trials, is formulated by veterinary nutritionists, and is often the control group feed for canine diet studies. It’s very perplexing!

So there are huge flame wars and arguments about dog foods, and it struck me that this is the nation in a microcosm- there’s a huge contingent of people out there who can’t read and understand the labels, and make poor decisions as a result.

I don’t understand the thought process that says in essence that I’ll disregard the industry standards, experts, and scientific recommendations to go with what “feels right” to me. Is it a lack of trust? Is it flawed risk aversion? Is it hubris? Sheer ignorance and stupidity? All five? None of the above?

This is true whether we’re talking dog food, baby food, diapers, vaccinations, political candidates, climate change, etc. From where I sit, it’s the exact same phenomenon occurring, and the dog food one has just been a bit less contentious, so I’ve seen more of the thinking process. But not enough to actually understand it.

2

First, to your point about dog food-

I completely agree. Anybody who has owned a dog knows that you must take precautions, or they will eat from the garbage can. It does not matter how much food you give them. It does not matter how high quality that food is. Dogs love to eat from the garbage.

Lender’s Bagels had a promotion. You sent in a few dollars and a proof of puchase. They sent you a thoroughly dried out mini bagel, covered in shellac and painted with hair, eye, and your name on it. The bagl came mounted on a string and was a great necklace. Our miniature dachshund, Goliath, ate mine.

Yes, dogs prefer fresh meat. They also will eat garbage and thoroughly dried out mini bagels covered in shellac and paint. Clearly, what a dog will eat is not a good indication of what diet is best for them.

To your greater point-

Appeals to emotion and argument from authority are logical fallacies. They both work very well at convincing people. I was the caretaker of a senior with Parkinson’s for a few years. I joined a Parkinson’s group on Facebook. There were always posts where somebody was spending a lot of money to fly to another country for a miracle cure (usually something that claimed to involve stem cells) that was not approved in the US or proven to do anything. There is no cure for Parkinson’s. There are medications. They only slow the inevitable progression. This is hard to accept. Many people refuse to accept it, and fly to other countries for ‘miracle cures’.

I have shared the horrible way I found out that a friend had voted Trump. After sharing ‘Why should I care if he takes away gay rights? I’m not gay and neither are you.’ he said that he voted Trump because Trump could end inflation and fix the economy. I was so stunned, horrified and disgusted that I forgot to ask just how Trump would do this with the powers of the President as defined by the Constitution considering the macro economic causes of inflation, and how a man with so many bankruptcies could be viewed as somebody who could fix the economy.

3

People are stupid. News at 11.

4

It’s more than that though; it’s almost like some people have something not quite complete in their otherwise logical thinking that makes them prey to stuff like this.

I mean, I’ve got family members who are not at all stupid, and have been college educated at major state research universities, and they go in for a remarkable amount of malarkey. It’s almost like there’s a lack of skepticism there, that leads them to not doubt sketchy things. For example, when we get diagnosed with some kind of ailment, I read up on it, and follow the doctor’s advice. At worst, I may ask them what their logic and reasoning was that led to the decision and treatment choices.

My relatives do that, but when there’s some sort of not-quite-woo treatment, they don’t have that skepticism that I do, where I look at anything not being prescribed by my doctor as questionable. They’re not so much credulous, as they’re not skeptical enough. They’ll read somewhere that this and such supplement helps with ailment X, and as soon as they can, they’re taking it. Meanwhile, in my own head, I’m thinking “If that supplement was actually useful, Pfizer or someone would be selling a medication with the active compounds, and that supplement wouldn’t be necessary. This must be BS.”

I don’t know if it’s a desire to actively do something, or if it’s a lack of skepticism, or maybe distrust in expertise, or what. But it’s probably not coincidence that they’re all Trumpers and I’m not.

5

I have a ‘canned’ post for just this kind of thing:

What we’re seeing in unprecedented numbers lately is people who, as an analogy, reject the theory of evolution because the fossil record is imperfect, but who then try desperately to convince you of the validity of Creation, a theory for which there is absolutely zero objective support. It’s just that A Book … A Single Work of Fiction … lays it out.

Even if you question the credibility of the mainstream media, real science, or the Conventional Wisdom (and it’s reasonable to be skeptical), you can’t just make stuff up out of whole cloth.

Remember: just because you DO believe it doesn’t mean it IS true, and just because you DON’T believe it doesn’t mean it’s NOT true.

Put yet another way: ignoring science because it’s inherently imperfect is like being unwilling to aim or practice because your first shot didn’t hit the bullseye.

Also see: “Remember before the internet when we thought people were dumb because they didn’t have access to information? Yeah. That wasn’t it.”

ETA: One more…

“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.’”

–Isaac Asimov

6

This is advertising in a nutshell. Years ago, like close to 15-20 years by now, there was a commercial for some mini-van or SUV that didn’t really say anything about the vehicle they were selling. The ad featured a nuclear family who were all kind of bickering with one another and stressed out until they all piled into the vehicle whereupon everyone calmed down. They weren’t selling me a vehicle they were selling domestic bliss.

And that’s kind of the same thing with the dog food commercials. People love their pets and want them to be happy and healthy, so they’re not just selling you food, they’re selling you a healthy and happy dog. It’s surprisingly easy to get suckered into thinking something is better for all sorts of silly reasons.

7

Not to hijack your thread, but I started a similar thread a few months ago about pet shampoos.

In short, there’s an entire industry that exists despite any evidence for it, because pet owners are easy to sell to.

8

In addition to other points people are making, there is also a healthy skepticism of groups like this and their ability to be co-opted by industry. Sometimes it becomes unhealthy.

For us, we favor a combination of Purina and Farmer’s Dog. Best of both worlds? I don’t know. Our dog loves it though. Really loves it.

9

The main point in a nutshell is that emotion is far more powerful than logic. It takes a ton of logic to overcome a pound of emotion - and even then, might not work.

This happens in politics, relationships, dog-food, business, career choice - a thousand things one can name.

10

Of course.

But I think it’s more than that; when people ask questions online about it, someone says “Feed them one of those 5 double-standard meeting dog foods”, and they double down about it, usually by saying something factually wrong and conspiratorial to some degree- in the dog food world, it’s usually something vaguely damning about byproducts or grains versus “high quality ingredients”.

I’m not denying that these groups can be co-opted by industry, but they’re the best standards we’ve got.

And what you’re doing is EXACTLY what I’m talking about. You’ve said vaguely conspiratorial things, and now have decided you know better than the experts. Out of curiosity, what makes you think you’ve got a better handle on it than they do?

11

I don’t know. And I not saying I know better than the experts. I’m saying our vet signed off on this (She didn’t recommend 100% Farmers Dog, but thought 50/50 mix was a good idea). I’m doing it because our dog loves it and seems healthy after a few years with this approach.

12

It’s the indirect result of America’s intense religiosity, I believe. In order to protect and justify believing in God and Christian mythology, we’ve gone to great effort to demonize reason, science, and fact based reasoning and promote faith and reliance on emotion as a virtue.

It permeates our society. Just look at fictional characters for example; the villains are typically smarter, better educated and supposed more rational (which is usually portrayed as a reason why they are villains). The hero is someone who doesn’t know what he’s doing, who “goes from the gut” rather than thinking, isn’t as smart and operates on faith and passion; and unlike real life, the hero triumphs by denying reality hard enough.

When applied to reality - like pet food choices - that attitude fails to work, however. Dogs and cats don’t change their dietary needs just because their owner believes real hard.

13

Yes pretty much as Der_Trihs says, but in this case I think the topic is broad enough that most countries are affected to one degree or another. We all suffer science-denialism and/or anti-intellectualism at some level, the US just happens to be the tip of the spear in the Western world right now.

And dog food is a pretty small symptom of this of course.

Many of the things that Americans believe in – climate change denial, moon landing hoax, creationism, etc – require thousands if not millions of people to knowingly lie, all day every day, as their career. It’s incredible that people can so trivially believe such claims, and is probably why we shouldn’t be that surprised by the “interesting” political choices of recent years.

14

When it comes to anti-science people - and I swear it is most people - their arguments always come down to a conspiracy. Here is how the argument would go on this subject:

You: “Dog food made by Purina, Eukanuba, Iams, Royal Canin, and Hill’s is perfectly healthy.”

Anti-Science Idiot: “Not it’s not! That stuff is garbage!”

You: “If it is ‘garbage,’ how do you explain that they meet AAFCO and the WSAVA standards?”

Anti-Science Idiot: “Those organization want to make your dog sick! They profit from it!! They’re paid off by those big companies!!!” (Or something along those lines.)

It always comes down to a conspiracy.

15

The internet and more specifically, social media, allows anyone to say anything and expose everyone to their nonsense, without any check or balance. Whenever I see someone “does their own research” you can bet they have been misled. Mountains of garbage information and opinion simply drowns-out science and fact. If one article does not support and re-enforce your opinion, you can simply brush it off and in a couple clicks find something that agrees with your “feeling”, and you run with that. Search for a respectable source of information and there is a flood of disinformation trying to discredit that source, causing doubt, which is the intent.

Rather than spending time shopping for/“researching” the right opinion, it’s just better to try a few dog foods from your local pet store in small amounts to see what works well for your pet (and your budget). Not every “high-end” dog food is going to work for every dog.

Here’s an interesting read on the history of dog food - note modern dog food has been around only a few decades, but dogs have been around us for thousands of years…

16

Actually it’s more “They don’t CARE about your dog, and will put substandard ingredients in to save a buck, while we put in high quality ingredients because we care too!” Which is nonsense right out of the gate- if they cared about dogs, they’d be meeting the standards, having veterinary nutritionists on staff, and trumpeting both to the heavens. But they’re not- they’re appealing to the owners with words and ingredients that appeal to humans, not necessarily dogs.

It’s all very conspiratorial, and that marketing plays right into it.

Yeah, I suspect that grains and byproducts are probably closer to what dogs ate as they diverged from wolves, than what these boutique foods purport.

17

I’m not going to try to summarize it, but Pew did some data mining on – basically – this topic. Worth a look, IMHO:

The Republican machinery has put an inordinate amount of time, money, and effort into doing just this: sowing distrust in institutions. It’s the ‘arsonist as firefighter’ model, and their firefighter du jour – the “I alone can fix it” guy – is DJT.

18

Anti-Science Idiot: “Those standards are garbage! They were written by the big dog food corporations to maximize their profits! Those standards have nothing to do with nutrition!”

You can’t win with these idiots. It always comes down to a conspiracy.

19

Well, they claim to

  • Developed by on-staff board-certified nutritionists
  • Cooked (not raw) with a single protein source
  • Made and tested in FDA-compliant facilities
  • Compliant with AAFCO and WSAVA guidelines
20

Just to put a finer point on the OP … [from that link]:

That (# of DCM cases reported to the FDA by brand of dog food) isn’t presented as a rate (ie, DCM cases per 100lbs of dog food sold, or something similar), so, logically, the more popular brands would tend to have a greater number of cases – all other things being held equal.

But “other things” include how ‘attuned’ to their pets’ health the owners are who spend more money on their pets and their pets’ veterinary care. IOW: are the ‘premium’ dog food brands causing more cases or do they just tend to have more diagnosis of cases?

The dollar store dog food pet owners (who simply may not have adequate resources) might seldom or never take their pets to the vet.

And are there any kind of controls that can point to whether or not any of these dog food brands actually have any contribution to canine DCM whatsoever?

The actual numbers hardly rise to the level of ‘signal,’ much less constitute a compelling case for grain in cDCM, IMHO (M-O-U-S-E).

IOW: this graph, as presented, is either useless or worse than useless.