Originally posted on Planet Pailly: Hello, friends! So there’s this notion in the popular press that when a new scientific paper comes out, that …
Originally posted on Planet Pailly: Hello, friends! So there’s this notion in the popular press that when a new scientific paper comes out, that …
Enjoying this? The Sunday Same is my biweekly letter: one essay like this, every other Sunday morning, straight to your inbox. Subscribe at lanceamh.substack.com.
A note on how I use AI. I write everything on this blog myself: the ideas, the arguments, the words. I do use AI, but as an editor, not a co-author. It helps me with grammar, formatting, and structure. That use is recent: AI has been part of my process only for roughly the past year’s worth of posts. Everything older was written without it, because there was nothing like it to use. What I have found is that AI most often misinterprets what I write philosophically, so its suggestions are usually wrong, and a good deal of my attention and editing goes into sculpting each post until it reflects the ideas correctly. The ideas are never AI’s.
For transparency, I keep a Word document of my original writing and the full exchanges, back and forth with the AI, that produced each post. If anyone is interested in how a piece came together, that record is available.
Essays in mental health philosophy—less “tips,” more why things work (or don’t). I look at the first principles under therapy, psychiatry, psychology, and everyday life, and occasionally share notes from papers and books-in-progress.
This space stands alongside—not inside—my counseling practice. If you’re seeking therapy in Colorado, there’s a link in the footer.
Lance Kair, LPC, blends philosophy, mindfulness, and counseling to help clients find agency, meaning, fulfillment, and healing through deep understanding, self-awareness, and compassionate therapeutic collaboration.
Copyright © 2025 Lance Kair, LPC | Website by TechG
One response to “No Gospel Truth in Science”
The problem with the narrative of the meme is that the public more often hears (sees) the first and then nothing thereafter. This is further exacerbated by the inability for many (if not most) studies not to be reproduced (though it’s gotten slightly better over the past decade). Novel studies receive grants; peer-review studies—not so much. Novel studies get published; peer-reviewed rebuttal—not so much.
On the other hand, this is sometimes true:
– Eat X because it’s good for you
– Don’t eat X; it’s bad for you for reason A
– Eat X because benefit Q outweighs reason A
– Don’t eat X… ad infinitum…