scholarly journals Humor and Laughter may Influence Health. I. History and Background

2006 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 61-63 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary Payne Bennett ◽  
Cecile A. Lengacher
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Community ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Health Benefits ◽  
Medical Community ◽  
Coping Mechanism ◽  
Professional Literature ◽  
The Public ◽  
Health Related ◽  
Levels Of Support

Articles in both the lay and professional literature have extolled the virtues of humor, many giving the impression that the health benefits of humor are well documented by the scientific and medical community. The concept that humor or laughter can be therapeutic goes back to biblical times and this belief has received varying levels of support from the scientific community at different points in its history. Current research indicates that using humor is well accepted by the public and is frequently used as a coping mechanism. However, the scientific evidence of the benefits of using humor on various health related outcomes still leaves many questions unanswered.

scholarly journals Public health benefits and risks of fish consumption: current scientific evidence v. media coverage

2012 ◽  
Vol 16 (10) ◽  
pp. 1885-1892 ◽  
Author(s):  
Federico A Pasquaré ◽  
Roberta Bettinetti ◽  
Sonia Fumagalli ◽  
Davide A Vignati
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Fish Consumption ◽  
Media Coverage ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Information Source ◽  
Health Benefits ◽  
Fish Intake ◽  
Scientific Uncertainty ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Media

AbstractObjectiveTo evaluate if and how the current degree of scientific uncertainty about the safety of fish consumption is incorporated at the media level.DesignWe used a dedicated software (TalTac®) to investigate the content of 169 news articles related to ‘mercury and fish consumption’ that appeared from 1990 to 2010 in the two Italian broadsheets with the highest circulation figures, in order to identify journalistic frames used in the coverage of benefits v. risks associated with fish consumption. Hypotheses were made on how the public might change fish consumption patterns as a result of media coverage.SettingItaly.ResultsThe two newspapers have different agendas in covering the issue. La Repubblica appears to support the view that, besides health benefits, there may be risks associated with fish consumption, while Corriere della Sera emphasizes health benefits more than possible risks. Depending on the preferred information source, the public could: (i) reduce its fish intake; (ii) increase its fish intake; or (iii) become confused about the problem and sceptical towards the media, as a result of conflicting journalistic frames.ConclusionsThe Italian media, in cooperation with scientists, public health nutritionists and dietitians, should place more emphasis on the existence of a few fish species with high to very high Hg levels and relatively low contents of beneficial n-3 fatty acids (e.g. swordfish and shark). This would enable consumers to make more educated purchasing decisions to maximize the benefits of n-3 intake while reducing possible risks from consuming Hg-contaminated fish.

Denying to the Grave

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sara E. Gorman ◽  
Jack M. Gorman
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Health Science ◽  
Test Cases ◽  
The Public ◽  
Brain Responses ◽  
New Information ◽  
New Concepts ◽  
Neuroscience Research ◽  
Health Related ◽  
Significant Health

Why do some parents refuse to vaccinate their children? Why do some people keep guns at home, despite scientific evidence of risk to their family members? And why do people use antibiotics for illnesses they cannot possibly alleviate? When it comes to health, many people insist that science is wrong, that the evidence is incomplete, and that unidentified hazards lurk everywhere. In Denying to the Grave, Gorman and Gorman, a father-daughter team, explore the psychology of health science denial. Using several examples of such denial as test cases, they propose six key principles that may lead individuals to reject "accepted" health-related wisdom: the charismatic leader; fear of complexity; confirmation bias and the internet; fear of corporate and government conspiracies; causality and filling the ignorance gap; and the nature of risk prediction. The authors argue that the health sciences are especially vulnerable to our innate resistance to integrate new concepts with pre-existing beliefs. This psychological difficulty of incorporating new information is on the cutting edge of neuroscience research, as scientists continue to identify brain responses to new information that reveal deep-seated, innate discomfort with changing our minds. Denying to the Grave explores risk theory and how people make decisions about what is best for them and their loved ones, in an effort to better understand how people think when faced with significant health decisions. This book points the way to a new and important understanding of how science should be conveyed to the public in order to save lives with existing knowledge and technology.

scholarly journals Scientific Evidence and the Internalism–Externalism Distinction

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan Egeland
Keyword(s):  
History Of Science ◽  
Scientific Community ◽  
Common Knowledge ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
The Public ◽  
Externalist View ◽  
History Of ◽  
Public Character ◽  
The Way

AbstractConsiderations of scientific evidence are often thought to provide externalism with the dialectical upper hand in the internalism–externalism debate. How so? A couple of reasons are forthcoming in the literature. (1) Williamson (2000) argues that the E = K thesis (in contrast to internalism) provides the best explanation for the fact that scientists appear to argue from premises about true propositions (or facts) that are common knowledge among the members of the scientific community. (2) Kelly (Philosophy Compass, 3 (5), 933–955, 2008; 2016) argues that only externalism is suited to account for the public character of scientific evidence. In this article, I respond to Williamson and Kelly’s arguments. First, I show that the E = K thesis isn’t supported by the way in which we talk about scientific evidence, and that it is unable to account for facts about what has been regarded as scientific evidence and as justified scientific belief in the history of science. Second, I argue that there are internalist views that can account for the publicity of scientific evidence, and that those views indeed do better in that regard than the (externalist) view proposed by Kelly. The upshot is that considerations of scientific evidence do not favor externalism over internalism.

scholarly journals The National Initiative for Consumer Horticulture: Focusing on the Critical Role of Communication and Collaboration to Further Research, Extension, and Industry Goals

2018 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 414-421
Author(s):  
Sheri Dorn ◽  
Lucy Bradley ◽  
Debbie Hamrick ◽  
Julie Weisenhorn ◽  
Pam Bennett ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Critical Role ◽  
Community Gardens ◽  
Health Benefits ◽  
Environmental Benefits ◽  
Multiple Sources ◽  
Public Places ◽  
The Public ◽  
National Initiative ◽  
Health Related ◽  
Research And Education

The National Initiative for Consumer Horticulture (NICH) is a diverse consortium of leaders who provide a unified voice for promoting the benefits and value of consumer horticulture (CH). NICH endeavors to unite national research efforts with the goals of the diverse stakeholders in the industry, the public sector, and the gardening public in an effort to advance knowledge and increase benefits and application of horticulture for cultivating a healthy world through landscapes, gardens, and plants, and an improved quality of life. Benefits of CH are broadly applicable, whether economic, environmental, or community- and health-related. A benefits approach to marketing sets the stage for unprecedented collaboration, such as that demonstrated by NICH. NICH members have developed three broad goals: recognizing CH as a driver of the agricultural economy; highlighting that CH restores, protects, and conserves natural resources through research and education; and cultivating healthy, connected, and engaged communities through CH. Three NICH committees (Economic, Environmental, and Community and Health Benefits) have focused their efforts on NICH goals for the past 10 months. The three committee chairs, representing ≈30 committee members, presented the results of their efforts and future directions for their committees. The Economic and Environmental committees have proceeded with campaigns to better market CH by promoting the benefits of plants and to increase environmental benefits by changing consumer behavior. After reviewing current research, the Community and Health Benefits Committee suggested that a gap exists in research related to specific benefits of CH and personal gardening (as opposed to benefits accrued by enjoying forests, horticulture therapy, indoor atriums, community gardens, parks, and other public places). The committee suggested that overcoming this gap requires strategic collaboration of skill and expertise from a more diverse group of industry representatives, specialists, and scientists. This approach has tremendous potential to affect the CH marketplace, especially when drawing multiple sources of value from the products and experiences.

New and emerging environmental hazards and situations

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alec Dobney ◽  
Greg Hodgson
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Health Science ◽  
Health Practitioner ◽  
Health Issues ◽  
The Public ◽  
Environmental Public Health ◽  
Public Health Professionals ◽  
Technological Advances ◽  
Health Related

Environmental public health scientists and health protection practitioners are constantly challenged to respond to new or poorly understood hazards. Practitioners might also be required to address well-characterized hazards that have either increased in magnitude or re-emerged in different situations. Developing technological advances and new and emerging industrial processes (such as fracking, nanotechnology, shale gas, waste fires) can raise difficult questions for the public health practitioner, especially where research and health-related evidence is lacking. In these cases, public health science has a key role in undertaking and communicating risks and in providing the most accurate available scientific evidence and public health advice. The field of environmental public health is crowded with complex problems demanding our attention. It is impossible to devote sufficient clinical, research, and advocacy energies to all of these problems at once. Clinicians, public health professionals, and environmental public health scientists have to choose which health issues take priority.

Considering the Role of “Need for Cognition” in Students’ Acceptance of Climate Change & Evolution

2015 ◽  
Vol 77 (4) ◽  
pp. 250-257 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeremy Kudrna ◽  
Marta Shore ◽  
Deena Wassenberg
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Scientific Community ◽  
Public Discourse ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Need For Cognition ◽  
Evolutionary Mechanisms ◽  
The Public ◽  
Life On Earth ◽  
The Relationship

Anthropogenic climate change (ACC) and evolution are examples of issues that are perceived differently by scientists and the general public. Within the scientific community, there are clear consensuses that human activities are increasing global temperatures (ACC) and that evolutionary mechanisms have led to the biodiversity of life on Earth (evolution). However, there is much debate in the public discourse about the scientific evidence supporting these topics. The purpose of our study was to explore the relationship between a student’s need for cognition (NFC) – preference to engage in and enjoy thinking – and the student’s acceptance of ACC and evolution. The results revealed that students with a higher NFC were more accepting of both ACC and evolution. Future investigations should include evaluating the efficacy of different instructional techniques on NFC and acceptance of polarizing topics such as evolution and ACC.

Homeopathy Assessment—Contribution of the Human Sciences

Homeopathy ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hélène Renoux
Keyword(s):  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Human Body ◽  
Mixed Methods Research ◽  
Scientific Community ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Medical Community ◽  
Human Sciences ◽  
The Public ◽  
Mechanical Approach

AbstractThe recent questions about homeopathy raised by some sceptics have focused an awareness on this therapy and led different protagonists among the scientific community to seek a much-needed re-assessment. The inputs coming from external but benevolent experts will broaden the knowledge and the consciousness of the whole medical community, and more widely of the public, about the meaning and the value of homeopathy.Looking at this from the point of view of the human sciences gives a perspective on the universality of the philosophy that underlies homeopathic thinking, which is particularly visible in the methodological similarities between homeopathic provings and sociological or anthropological observations. It also explains how this view of health and care coincides with the expectations of the public, who no longer want a limited mechanical approach to the human body or more generally to the environment.The input to homeopathy of the human sciences, with their methodological tools and approaches, and highlighting the possibilities offered by mixed-methods research, could enable these notions to be heard and shared in the wider scientific community.

scholarly journals Scientific Evidence in Homeopathy: A Dynamic Database

2021 ◽  
Vol 06 (03) ◽  
pp. 1-1
Author(s):  
Francesco V. Marino ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Complementary Medicine ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Scientific Community ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
The Public ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Frequent Attack ◽  
Qualitative Level

Homeopathy, a system of Traditional and Complementary Medicine (T&CM, according to WHO definition), is under frequent attack by skeptics because of its supposed “lack of evidence.” To overcome the distrust of skeptics and the public, many databases have been created, which focused on collecting all the published and indexed studies; however, none of these seem to be “comprehensive” and systematic enough. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the most reliable and available homeopathic studies in order to systematize the best evidence at all levels of research (studies based on humans, animals, and plants, randomized controlled trials [RCTs], observational studies, fundamental studies, etc.). A dynamic database was created containing 1,146 reliable pieces of evidence. It is being updated every three months and is available both for the whole homeopathic community and for the patients, Institutions, stakeholders, and skeptics. In the last 50 years, evidence in homeopathy has been increasing both at a quantitative and qualitative level. Unfortunately, it is not well known by the homeopaths themselves and also by the medical and scientific community. Therefore, a comprehensive database will not only support homeopaths but also assist in the better promotion and worldwide recognition of homeopathy as a significant field of medicine.

Trend of Parental Refusal or Delay of Childhood Vaccinations

2016 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Meagan Marie Daoust
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Social Media ◽  
Healthcare System ◽  
Educational Context ◽  
Health Consequences ◽  
Missed Opportunities ◽  
The Public ◽  
Health Related ◽  
Parental Refusal

The healthcare trend of parental refusal or delay of childhood vaccinations will be investigated through a complex Cynefin Framework component in an economic and educational context, allowing patterns to emerge that suggest recommendations of change for the RN role and healthcare system. As a major contributing factor adding complexity to this trend, social media is heavily used for health related knowledge, making it is difficult to determine which information is most trustworthy. Missed opportunities for immunization can result, leading to economic and health consequences for the healthcare system and population. Through analysis of the powerful impact social media has on this evolving trend and public health, an upstream recommendation for RNs to respond with is to utilize reliable social media to the parents’ advantage within practice. The healthcare system should focus on incorporating vaccine-related education into existing programs and classes offered to parents, and implementing new vaccine classes for the public.

Conflicting Health-Related Scientific Evidence in News Reports: Effects of Hedging and Presentation Format on Perceived Issue Uncertainty and Scientists’ and Journalists’ Credibility

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hui Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Health Communication ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
The Other ◽  
Presentation Format ◽  
News Article ◽  
Online Experiment ◽  
News Reports ◽  
Conflicting Evidence ◽  
Health Related

Introduction: This study examined effects of two journalistic practices in reporting conflicting scientific evidence, hedging and presentation format, on scientists’ and journalists’ credibility and issue uncertainty. Methods: An online experiment was conducted using students from a western U.S. university. Hedging was manipulated as reporting methodological limitations versus not reporting the limitations in news articles covering the conflict. Presentation format was manipulated as using a single news article to report both sides of the conflict versus using double articles with one side of the conflict in one article and the other side in the other article. Results: The study found that perceived issue uncertainty was higher in hedged news articles than that in non-hedged articles; presentation format did not affect people’s perceived issue uncertainty. For scientists’ credibility (both competence and trustworthiness), this study found that it was lower in the single-article format than that in the double-article format; for journalists’ credibility, this study found that journalists’ trustworthiness in the two formats did not vary, but their competence was lower in the double-article format than that in the single-article format. Conclusion: This study contributes to the field of science and health communication by examining effects of presentation format used in communicating conflicting health-related scientific evidence and by examining effects of communicating scientific limitations in a context where conflicting evidence exists. Keywords: conflicting scientific evidence, hedging, presentation format, scientists’ credibility, journalists’ credibility

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document