![](https://cdn.steemitimages.com/DQmYLRkHbU9YtKzsvPJSGNZn9Qev2EmX1wUZJLTBRJ8PnoT/image.png)

I think there are more people who "believe" in science, and use it as a religion, than there are people who use it as science. 

Whenever someone says, "Well, scientific studies show..." or "Scientific studies prove..."

But have never 

- read the original research, 
or do not
- know the caliber of the mind(s) who did the study(ies) or
- know the researchers biases, or
- understand the boundaries of the study, or
- understand specifically how the data could have been tweaked, or
- know who paid for it,

then they are using science as religion, not as science. They "believe". They have not studied the matter. And no, reading the pamphlets from the pharmaceutical companies, that the doctors hand out, is not studying the matter, or making scientific inquiry into it. 


In the 60's and 70's, many people "believed" there was a serious scientific controversy about whether cigarettes were injurious to health.
"Well, many scientists disagree that there is a problem..."

These people simply "believed" what they wanted to believe. They smoked, and did not want to face the fact that it would hurt them. 

But now, decades later, it has been proved that the entire "controversy" was manufactured by the cigarette industry. This phenomenon has been given a name: Cigarette Science/Tobacco Science - "A generic term for biased reporting of scientific data, especially which favors a particular industry’s agenda"


![](https://cdn.steemitimages.com/DQmPYciARm1H5Md6Ze5bm8hXPWRdGTAm9bUDVuDXLCgAKHz/image.png)

Here are a couple of quotes from a study that examines the history of the cigarette controversy:
>In 1994, heads of the major U.S. tobacco companies testified before Congress that the evidence that cigarette smoking caused diseases such as cancer and heart disease was inconclusive, that cigarettes were not addictive, and that they did not market to children. Less than 1 month after this testimony, a box containing confidential documents from the Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation was delivered to the University of California at San Francisco. What was revealed in these documents was evidence that the tobacco industry had for decades known and accepted the fact that cigarettes caused premature death, considered tobacco to be addictive, and that their programs to support scientific research on smoking and health had been a sham (1-6).

http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/16/6/1070.full.html



>From 1964 onward, the TI frequently made reference to the fact that qualified scientists challenged the evidence that smoking caused disease. Yet, many of these so-called independent scientists were recruited and had their research programs supported by the tobacco industry through the TIRC/CTR (55, 56). For example, in 1970, the TI sponsored the “Truth” public service campaign that informed the public that there was a scientific controversy about whether smoking caused disease (57-59).

>The “Truth” campaign encouraged people to contact the TI to get a copy of a “White Paper” that included quotes from scientists challenging the evidence that smoking caused the disease. Lawyer-controlled “special project accounts” were used to recruit and support scientists who were willing to make statements and/or conduct research that would be favorable to the industry's view that causes other than smoking were responsible for lung cancer and other diseases (51-54). 

http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/16/6/1070.full.html