Jump to Section Success, Failure, and Confusion in Nutrition Research A Failed Research Paradigm Purpose of this Review The M-BMs of Nutrition Epidemiology Self-reported Dietary Intake The Implausibility of M-BMs in Dietary Assessment The Pervasiveness of Implausible Results Examinations of Dietary Patterns via M-BMs The Validity of Human Memory and Recall as Instruments for the Generation of Scientific Data Overview The Social Sciences Cognitive Neuroscience False Reporting: An Inherent Design Feature of M-BMs False Reporting and FFQs False Reporting and the WWEIA-NHANES 24HR The Inadmissibility of M-BM Data Criteria for Scientific Research: Observable, Measurable, and Falsifiable The Pseudoscience of Nutrition Epidemiology National Nutrition Surveillance: M-BM Data and USDA Food Availability Economic Data PA and CRF: Essential Elements in Nutrition, Obesity, and Health Research Summary and Future Directions Conclusion Supplemental Online Material References

Although the terms science and research are used interchangeably, they are not synonymous. Science is more than mere data collection; it is an attempt to discover order, a potentially self-correcting, explanatory, and predictive process that demonstrates lawful relations (eg, diets high in vitamin C prevent scurvy). In contrast, research is simply the process of collecting information, and many forms of research do not meet the rigor necessary for the results to be scientific. There is a long history of efforts to formally demarcate scientific from nonscientific and pseudoscientific data, the most famous of which may be Popper’s falsifiability criterion.64x64Popper, K. Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. Routledge, London, England;

Google ScholarSee all References, 65x65Popper, K.R. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Hutchinson, London, England;

Google ScholarSee all References, 66x66Popper, K.R. Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach. Oxford University Press, New York, NY;

Google ScholarSee all References For example, in US jurisprudence, the Daubert standard108x108Berger, M.A. What has a decade of Daubert wrought?. Am J Public Health. ; 95: S59–S65

Crossref | PubMed | Scopus (39) | Google ScholarSee all References, 109x109Krimsky, S. The weight of scientific evidence in policy and law. Am J Public Health. ; 95: S129–S136

Crossref | PubMed | Scopus (78) | Google ScholarSee all References provides the rules of evidence for the admissibility of expert testimony. The criterion of falsifiability is central to expert scientific testimony and was used by Judge William Overton in ruling in McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education. This case determined that creation science was not a science because it was not falsifiable and, therefore, could not be taught as science in Arkansas public schools.110x110McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, 529 F. Sup. 1255, 1258-1264; E.D. Ark. 1982.

Google ScholarSee all References As we detail in later sections, we assert that M-BM data are akin to creation science in that they fail to meet the basic requirements of scientific research.

Although philosophers continue to debate demarcation criteria, practicing scientists must set forth principles from which to judge the admissibility of data in scientific research. We extend Popper’s criterion and proffer the following widely accepted principles of scientific inquiry. First, for results to be scientific, the study’s protocols must produce outcomes that are subject to replication. To accomplish this goal, the data must be (1) independently observable (ie, accessible by others), (2) measureable, (3) falsifiable, (4) valid, and (5) reliable. These nonmetaphysical criteria were first suggested by Roger Bacon in the 13th century and later were elaborated on by the “father of empiricism,” Sir Francis Bacon, in the late 16th century.111x111Bacon, F. Of the Proficience and Advancement of Learning, Divine and Human. J.W. Parker and Son, London, England;

Google ScholarSee all References They were again reiterated by Sir Isaac Newton in the 17th century112x112Newton, I. The Principia: Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA;

Google ScholarSee all References and have been subsequently clarified and defined.62x62Platt, J.R. Strong inference: certain systematic methods of scientific thinking may produce much more rapid progress than others. Science. ; 146: 347–353

Crossref | PubMed | Scopus (1688) | Google ScholarSee all References, 63x63Sober, E. Philosophy of Biology. Westview Press, Boulder, CO;

Google ScholarSee all References, 64x64Popper, K. Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. Routledge, London, England;

Google ScholarSee all References, 65x65Popper, K.R. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Hutchinson, London, England;

Google ScholarSee all References, 66x66Popper, K.R. Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach. Oxford University Press, New York, NY;

Google ScholarSee all References, 68x68Michell, J. Measurement: a beginner's guide. J Appl Meas. ; 4: 298–308

PubMed | Google ScholarSee all References The skepticism and empirical rigor inherent in these criteria are of such importance to science that The Royal Society of London, the oldest scientific society in the modern world, succinctly summarized them in its motto, Nullius in Verba. This phrase, derived from Horace’s Epistles,113x113Horace. (Quintus Horatius Flaccus), Epistulae, Book I. http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/horace/epist1.shtml. Accessed April 2015.

Google ScholarSee all References is translated as “on the word of no one” or “take no one’s word for it” and suggests that scientific knowledge should be based not on authority, rhetoric, or mere words but on objective evidence.

The first 3 criteria (ie, independently observable, measureable, and falsifiable) define the phenomena that are in the domain of science (ie, able to be examined via the scientific method), and the final 2 criteria (ie, validity and reliability) refer to the concordance between a measurement and its referent as well as the error associated with the measurement protocols used to collect the data. Together, the 5 basic tenets distinguish scientific research from mere data collection and pseudoscience. For example, if someone is eating an apple, his or her behavior can be independently observed, measured, and verified or refuted. Yet, if he or she reports eating an apple at some point in the past (eg, as with an FFQ or 24HR), neither the past behavior nor the neural correlates of the memory of that behavior are independently observable or quantifiable, and without additional information, his or her statement cannot be falsified or confirmed. It is a rather obvious fact that the respondent is the only person who has access to the raw data of M-BMs (ie, his or her memories of consumption). As such, researchers cannot examine the validity of the memory and base M-BM research results on their faith in the verbal report (ie, the belief that the participant is telling the truth). Nevertheless, faith and belief are basic tenets of religion, not science. The unwavering credulity of nutrition epidemiologists with respect to verbal reports is literally in direct opposition to Nullius in Verba (ie, take no one’s word for it) and skeptical, rigorous science. The confluence of these simple facts and the well-documented failure of self-reported EI to accurately correspond to reality,33x33Archer, E., Hand, G.A., and Blair, S.N. Validity of U.S. nutritional surveillance: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey caloric energy intake data, 1971-2010. PLoS One. ; 8: e76632

Crossref | PubMed | Scopus (228) | Google ScholarSee all References, 35x35Lissner, L., Troiano, R.P., Midthune, D. et al. OPEN about obesity: recovery biomarkers, dietary reporting errors and BMI. Int J Obes (Lond). ; 31: 956–961

Crossref | PubMed | Scopus (81) | Google ScholarSee all References demonstrate that the memory and subsequent recall of ingestive behavior are not within the realm of the scientific investigation of nutrition and obesity. As the philosopher Karl Popper stated, “all the statements of empirical science must be capable of being finally decided, with respect to their truth and falsity,”65x65Popper, K.R. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Hutchinson, London, England;

Google ScholarSee all References,p17 and it is wholly impossible to verify or refute something that cannot be directly or indirectly independently observed and measured (eg, memories).