5 ms·
But can I trust a nutrition article about the need to avoid trust in nutrition articles? It's the liar paradox all over again.
by xcambar 11y ago
But can I trust a nutrition article about the need to avoid trust in nutrition articles?
It's the liar paradox all over again.
- TeMPOraL 11y agoIt's not a nutrition article, it's a statistics article. From 5:38. They have a pretty good reputation so far. That's besides the fact that their point is absolutely obvious, and the biggest value of that article is that some widely recognized outlet put the problems with nutrition "science" in terms of actual numbers.
- coldpie 11y agoJust FYI, "538" is a reference to the number of electoral votes in the United States, since the blog was born while covering the 2008 presidential election.
- TeMPOraL 11y agoThanks for the reference. I didn't know where it came from, but since posting the comment above I've learned the correct way to write it :).
- coldtea 11y agoIt's an article about nutrition articles, not a nutrition article itself. Russell's types save the day again. Note that even if it was a "nutrition article", it telling you not to trust those articles doesn't fully invoke the liar's paradox. Unlike with the liar's paradox, where the case is supposed to always hold ("cretans always lie") and as such the statement doesn't hold (and vice versa), a call to "not trust" doesn't translate to a call for never trusting. It only means do not trust in advance, you can still trust the ones you have verified (which breaks the infinite loop).