5 ms·

You're quoting a physicist. Nutrition isn't a science as hard as physics. As a given science subject moves away to more complex system (human organisms, social

You're quoting a physicist. Nutrition isn't a science as hard as physics. As a given science subject moves away to more complex system (human organisms, social organisms), the notion of light (or the truth) gets rather diffuse. It's harder to define something as the light (or the truth), because phenomena and its causality simply get harder to prove.

tkyjonathan 11y ago
I agree. Biology and Physics are very different fields. Physics - where every action has an equal or opposite reaction. Biology - many many variables where its difficult to measure the effect of one change.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
Synaesthesia 11y ago
Yes that's true but there are still facts that can be established for nutrition or biology etc and I think his statement can still ring true for any type of science. They can all be victims to politics and other human failings. Although possibly more so for the less "hard" sciences as it's harder to prove an assertion. It's just amazing how the point that sugar causes obesity and other harms has been ridiculed for decades but is now starting to be widely accepted. Huge amounts of data were ignored, and now the case is pretty overwhelming.
- paulojreis 11y ago
  Yeah, that's true. My nutritionist-wannabe facet is also mesmerized by this, and I can't avoid preaching this to everyone - try to limit added sugar as much as you can. Use artificial sweeteners if you really need; they may be problematic, yes, but sugar surely is!
  - 2muchcoffeeman 11y ago
    > Use artificial sweeteners if you really need; they may be problematic, yes, but sugar surely is! People have really weird relationships with food, often taking concepts to the extreme. Too much sugar is bad, so limit added sugar intake as much as possible and prefer artificial sweeteners to sugar. Rather than sensibly moderating consumption we've gone from eating far too much of one thing, to trying to eat none of it, and indeed trying to replace it with something completely artificial. Not to sound like one of those "anything that's natural is better for you" people. It's just a lateral move.
    - paulojreis 11y ago
      Yes, you're right. I think we're starting to see many reactions like "oh, it's just another diet fad" because exactly of what you describe, things being taken to extremes. Anyway, what I recommend - from what I gather by my little research here and here - is to limit, not abolish, added sugars.
- pigpaws 11y ago
  People can't 'ignore' data they don't know about. It (the data) was buried and hidden (conspiracy maybe?). Now it seems things are swinging back to the other side of the pendulum and people are going ketogenic.
  - rubyfan 11y ago
    One has to wonder if the extremes are problematic. No carbs vs. no fats might turn out to be a bad thing as well. It makes me wonder if as humans we make generalities too often that cause us to take up sub optimal behaviors that have long term negative outcomes.
richmarr 11y ago
Max Planck: people have confirmation bias You: but he's a physicist, in biology things are harder to prove (the point is that people have confirmation bias even when things are 'easier' to prove)
- paulojreis 11y ago
  Aren't they?
  - oafitupa 11y ago
    "(the point is that people have confirmation bias even when things are 'easier' to prove)"
    - paulojreis 11y ago
      I fail to see the point of making that point, sorry.
    - lolive 11y ago
      You have just summarized "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Praise_of_Folly" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Praise_of_Folly" by Erasmus.
  - richmarr 11y ago
    Personally I think that if 'facts' were noticably easier to prove in Physics then we wouldn't have consumed the last third of a century of physicist brainpower on String Theory (et al), blocking students of competing theories from funding/tenure, with no useful results to show for it. The stuff that's easy to prove has broadly already been proved... but... I don't think that's relevant. People have confirmation bias regardless of being shown evidence, it's the central feature of confirmation bias that you interpret new information in a way that supports your pre-existing view. It's a human trait not a feature of the subject matter.

tkyjonathan 11y ago

I agree. Biology and Physics are very different fields. Physics - where every action has an equal or opposite reaction. Biology - many many variables where its difficult to measure the effect of one change.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

Synaesthesia 11y ago

Yes that's true but there are still facts that can be established for nutrition or biology etc and I think his statement can still ring true for any type of science. They can all be victims to politics and other human failings. Although possibly more so for the less "hard" sciences as it's harder to prove an assertion. It's just amazing how the point that sugar causes obesity and other harms has been ridiculed for decades but is now starting to be widely accepted. Huge amounts of data were ignored, and now the case is pretty overwhelming.

paulojreis 11y ago
Yeah, that's true. My nutritionist-wannabe facet is also mesmerized by this, and I can't avoid preaching this to everyone - try to limit added sugar as much as you can. Use artificial sweeteners if you really need; they may be problematic, yes, but sugar surely is!
- 2muchcoffeeman 11y ago
  > Use artificial sweeteners if you really need; they may be problematic, yes, but sugar surely is! People have really weird relationships with food, often taking concepts to the extreme. Too much sugar is bad, so limit added sugar intake as much as possible and prefer artificial sweeteners to sugar. Rather than sensibly moderating consumption we've gone from eating far too much of one thing, to trying to eat none of it, and indeed trying to replace it with something completely artificial. Not to sound like one of those "anything that's natural is better for you" people. It's just a lateral move.
  - paulojreis 11y ago
    Yes, you're right. I think we're starting to see many reactions like "oh, it's just another diet fad" because exactly of what you describe, things being taken to extremes. Anyway, what I recommend - from what I gather by my little research here and here - is to limit, not abolish, added sugars.
pigpaws 11y ago
People can't 'ignore' data they don't know about. It (the data) was buried and hidden (conspiracy maybe?). Now it seems things are swinging back to the other side of the pendulum and people are going ketogenic.
- rubyfan 11y ago
  One has to wonder if the extremes are problematic. No carbs vs. no fats might turn out to be a bad thing as well. It makes me wonder if as humans we make generalities too often that cause us to take up sub optimal behaviors that have long term negative outcomes.

richmarr 11y ago

Max Planck: people have confirmation bias You: but he's a physicist, in biology things are harder to prove (the point is that people have confirmation bias even when things are 'easier' to prove)

paulojreis 11y ago
Aren't they?
- oafitupa 11y ago
  "(the point is that people have confirmation bias even when things are 'easier' to prove)"
  - paulojreis 11y ago
    I fail to see the point of making that point, sorry.
  - lolive 11y ago
    You have just summarized "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Praise_of_Folly" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Praise_of_Folly" by Erasmus.
- richmarr 11y ago
  Personally I think that if 'facts' were noticably easier to prove in Physics then we wouldn't have consumed the last third of a century of physicist brainpower on String Theory (et al), blocking students of competing theories from funding/tenure, with no useful results to show for it. The stuff that's easy to prove has broadly already been proved... but... I don't think that's relevant. People have confirmation bias regardless of being shown evidence, it's the central feature of confirmation bias that you interpret new information in a way that supports your pre-existing view. It's a human trait not a feature of the subject matter.