10 ms·

I don't roll my eyes at people who tell me carrots are healthier than potato chips, even though I don't really understand nutrition or digestion. There's nothin

by coldpie 10y ago

I don't roll my eyes at people who tell me carrots are healthier than potato chips, even though I don't really understand nutrition or digestion. There's nothing wrong with trusting experts. If you would like to have at least a conversant base of knowledge, read the IPCC report Summary for Policymakers[1]. People who do know what they're talking about have done a great job summarizing the state of research, evidence, and probability of outcomes given different projection scenarios. It's not a particularly long or difficult read and you'll come out the other side far more informed than you were before. [1] http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_...

ysavir 10y ago
> There's nothing wrong with trusting experts. I completely agree. As I said, it's those that recognize that it's a matter of trust that I respect. My complaint was on those who skip that aspect and put the observations on a standard. Think, for example, of all the times nutritional science has gone back and forth on the healthiness of eggs. If someone were to say that their eating habits are simply following the currently accepted scientific standard, great! But it is less great when considering those that go forward with claims of "Eggs are bad for you, end of story" as an absolute law, with no regard for the context around how they came to know that "law".
gus_massa 10y ago
> I don't roll my eyes at people who tell me carrots are healthier than potato chips, even though I don't really understand nutrition or digestion. There's nothing wrong with trusting experts. Nutrition is a specially bad example. There are plenty of studies that are overhyped and make crazy claims about why some food is good or bad for you, but the are not reproducible, have a small sample number, barely reach p=0.05 using p hacking. And a few weeks later you can read a equally bad study with the opposing conclusions. For example "I Fooled Millions Into Thinking Chocolate Helps Weight Loss. Here's How." http://io9.gizmodo.com/i-fooled-millions-into-thinking-chocolate-helps-weight-1707251800 http://io9.gizmodo.com/i-fooled-millions-into-thinking-choco... It's a bad study made on purpose, but the problem is that many studies have the same bad methodologies. Are eggs good for you? The food pyramid? Nutrition is a good example of a field were you have a very complex system and you can´t make very controlled experiments, so it's very difficult to make reliable measurements.
- antisthenes 10y ago
  That's _exactly_ the same excuse people use to do nothing for climate change: "it's too complex and there are conflicting opinions, so let's do nothing or not enough" The dietary variant of this is: "nutrition is too complex, so I'm going to remain fat and do nothing for my health, except maybe get a diet soda once in a while" This is the most toxic anti-fact position possible and needs to be stomped out with intensity every time it appears. It's the intellectual equivalent of cupping your ears and sticking your head in the sand.

by coldpie 10y ago

ysavir 10y ago

> There's nothing wrong with trusting experts. I completely agree. As I said, it's those that recognize that it's a matter of trust that I respect. My complaint was on those who skip that aspect and put the observations on a standard. Think, for example, of all the times nutritional science has gone back and forth on the healthiness of eggs. If someone were to say that their eating habits are simply following the currently accepted scientific standard, great! But it is less great when considering those that go forward with claims of "Eggs are bad for you, end of story" as an absolute law, with no regard for the context around how they came to know that "law".

gus_massa 10y ago

> I don't roll my eyes at people who tell me carrots are healthier than potato chips, even though I don't really understand nutrition or digestion. There's nothing wrong with trusting experts. Nutrition is a specially bad example. There are plenty of studies that are overhyped and make crazy claims about why some food is good or bad for you, but the are not reproducible, have a small sample number, barely reach p=0.05 using p hacking. And a few weeks later you can read a equally bad study with the opposing conclusions. For example "I Fooled Millions Into Thinking Chocolate Helps Weight Loss. Here's How." http://io9.gizmodo.com/i-fooled-millions-into-thinking-chocolate-helps-weight-1707251800 http://io9.gizmodo.com/i-fooled-millions-into-thinking-choco... It's a bad study made on purpose, but the problem is that many studies have the same bad methodologies. Are eggs good for you? The food pyramid? Nutrition is a good example of a field were you have a very complex system and you can´t make very controlled experiments, so it's very difficult to make reliable measurements.

antisthenes 10y ago
That's _exactly_ the same excuse people use to do nothing for climate change: "it's too complex and there are conflicting opinions, so let's do nothing or not enough" The dietary variant of this is: "nutrition is too complex, so I'm going to remain fat and do nothing for my health, except maybe get a diet soda once in a while" This is the most toxic anti-fact position possible and needs to be stomped out with intensity every time it appears. It's the intellectual equivalent of cupping your ears and sticking your head in the sand.