5 ms·

I do believe that many of the findings of nutrition science are half baked, provably contradictory, and ignore a plethora of factors that play a role in the int

by chicob 8y ago

I do believe that many of the findings of nutrition science are half baked, provably contradictory, and ignore a plethora of factors that play a role in the interaction between food and health. But there's another bazooka in the room: the contemporary erosion of trust in authority, in this case scientific authority. Ionannidis' remarks are for the best, I think, but will add to the confusion of not only what knowledge can the public trust but who is more apt to produce that knowledge. Before things get better, this will inevitably widen the door not only for old bad science in new clothes, or in the form of professional, corporation funded research that resorts to p-hacking and such methods, but also to the further discredit of science in general in the general population. Having said this, I do not believe Ioannidis' work (or Ben Goldacre's for that matter) is a tool of such agents. Edit: After reading some comments in this thread, I have to say in all honesty that I suspect that the ACSH's interest in Ioannidis work is disingenuous, without putting into question the validity of his work.

nordsieck 8y ago
> But there's another bazooka in the room: the contemporary erosion of trust in authority, in this case scientific authority. Ionannidis' remarks are for the best, I think, but will add to the confusion of not only what knowledge can the public trust but who is more apt to produce that knowledge. The erosion of trust is _because_ of the poor quality of scientific findings produced by Science the institution (particularly in select fields). This is the only sustainable path forward for Science the institution. The only alternative is a period of suppression of criticism, inevitably contemporaneous with increasing levels of corruption, followed by massive denunciations and outrage once the dam breaks. Didn't really work well for the Catholic church. I can't see how it would be any better for Science.
- chicob 8y ago
  > The erosion of trust is _because_ of the poor quality of scientific findings produced by Science the institution (particularly in select fields). So it would seem, if we considered Nutrition Science alone. But that does not explain the process of increasing distrust in vaccination, global warming and climate change, or even evolution, where the scientific practice has a quite solid record and community consensus. The erosion of authority reaches outside of Science, which to me suggests that there might be a broader explanation beyond the specificities of each field. In my opinion, and like you say, organized religion was one of the first victims of this process in the past and today.
  - nordsieck 8y ago
    > The erosion of authority reaches outside of Science, which to me suggests that there might be a broader explanation beyond the specificities of each field. In my opinion, the difference is the low cost of broadcasting ideas. Before, if you didn't believe in a main stream idea, you could share your theories with people near you. Now, it's easy for people who don't believe in the main stream to form communities and reinforce each other's beliefs.
    - chicob 8y ago
      That is certainly a part of the problem. It amplifies the apparent relevance of erroneous perspectives and furthers the idea that expertise is at hand's reach for laypeople.

by chicob 8y ago

nordsieck 8y ago

> But there's another bazooka in the room: the contemporary erosion of trust in authority, in this case scientific authority. Ionannidis' remarks are for the best, I think, but will add to the confusion of not only what knowledge can the public trust but who is more apt to produce that knowledge. The erosion of trust is _because_ of the poor quality of scientific findings produced by Science the institution (particularly in select fields). This is the only sustainable path forward for Science the institution. The only alternative is a period of suppression of criticism, inevitably contemporaneous with increasing levels of corruption, followed by massive denunciations and outrage once the dam breaks. Didn't really work well for the Catholic church. I can't see how it would be any better for Science.

chicob 8y ago
> The erosion of trust is _because_ of the poor quality of scientific findings produced by Science the institution (particularly in select fields). So it would seem, if we considered Nutrition Science alone. But that does not explain the process of increasing distrust in vaccination, global warming and climate change, or even evolution, where the scientific practice has a quite solid record and community consensus. The erosion of authority reaches outside of Science, which to me suggests that there might be a broader explanation beyond the specificities of each field. In my opinion, and like you say, organized religion was one of the first victims of this process in the past and today.
- nordsieck 8y ago
  > The erosion of authority reaches outside of Science, which to me suggests that there might be a broader explanation beyond the specificities of each field. In my opinion, the difference is the low cost of broadcasting ideas. Before, if you didn't believe in a main stream idea, you could share your theories with people near you. Now, it's easy for people who don't believe in the main stream to form communities and reinforce each other's beliefs.
  - chicob 8y ago
    That is certainly a part of the problem. It amplifies the apparent relevance of erroneous perspectives and furthers the idea that expertise is at hand's reach for laypeople.