3 ms·

To be fair, I was the one complaining about it, not him. That said, I don't think it's fair to compare his research, rigorous report of that research, and vario

by wycats 16y ago

To be fair, I was the one complaining about it, not him. That said, I don't think it's fair to compare his research, rigorous report of that research, and various academic lectures to be the equivalent of what the snake-oil-salesmen do. He presents a very strong hypothesis for a very important subject, and his public statements are mostly focused on demonstrating that what most people believe on the subject isn't exactly right. In my mind, the cognitive dissonance that he creates with his blog isn't intended to be the argument. Instead, it's designed to get people past their initial preconception so they might be willing to read the more rigorous version(s) of his argument. In general, I don't think it's fair to say that an article in the New Yorker, followed by 5 years of literature review, followed by a (dense, by all accounts) report represents the kind of quackery you are cavalierly comparing his work to.

dkarl 16y ago
I think it's fair to say he talks like a quack. Maybe not in the New Yorker article -- I assume he had to be a bit more respectable there. Every time I've seen him linked on Hacker News, however, he's been extremely derogatory of other nutritional researchers. In this particular post, he compares some researchers unfavorably to schoolchildren, calls others lazy, and adopts a generally belittling tone. By speaking directly to the public and taking a dismissive attitude toward what he calls the "authorities," he gives the impression that he has given up on convincing other nutritional researchers of the validity of his views. He then makes a case that his views are quite obviously right if you look at the data a certain way. They're so obviously true that lay people such as myself should be persuaded, yet the nutritional "authorities" refuse to acknowledge them. That's his most glaring warning signal. Personally, I think it's reasonable to assume that nutritional researchers are mostly intelligent and honest people. When experts are blinded, they're blinded by knowledge or by powerful ideas. Whether Taube is right or not, if he is able to convince me but not able to convince other nutritional researchers, it's because of something they know that I don't know. Maybe this is a paradigm shift in nutrition, and maybe lay folks like us are better equipped to understand this breakthrough than people who have been studying nutrition professionally for years, but that's unlikely. It isn't just unlikely because such paradigm shifts are rare: his ideas just aren't that inaccessible or revolutionary. So for me it's a red flag that he's so derogatory toward nutrition researchers who disagree with him, instead of treating them as an important audience for his ideas. Or maybe -- and I think this is the most likely explanation if he's really a reasonable fellow -- he's not so much an outsider as he pretends. Maybe his ideas are part of a spectrum of respectable opinion in the nutritional community and accorded some consideration by other researchers. Maybe his defiance of the "authorities" is just a rock star act. If so, can you blame me for believing it?
- beagle3 16y ago
  I would assume he has given up on convincing other researchers of the validity of his views. And if you were actually familiar with how that system works (as opposed to how you think it should ideally work, or some approximation thereof), you would not appeal to the authority of those who practice "nutrition science", because it is anything but. The way science works, in general, is not the so-called "scientific method" - most funding is controlled by people in the field who have a vested interest (ego, monetary or otherwise) in maintaining the status-quo and beliefs. While it's easy enough to practice "the scientific method" on new frontiers, it is a quixotic endeavour to challenge a prevailing concept. In many cases, it should be -- when the prevailing concept has actually been rigorously studied and proved. This is NOT the case with nutrition (nor many specific corners of medicine and health). I don't know what faith you subscribe to, so this example might fall on deaf ears, but PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins don't need to convince the pope of anything -- they need to appeal to the masses. Much of nutrition recommendations are based on faith (and politics) rather than evidence, and in that sense, Taubes is not wrong in the attempt to appeal to the masses. And while he might not be an established research scientist like Dawkins, he has a better grasp of science and burden of proof than those he criticizes, and at least "Good Calories, Bad Calories" is meticulously researched with hundreds of references -- which is much more than you can say about your average (and even "cream of the crop") nutritional science research. Your argument is essentially an appeal to authority -- and to the wrong authority at that.

by wycats 16y ago

dkarl 16y ago

I think it's fair to say he talks like a quack. Maybe not in the New Yorker article -- I assume he had to be a bit more respectable there. Every time I've seen him linked on Hacker News, however, he's been extremely derogatory of other nutritional researchers. In this particular post, he compares some researchers unfavorably to schoolchildren, calls others lazy, and adopts a generally belittling tone. By speaking directly to the public and taking a dismissive attitude toward what he calls the "authorities," he gives the impression that he has given up on convincing other nutritional researchers of the validity of his views. He then makes a case that his views are quite obviously right if you look at the data a certain way. They're so obviously true that lay people such as myself should be persuaded, yet the nutritional "authorities" refuse to acknowledge them. That's his most glaring warning signal. Personally, I think it's reasonable to assume that nutritional researchers are mostly intelligent and honest people. When experts are blinded, they're blinded by knowledge or by powerful ideas. Whether Taube is right or not, if he is able to convince me but not able to convince other nutritional researchers, it's because of something they know that I don't know. Maybe this is a paradigm shift in nutrition, and maybe lay folks like us are better equipped to understand this breakthrough than people who have been studying nutrition professionally for years, but that's unlikely. It isn't just unlikely because such paradigm shifts are rare: his ideas just aren't that inaccessible or revolutionary. So for me it's a red flag that he's so derogatory toward nutrition researchers who disagree with him, instead of treating them as an important audience for his ideas. Or maybe -- and I think this is the most likely explanation if he's really a reasonable fellow -- he's not so much an outsider as he pretends. Maybe his ideas are part of a spectrum of respectable opinion in the nutritional community and accorded some consideration by other researchers. Maybe his defiance of the "authorities" is just a rock star act. If so, can you blame me for believing it?

beagle3 16y ago
I would assume he has given up on convincing other researchers of the validity of his views. And if you were actually familiar with how that system works (as opposed to how you think it should ideally work, or some approximation thereof), you would not appeal to the authority of those who practice "nutrition science", because it is anything but. The way science works, in general, is not the so-called "scientific method" - most funding is controlled by people in the field who have a vested interest (ego, monetary or otherwise) in maintaining the status-quo and beliefs. While it's easy enough to practice "the scientific method" on new frontiers, it is a quixotic endeavour to challenge a prevailing concept. In many cases, it should be -- when the prevailing concept has actually been rigorously studied and proved. This is NOT the case with nutrition (nor many specific corners of medicine and health). I don't know what faith you subscribe to, so this example might fall on deaf ears, but PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins don't need to convince the pope of anything -- they need to appeal to the masses. Much of nutrition recommendations are based on faith (and politics) rather than evidence, and in that sense, Taubes is not wrong in the attempt to appeal to the masses. And while he might not be an established research scientist like Dawkins, he has a better grasp of science and burden of proof than those he criticizes, and at least "Good Calories, Bad Calories" is meticulously researched with hundreds of references -- which is much more than you can say about your average (and even "cream of the crop") nutritional science research. Your argument is essentially an appeal to authority -- and to the wrong authority at that.