4 ms·

I've heard this one before. "Taubes's argument is more complex than that. You need to spend more hours studying those pages, and read books x, y, and z." It's t

by jls11 16y ago

I've heard this one before. "Taubes's argument is more complex than that. You need to spend more hours studying those pages, and read books x, y, and z." It's the same argument they give in college English classes for deconstructionism and all that other nonsense. Taubes is a journalist. The people on HN are several standard deviations ahead of his audience. If he's doing his job shouldn't we all be able to understand him without any trouble? Here's a simpler argument: Taubes is wrong, and that's where the problem is.

nkurz 16y ago
Taubes is a journalist. Well, sort of. He also has an undergrad degree in Physics from Harvard and masters in Engineering from Stanford. Which doesn't mean he's right, but it does make him better qualified as a science journalist than most. The people on HN are several standard deviations ahead of his audience. Yes, and this is what's making me want to cry. This is one of the few audiences that knows what 'reductio ad absurdum' means, and yet bright people (whom I respect) seem unable to grasp what to me seems to me a fairly obvious argument. Are contrafactuals truly so rare as to be unrecognizable? Ignoring the fact that his science is wrong. Sure, it might be, but the commentary so far has not been about "his science" but about his portrayal of conventional wisdom, which he also agrees is wrong. It's like pointing out that a mathematician is obviously a fool for saying "Let us assume momentarily that the square root of two is a rational number" as the preamble to a proof. It feels like a scene from Idiocracy. It's not that Taubes is wrong, it's that you are misreading his argument. I'm not arguing that "it's complex" --- although I'll happily stand up to defend deconstructionism --- rather I'm trying to tell you that you are in agreement with Taubes that the conventional wisdom is rubbish. Now, if you want to point out the flaws in his actual argument and say that there is no difference between calories from carbs and from proteins, please do! But insisting that he's wrong because it really takes more than 20 calories sounds an awful lot like chanting "Brawndo's got electrolytes". It's a new year. I want to regain my faith in the world. Please stop making me cry.
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  This is one of the few audiences that knows what 'reductio ad absurdum' means, and yet bright people (whom I respect) seem unable to grasp what to me seems to me a fairly obvious argument. The problem is that his reducto ad absurdum isn't that absurd. It only sounds that way because he spends 3000 words ignoring 90-95% of the actual argument (specifically, 171 calories out of 191 in year 10). The full argument: 7.5 strips of bacon/day will make you fat (technically fewer strips in earlier years, but you get the picture). 7 strips will maintain your current level of obesity, the extra 0.5 strips will allow you to gain an extra 2 lbs. The argument as present by Taubes: only 0.5 strips of bacon in excess of maintenance is enough to explain the difference between an obese person? That's ridiculous!
  - nkurz 16y ago
    Both of these are fair questions: is Taubes accurately portraying the conventional wisdom, and what difference in diet corresponds to what final weight maintained? Yes, Taubes is presenting a very weak version of the argument. But I think he does this for good reason: it's the camel's nose in the tent, it's the NRA's (legitimate?) fear about reasonable gun control laws. Once he can show that the simple version can be questioned, he opens room for further questioning. And I don't think that his portrayal of conventional wisdom is that far off: we have entire industries based on shaving off a few calories from our desserts, and many people seem to believe that if the fat slobs would just park at the far end of the parking lot and walk another 100 feet they wouldn't be fat. He doesn't present the version you offer because he doesn't believe it. You're presuming that its possible to eat an additional half a slice of bacon a day and have no other effects other than maintaining a stable weight of 2 lbs greater after a year. You're also presuming that this effect would be achieved by eating an additional sugar cube. Traditional calorie counting would also imply that you'd be in the same place if instead of the bacon or sugar cube every morning that you ate an entire 7200 calories pecan pie once a year at Thanksgiving. Taubes says this is also wrong: bacon and sugar are metabolized differently, and will have different effects on your body. Both will also have side effects on appetite and energy level. How sure are you that they are the same? How sure are you that timing doesn't make a difference? How would you design a solution to obesity that is more effective than merely encouraging people to eat a little bit less and to exercise a little bit more? I think these are good questions, and still open to discussion. Likely there are better approaches than Taubes', but I think he's a bright guy on the right path. At the least, I think it's worth attacking his actual thesis rather than complaining that his straw man doesn't fight back as strongly as it should.

by jls11 16y ago

nkurz 16y ago

Taubes is a journalist. Well, sort of. He also has an undergrad degree in Physics from Harvard and masters in Engineering from Stanford. Which doesn't mean he's right, but it does make him better qualified as a science journalist than most. The people on HN are several standard deviations ahead of his audience. Yes, and this is what's making me want to cry. This is one of the few audiences that knows what 'reductio ad absurdum' means, and yet bright people (whom I respect) seem unable to grasp what to me seems to me a fairly obvious argument. Are contrafactuals truly so rare as to be unrecognizable? Ignoring the fact that his science is wrong. Sure, it might be, but the commentary so far has not been about "his science" but about his portrayal of conventional wisdom, which he also agrees is wrong. It's like pointing out that a mathematician is obviously a fool for saying "Let us assume momentarily that the square root of two is a rational number" as the preamble to a proof. It feels like a scene from Idiocracy. It's not that Taubes is wrong, it's that you are misreading his argument. I'm not arguing that "it's complex" --- although I'll happily stand up to defend deconstructionism --- rather I'm trying to tell you that you are in agreement with Taubes that the conventional wisdom is rubbish. Now, if you want to point out the flaws in his actual argument and say that there is no difference between calories from carbs and from proteins, please do! But insisting that he's wrong because it really takes more than 20 calories sounds an awful lot like chanting "Brawndo's got electrolytes". It's a new year. I want to regain my faith in the world. Please stop making me cry.

yummyfajitas 16y ago
This is one of the few audiences that knows what 'reductio ad absurdum' means, and yet bright people (whom I respect) seem unable to grasp what to me seems to me a fairly obvious argument. The problem is that his reducto ad absurdum isn't that absurd. It only sounds that way because he spends 3000 words ignoring 90-95% of the actual argument (specifically, 171 calories out of 191 in year 10). The full argument: 7.5 strips of bacon/day will make you fat (technically fewer strips in earlier years, but you get the picture). 7 strips will maintain your current level of obesity, the extra 0.5 strips will allow you to gain an extra 2 lbs. The argument as present by Taubes: only 0.5 strips of bacon in excess of maintenance is enough to explain the difference between an obese person? That's ridiculous!
- nkurz 16y ago
  Both of these are fair questions: is Taubes accurately portraying the conventional wisdom, and what difference in diet corresponds to what final weight maintained? Yes, Taubes is presenting a very weak version of the argument. But I think he does this for good reason: it's the camel's nose in the tent, it's the NRA's (legitimate?) fear about reasonable gun control laws. Once he can show that the simple version can be questioned, he opens room for further questioning. And I don't think that his portrayal of conventional wisdom is that far off: we have entire industries based on shaving off a few calories from our desserts, and many people seem to believe that if the fat slobs would just park at the far end of the parking lot and walk another 100 feet they wouldn't be fat. He doesn't present the version you offer because he doesn't believe it. You're presuming that its possible to eat an additional half a slice of bacon a day and have no other effects other than maintaining a stable weight of 2 lbs greater after a year. You're also presuming that this effect would be achieved by eating an additional sugar cube. Traditional calorie counting would also imply that you'd be in the same place if instead of the bacon or sugar cube every morning that you ate an entire 7200 calories pecan pie once a year at Thanksgiving. Taubes says this is also wrong: bacon and sugar are metabolized differently, and will have different effects on your body. Both will also have side effects on appetite and energy level. How sure are you that they are the same? How sure are you that timing doesn't make a difference? How would you design a solution to obesity that is more effective than merely encouraging people to eat a little bit less and to exercise a little bit more? I think these are good questions, and still open to discussion. Likely there are better approaches than Taubes', but I think he's a bright guy on the right path. At the least, I think it's worth attacking his actual thesis rather than complaining that his straw man doesn't fight back as strongly as it should.