3 ms·

I don't trust anything in science that has not been actualized either as an engineering project or as a clear prediction that has came true in the world. Which

I don't trust anything in science that has not been actualized either as an engineering project or as a clear prediction that has came true in the world. Which means I don't trust almost anything in psychology, social sciences, or quirky health, nutrition and lifestyle recommendations if they don't sound like something somebody from 1000 years ago could have done.

NikolaeVarius 5y ago
> or as a clear prediction that has came true in the world. Impossible standard to prove. > Which means I don't trust almost anything in psychology, social sciences, or quirky health, nutrition and lifestyle recommendations if they don't sound like something somebody from 1000 years ago could have done. The myth of the paleo* = good is so dumb.
- nradov 5y ago
  Nutrition science is quite complex and much of the published literature is simply junk. A lot of what we thought we knew a few decades ago turned out to be wrong. So it's not entirely unreasonable to ignore the science altogether and just eat the same foods that your ancestors ate before agriculture. It might not be optimal from a nutrition standpoint, but it's unlikely to be too far wrong. Of course most "paleo" nutritionists are scammers pushing cookbooks and dubious nutritional supplements.
  - Pensacola 5y ago
    > Of course most "paleo" nutritionists are scammers pushing cookbooks and dubious nutritional supplements. You're right: most of the protein in the diets of our paleolithic ancestors came from insects and leftover carrion from the kills of more optimized carnivores. I've never seen these recommended in a Paleo diet.
- csee 5y ago
  I don't agree it's dumb (perhaps fashionable incarnations are dumb, but not the general idea of being inspired by an ancestral diet). We evolved in that setting and our bodies were optimized for our ancestors' diet. This doesn't mean we should commit the naturalistic fallacy but as a first approximation it's a good rule of thumb. The other thing is our understanding of nutritional science is so, so bad. It's just such a difficult area to attack with the scientific method. We've made good progress for sure but there's still so many unknowns.
  - Nasrudith 5y ago
    For the majority of human existencr the diet which helped survival the most was high calorie because it meant they weren't starving. Paleo is dumb because it ignores all other greater selective factors. It would be like judging wearing kevlar vests as good protection from cancer and heart disease because after you empty a revolver of hollow points into every fifty year old subject's chests the ones wearing kevlar lived the longest.
    - csee 5y ago
      "For the majority of human existencr the diet which helped survival the most was high calorie because it meant they weren't starving." So? That doesn't change the fact that our bodies were optimized around the macro and micro nutrients inside the foods that our ancestors ate. Just like how our bodies were optimized to extract vitamin D from the abundant sunlignt, and to get benefits from physical activity. "Paleo is dumb because it ignores all other greater selective factors" What does this mean? What other selective factors? "It would be like judging wearing kevlar vests as good protection from cancer and heart disease because after you empty a revolver of hollow points into every fifty year old subject's chests the ones wearing kevlar lived the longest." Just explain the reason itself. I don't understand this analogy.
marginalia_nu 5y ago
To be fair, you shouldn't. Science isn't doctrinal. It's not something you or anyone should take on faith. Skepticism exists at the very core of science, the basic posture in any scientific endeavor is "I don't know". If you can't read a scientific paper because you don't understand it, or because it's behind a paywall, then your conclusion shouldn't be one of "well I guess it's correct because important people say so", but "I don't know." Some people don't understand skepticism, and get muddled up in Occam's razor or something (which is just modus tollens of the similarly dubious "where there's smoke, there's fire"; a good starting point perhaps, but nothing to draw conclusions from), and they think that if they can't prove something, it must be false. That's not correct either. If you there is no proof, it could be either way. We're in this bizarre zeitgeist where everyone is telling you to listen to science because it's all true, but for the love of god, don't engage in any sort of scientific inquiry yourself, who knows what heterodoxy you might arrive at. The coffee machine at work has a bunch of advertisement stuck on it, how the coffee has been fine-tuned by experts and tested by scientists to be the optimal coffee experience. Like what the heck, am I not a better judge of whether I like the coffee than a bunch of scientists?

NikolaeVarius 5y ago

> or as a clear prediction that has came true in the world. Impossible standard to prove. > Which means I don't trust almost anything in psychology, social sciences, or quirky health, nutrition and lifestyle recommendations if they don't sound like something somebody from 1000 years ago could have done. The myth of the paleo* = good is so dumb.

nradov 5y ago
Nutrition science is quite complex and much of the published literature is simply junk. A lot of what we thought we knew a few decades ago turned out to be wrong. So it's not entirely unreasonable to ignore the science altogether and just eat the same foods that your ancestors ate before agriculture. It might not be optimal from a nutrition standpoint, but it's unlikely to be too far wrong. Of course most "paleo" nutritionists are scammers pushing cookbooks and dubious nutritional supplements.
- Pensacola 5y ago
  > Of course most "paleo" nutritionists are scammers pushing cookbooks and dubious nutritional supplements. You're right: most of the protein in the diets of our paleolithic ancestors came from insects and leftover carrion from the kills of more optimized carnivores. I've never seen these recommended in a Paleo diet.
csee 5y ago
I don't agree it's dumb (perhaps fashionable incarnations are dumb, but not the general idea of being inspired by an ancestral diet). We evolved in that setting and our bodies were optimized for our ancestors' diet. This doesn't mean we should commit the naturalistic fallacy but as a first approximation it's a good rule of thumb. The other thing is our understanding of nutritional science is so, so bad. It's just such a difficult area to attack with the scientific method. We've made good progress for sure but there's still so many unknowns.
- Nasrudith 5y ago
  For the majority of human existencr the diet which helped survival the most was high calorie because it meant they weren't starving. Paleo is dumb because it ignores all other greater selective factors. It would be like judging wearing kevlar vests as good protection from cancer and heart disease because after you empty a revolver of hollow points into every fifty year old subject's chests the ones wearing kevlar lived the longest.
  - csee 5y ago
    "For the majority of human existencr the diet which helped survival the most was high calorie because it meant they weren't starving." So? That doesn't change the fact that our bodies were optimized around the macro and micro nutrients inside the foods that our ancestors ate. Just like how our bodies were optimized to extract vitamin D from the abundant sunlignt, and to get benefits from physical activity. "Paleo is dumb because it ignores all other greater selective factors" What does this mean? What other selective factors? "It would be like judging wearing kevlar vests as good protection from cancer and heart disease because after you empty a revolver of hollow points into every fifty year old subject's chests the ones wearing kevlar lived the longest." Just explain the reason itself. I don't understand this analogy.

marginalia_nu 5y ago

To be fair, you shouldn't. Science isn't doctrinal. It's not something you or anyone should take on faith. Skepticism exists at the very core of science, the basic posture in any scientific endeavor is "I don't know". If you can't read a scientific paper because you don't understand it, or because it's behind a paywall, then your conclusion shouldn't be one of "well I guess it's correct because important people say so", but "I don't know." Some people don't understand skepticism, and get muddled up in Occam's razor or something (which is just modus tollens of the similarly dubious "where there's smoke, there's fire"; a good starting point perhaps, but nothing to draw conclusions from), and they think that if they can't prove something, it must be false. That's not correct either. If you there is no proof, it could be either way. We're in this bizarre zeitgeist where everyone is telling you to listen to science because it's all true, but for the love of god, don't engage in any sort of scientific inquiry yourself, who knows what heterodoxy you might arrive at. The coffee machine at work has a bunch of advertisement stuck on it, how the coffee has been fine-tuned by experts and tested by scientists to be the optimal coffee experience. Like what the heck, am I not a better judge of whether I like the coffee than a bunch of scientists?