My comment was not just with regards to the facts of the subject but the way of thinking epistemologically about hypotheses in science, because he literally spe

My comment was not just with regards to the facts of the subject but the way of thinking epistemologically about hypotheses in science, because he literally spends the first hour talking about how brilliant physicists could get it so wrong in their thought process toward science. He calls it pathological science. Peter even comments on it (listen starting around 2:08 but I think might be closer to 2:12), right after Taubes says there is absolutely no way to reconcile the standard model with his hormone regulation hypothesis and that it isn't even wrong, he says that 99.9% of the time someone says that they are a quack. Not long after, he says the problem with pathological science is they establish what they are seeing based on premature data, go public, and then dig in their heels at that point — he's saying it about an adversary but could easily be said about himself. Its like he's almost self aware, but he's so sure of his view that his framework for understanding bad science doesn't apply to him. I think there's a bit of a motte and bailey that happens with Taubes proponency, where one can say there is this underappreciated role of insulin in obesity, vs the hard line he takes which is the standard energy balance model is "not even wrong", i.e., absolutely no role for a caloric surplus outside of his framework. So sure, demonstrating that a keto diet can be a game changer for a type 2 diabetic is great and Taubes has a hand bringing that to the mainstream. But that doesn't also affirm his hard, and hard to believe stance on the topic. I think what I mean is clear if you listen to the conversation about Doritos starting around 2:16, where Taubes suggests there is no hyperphasia without near-instant hormonal disregulation from adipose tissue in response to a dorito entering the mouth, and it has nothing to do with the team of food scientists that make sure they are additively delicious. Taubes could be 50-90% correct in his hypotheses, but he takes it beyond that point to the absurd and further that there is no reconciling his beliefs with competing hypotheses. I hate to be the 'just listen to the 200 minute podcast' guy, but it really is fascinating in the juxtaposition I mentioned and I'd be keen to know how much you agree or think I am off base if you did give it a listen.