4 ms·

This article does not read like it came from someone who was doing a thoughtful analysis. It lacks a concrete point and makes contradictory arguments. Is meat

This article does not read like it came from someone who was doing a thoughtful analysis. It lacks a concrete point and makes contradictory arguments. Is meat eating our evolutionary destiny or a recent trend driven by wealth? Is it something we are "built" to do or something that literally at least a fifth of the entire species does without? Never mind correlating health outcomes with broad trends in meat eating while also pointing out increasing wealth and pretending that's not likely to be a confounding factor in itself. Like, the conclusion could be right here but this article is a mess.

dang 4y ago
Yes, that's why I posted my comment - one needs to consider this in the context of his larger body of work (edit: sorry, that's not really what I meant to say - see downthread). This isn't an internet flamethrower, or at least not just that. It's a good test for HN. Must the community have a headless chicken reaction to every provocation, or can we sometimes remain organized enough for an interesting conversation? Edit: I don't think your description of the article is fair. It may be right or wrong but it is far from vapid. If you've found fallacies in it, showing how they are fallacies would be a better contribution to an HN thread. You've done that with your point about wealth being a possibly confounding factor (good), but you broke the HN guidelines with your first and last sentences (bad). Your reaction to Smil as not-a-person-who-does-any-kind-of-serious-analysis is a classic shallow dismissal. That's something the HN guidelines ask commenters to avoid: "Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something." Also: "When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. 'That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3' can be shortened to '1 + 1 is 2, not 3." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- stormbrew 4y ago
  Ad hominem cuts both ways. If he wants to make a good argument here he should do so, but there's basically nothing in this article to talk about except how much of a mess it is. How often are you in a controversial post's comments advocating for people to read the author's other work to justify the poor quality of the posted article? I've been around a long time and I've literally never seen you do this before. Have you considered the possibility that you're the one with the wrong read here?
  - dang 4y ago
    I don't agree with that description of the article. I think both it, and Smil, deserve better than shallow dismissals and name-calling. He's writing about a particular prediction that is commonly made, and showing reasons to doubt whether that particular prediction is true. I don't see anything wrong with that, although the underlying topic is a hot one.
    - stormbrew 4y ago
      You're the one bringing his reputation into this though? Until you started interjecting, everything was about the article. That it was about how poor the article is doesn't make it ad hominem, it's a product of the lack of substance and direction of the article itself. Sometimes things people write aren't very good. And I said in a fair amount of detail why I can't find anything in this article to argue about other than its quality: I can't reconcile those questions to find a point to argue with. If I argue against the evolution-is-destiny part then the counterargument is wealth and vice-versa. I really suggest you re-read this article with a more critical eye because I honestly can't see what you see in it, and I don't think you really believe "people should read the author's other work" is a sustainable basis for submission quality.
      - dang 4y ago
        > Until you started interjecting, everything was about the article Until then, everything was about the headline. (And mostly still is, considering that few commenters so far have been talking about the specific points in the article body.)
- triyambakam 4y ago
  > one needs to consider this in the context of his larger body of work. That seems odd and it feels like you are defending it out of agreement with the author. If this is a poor article, why can't it be criticized as such? If Shakespeare, who for this analogy is considered a great respected author, wrote a lazy and uninspired play, one should just endure just because it's Shakespeare and "one needs to consider this in the context of his larger body of work"? That's unnecessary and fallacious.
  - dang 4y ago
    No, you're right - I didn't put that well. (I've been posting hastily trying to prevent this thread from devolving into a tedious flamewar and haste is bad for precision!) On HN we definitely try to go by article quality (past explanations from a slightly different angle: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=%22article%20quality%22%20%22site%20quality%22%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...). I guess what I meant to say was more like: don't judge this article (or any article) by just the headline! and also, if you're pattern-matching this article to garden-variety flamebait, it would be good to know who the author is, because the priors here are totally different than how they appear.
- lovich 4y ago
  I read through the article and is it cutoff? It ends for me with “chorizo…” and then a reference to the print article this was published as. If that’s the whole article what was the argument they were making? They showed that meat consumption went up a lot in poorer countries and down a little in some rich countries, and consistent in rich meat loving countries. If the only argument is that, no the world is not about to become vegan, then ok they showed evidence for that, but it doesn’t seem like a long enough article to have much of a discussion over. I’m not sure this couldn’t become flame bait when there’s so little to discuss
- a1369209993 4y ago
  > one needs to consider this in the context of his larger body of work. No, actually, one doesn't. That's the same underlying error as ad hominem attacks and appeals to authority. If he has a point, he can actually make that point, and if he doesn't, a larger body of work doesn't change that.
  - dang 4y ago
    Yes. Sorry. I didn't put that properly and I agree with you. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32288733 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32288733
- stormbrew 4y ago
  Anyways, regardless of the rest of this I edited the first sentence to more directly state my thesis and not make claims about him (though I think you should consider your role in bringing his personality into this discussion). That said, I stand by everything I've said about the quality of this article.
- RC_ITR 4y ago
  A running list of some fallacies for those interested: 1) Natural selection is the description of a process that happens spontaneously. Natural selection does not actively “form” us. Life forms itself via natural selection and the entire point is adaptability in the face of environmental constraints (i.e. earth’s carrying capacity for livestock) 2) Chimpanzees may be our closest relatives, but so what? They’re hirsute and have complex grooming rituals to remove parasites; we do not, among many other differences. Using chimps as a “natural model” of human behavior is not grounded in scientific thought. (EDIT: there’s also the “closest extant relative” fallacy. There were plenty of great apes closer to us than modern chimps, they just died out. If in 100 years we cause the extinction of chimps and bonobos [highly likely on current trajectory], then is the natural model for humans the Gorilla, who mostly eats plants and very rarely will also eat invertebrates?) 3) The author states that increasing meat consumption has led to no negative health effects (by only focusing on heart disease), but the countries with the two largest increases (US and China) have myriad health problems mostly related to rising obesity rates. Heart disease is a poor measure of meat-related health because a) it’s highly correlated with smoking b) we’ve gotten way better at treating it. Overall, it’s the classic “trap” for HN. A solid (usually) publication, a highly charged topic, and loose data interpretation.

dang 4y ago

Yes, that's why I posted my comment - one needs to consider this in the context of his larger body of work (edit: sorry, that's not really what I meant to say - see downthread). This isn't an internet flamethrower, or at least not just that. It's a good test for HN. Must the community have a headless chicken reaction to every provocation, or can we sometimes remain organized enough for an interesting conversation? Edit: I don't think your description of the article is fair. It may be right or wrong but it is far from vapid. If you've found fallacies in it, showing how they are fallacies would be a better contribution to an HN thread. You've done that with your point about wealth being a possibly confounding factor (good), but you broke the HN guidelines with your first and last sentences (bad). Your reaction to Smil as not-a-person-who-does-any-kind-of-serious-analysis is a classic shallow dismissal. That's something the HN guidelines ask commenters to avoid: "Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something." Also: "When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. 'That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3' can be shortened to '1 + 1 is 2, not 3." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

stormbrew 4y ago
Ad hominem cuts both ways. If he wants to make a good argument here he should do so, but there's basically nothing in this article to talk about except how much of a mess it is. How often are you in a controversial post's comments advocating for people to read the author's other work to justify the poor quality of the posted article? I've been around a long time and I've literally never seen you do this before. Have you considered the possibility that you're the one with the wrong read here?
- dang 4y ago
  I don't agree with that description of the article. I think both it, and Smil, deserve better than shallow dismissals and name-calling. He's writing about a particular prediction that is commonly made, and showing reasons to doubt whether that particular prediction is true. I don't see anything wrong with that, although the underlying topic is a hot one.
  - stormbrew 4y ago
    You're the one bringing his reputation into this though? Until you started interjecting, everything was about the article. That it was about how poor the article is doesn't make it ad hominem, it's a product of the lack of substance and direction of the article itself. Sometimes things people write aren't very good. And I said in a fair amount of detail why I can't find anything in this article to argue about other than its quality: I can't reconcile those questions to find a point to argue with. If I argue against the evolution-is-destiny part then the counterargument is wealth and vice-versa. I really suggest you re-read this article with a more critical eye because I honestly can't see what you see in it, and I don't think you really believe "people should read the author's other work" is a sustainable basis for submission quality.
    - dang 4y ago
      > Until you started interjecting, everything was about the article Until then, everything was about the headline. (And mostly still is, considering that few commenters so far have been talking about the specific points in the article body.)
triyambakam 4y ago
> one needs to consider this in the context of his larger body of work. That seems odd and it feels like you are defending it out of agreement with the author. If this is a poor article, why can't it be criticized as such? If Shakespeare, who for this analogy is considered a great respected author, wrote a lazy and uninspired play, one should just endure just because it's Shakespeare and "one needs to consider this in the context of his larger body of work"? That's unnecessary and fallacious.
- dang 4y ago
  No, you're right - I didn't put that well. (I've been posting hastily trying to prevent this thread from devolving into a tedious flamewar and haste is bad for precision!) On HN we definitely try to go by article quality (past explanations from a slightly different angle: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=%22article%20quality%22%20%22site%20quality%22%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...). I guess what I meant to say was more like: don't judge this article (or any article) by just the headline! and also, if you're pattern-matching this article to garden-variety flamebait, it would be good to know who the author is, because the priors here are totally different than how they appear.
lovich 4y ago
I read through the article and is it cutoff? It ends for me with “chorizo…” and then a reference to the print article this was published as. If that’s the whole article what was the argument they were making? They showed that meat consumption went up a lot in poorer countries and down a little in some rich countries, and consistent in rich meat loving countries. If the only argument is that, no the world is not about to become vegan, then ok they showed evidence for that, but it doesn’t seem like a long enough article to have much of a discussion over. I’m not sure this couldn’t become flame bait when there’s so little to discuss
a1369209993 4y ago
> one needs to consider this in the context of his larger body of work. No, actually, one doesn't. That's the same underlying error as ad hominem attacks and appeals to authority. If he has a point, he can actually make that point, and if he doesn't, a larger body of work doesn't change that.
- dang 4y ago
  Yes. Sorry. I didn't put that properly and I agree with you. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32288733 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32288733
stormbrew 4y ago
Anyways, regardless of the rest of this I edited the first sentence to more directly state my thesis and not make claims about him (though I think you should consider your role in bringing his personality into this discussion). That said, I stand by everything I've said about the quality of this article.
RC_ITR 4y ago
A running list of some fallacies for those interested: 1) Natural selection is the description of a process that happens spontaneously. Natural selection does not actively “form” us. Life forms itself via natural selection and the entire point is adaptability in the face of environmental constraints (i.e. earth’s carrying capacity for livestock) 2) Chimpanzees may be our closest relatives, but so what? They’re hirsute and have complex grooming rituals to remove parasites; we do not, among many other differences. Using chimps as a “natural model” of human behavior is not grounded in scientific thought. (EDIT: there’s also the “closest extant relative” fallacy. There were plenty of great apes closer to us than modern chimps, they just died out. If in 100 years we cause the extinction of chimps and bonobos [highly likely on current trajectory], then is the natural model for humans the Gorilla, who mostly eats plants and very rarely will also eat invertebrates?) 3) The author states that increasing meat consumption has led to no negative health effects (by only focusing on heart disease), but the countries with the two largest increases (US and China) have myriad health problems mostly related to rising obesity rates. Heart disease is a poor measure of meat-related health because a) it’s highly correlated with smoking b) we’ve gotten way better at treating it. Overall, it’s the classic “trap” for HN. A solid (usually) publication, a highly charged topic, and loose data interpretation.