3 ms·

>Totally irrelevant, and it's stunning the author thinks they can use this to suggest anything about human physiology The author did not suggest anything about

by xupybd 4y ago

>Totally irrelevant, and it's stunning the author thinks they can use this to suggest anything about human physiology The author did not suggest anything about human physiology. He mentioned this as a curiosity when informing us that this chemical is generally considered biologically inert. He was giving background on the chemical. It was not totally irrelevant to an article discussing erythritol but it is irrelevant to human physiology. The article need not be limited to one point. If that were the case most articles would be too boring to read.

ravenstine 4y ago
> The author did not suggest anything about human physiology. He mentioned this as a curiosity when informing us that this chemical is generally considered biologically inert. He was giving background on the chemical. In either case, it's still misleading and irrelevant. Whether people think a chemical is inert doesn't say anything about whether a chemical is dangerous to humans. If one wrote an equivalent article with the thesis that water bottles should no longer be sold, and the author points to the curiosity that thousands of people drown every year, that only serves to persuade gullible readers into believing that drinking a bottle of Aquafina and drowning in a pool are connected in a way that is relevant. If Derek Lowe's point truly was that people should not see erythritol as biologically inert, he should have said something explicit stating as such. The fact that he didn't communicates that his goal was to lead the reader to the conclusion that he's made quite clear in his final paragraph. > It was not totally irrelevant to an article discussing erythritol but it is irrelevant to human physiology. It's irrelevant to the point that he is explicitly making, and is no different than an article about weight loss telling people to stop eating so much chocolate and, oh by the way, did you know that chocolate is toxic to dogs?! Gee whiz! And you thought chocolate was a harmless treat! > The article need not be limited to one point. If that were the case most articles would be too boring to read. So you read articles for the factoids? I guess there's nothing wrong with that in isolation, but the insertion of factoids into articles is often misleading to those whom are less scientifically minded, which is a problem when an author is acting as a science communicator. There's no reason a site called Science.com can't have articles that are written to both fit the parameters of science and be interesting to read.

by xupybd 4y ago

ravenstine 4y ago

> The author did not suggest anything about human physiology. He mentioned this as a curiosity when informing us that this chemical is generally considered biologically inert. He was giving background on the chemical. In either case, it's still misleading and irrelevant. Whether people think a chemical is inert doesn't say anything about whether a chemical is dangerous to humans. If one wrote an equivalent article with the thesis that water bottles should no longer be sold, and the author points to the curiosity that thousands of people drown every year, that only serves to persuade gullible readers into believing that drinking a bottle of Aquafina and drowning in a pool are connected in a way that is relevant. If Derek Lowe's point truly was that people should not see erythritol as biologically inert, he should have said something explicit stating as such. The fact that he didn't communicates that his goal was to lead the reader to the conclusion that he's made quite clear in his final paragraph. > It was not totally irrelevant to an article discussing erythritol but it is irrelevant to human physiology. It's irrelevant to the point that he is explicitly making, and is no different than an article about weight loss telling people to stop eating so much chocolate and, oh by the way, did you know that chocolate is toxic to dogs?! Gee whiz! And you thought chocolate was a harmless treat! > The article need not be limited to one point. If that were the case most articles would be too boring to read. So you read articles for the factoids? I guess there's nothing wrong with that in isolation, but the insertion of factoids into articles is often misleading to those whom are less scientifically minded, which is a problem when an author is acting as a science communicator. There's no reason a site called Science.com can't have articles that are written to both fit the parameters of science and be interesting to read.