4 ms·

Why do they matter? Do you only care about everything they agree on? If not, why are you resistant to the idea they could be wrong?

by graphe 3y ago

p_j_w 3y ago
>Why do they matter? Because they are the experts in their field. They are the most qualified to not only read through all of the literature, but actually properly understand it, debate it, and come to a reasonably correct conclusion. >why are you resistant to the idea they could be wrong? I'm not resistant to the idea they could be wrong. It's science, the whole thing is built on showing proving previous hypotheses were either wrong or somehow incomplete. However, when it comes to health, I feel I'd be better served by listening to the consensus of various medical bodies than commenters on the Internet, media outlets, or my own ability to digest the scientific literature. In mathematical terms, I think the expected value of my health outcomes where I listen only to the advice of medical bodies is better than the expected value of my health outcomes where I "do my own research," in spite of the fact that medical bodies may be wrong here or there. I'd get it wrong more often.
- Phiwise_ 3y ago
  Longevity scientists are mostly just experts in the field of getting duped by pension fraudsters who say what they want to hear: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_zone#Scientific_reception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_zone#Scientific_reception Parts of the field are in worryingly deep denial about the number and magnitude of confounding variables a moderate level of skeptical empiricism suggests could be present in their foundational research. As, again, in the specific case that user is worried you're glossing over: The lipid hypothesis was probably developed from studies with diets also high in processed foods, simple carbohydrates, added sugar, salt, and vegetable oils, and low in organ meats and heavy-metal-free fish. Don't we all agree these things as a staple in a diet will probably negative health outcomes on their own? How can the field be confident enough to publicly assert a model on that? Have they put the rice-fruit-and-legume diet through as rigorous a comparison to the chicken-veg-and-liver diet as they did to the McDonald's special diet? It'd be nice to develop a culture of a straight answer of "Yes, and here's the confirming metaanalysis [1]" on this question in place of this "mind-your-seniors" browbeating. Isn't that what science is supposed to be about?
  - p_j_w 3y ago
    >Longevity scientists are mostly just experts in the field of getting duped by pension fraudsters who say what they want to hear: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_zone#Scientific_reception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_zone#Scientific_reception You've cited the debunking of a demographer to try to debunk the work of cardiologists. Okay? >Parts of the field are in worryingly deep denial about the number and magnitude of confounding variables a moderate level of skeptical empiricism suggests could be present in their foundational research. As, again, in the specific case that user is worried you're glossing over: The lipid hypothesis was probably developed from studies with diets also high in processed foods, simple carbohydrates, added sugar, salt, and vegetable oils, and low in organ meats and heavy-metal-free fish. Don't we all agree these things as a staple in a diet will probably negative health outcomes on their own? How can the field be confident enough to publicly assert a model on that? Have they put the rice-fruit-and-legume diet through as rigorous a comparison to the chicken-veg-and-liver diet as they did to the McDonald's special diet? Once again, I, and probably the vast majority of people on HN, aren't properly educated to have a comprehensive view of the medical literature on the matter and properly digest it all. I'm not going to participate in a debate on the merits of guidelines published and signed by thousands of medical and scientific experts from around the world, to even try and assume I could do so with a couple of hours here and there when they're looking into these issues for 8 hours a day for years on end would be arrogant on my part. >It'd be nice to develop a culture of a straight answer of "Yes, and here's the confirming metaanalysis [1]" on this question in place of this "mind-your-seniors" browbeating. Isn't that what science is supposed to be about? If you want to challenge someone who might be able to give you an informed answer, your best bet is to talk to an actual expert on the matter. You can find some people in the articles below. https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/article/41/1/111/5556353 https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/article/41/1/111/5556353 https://onlinecjc.ca/article/S0828-282X(21)00165-3/fulltext https://onlinecjc.ca/article/S0828-282X(21)00165-3/fulltext https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0735109718353798 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S073510971...
- kcplate 3y ago
  > Because they are the experts in their field. They are the most qualified to not only read through all of the literature, but actually properly understand it, debate it… Ok…point taken >..and come to a reasonably correct conclusion. Or more likely…probably will not come to the correct conclusion. Every past “accepted” or “settled” scientific consensus now known to be wrong once had its merits tested from the most qualified to not only read through all of the literature, but actually properly understand it, debate it people? In the last few years science has received a black eye because the populace was told we should blindly trust experts. We see now that experts are frequently wrong and affected by politics and money. I can weigh their opinion, but blindly trust? Not any more.
  - p_j_w 3y ago
    >Or more likely…probably will not come to the correct conclusion. Every past “accepted” or “settled” scientific consensus now known to be wrong once had its merits tested from the most qualified to not only read through all of the literature, but actually properly understand it, debate it people? So what? You're quickly approaching "Science is a liar sometimes" territory. Has scientific consensus been wrong in the past? Yes. So what? >We see now that experts are frequently wrong and affected by politics and money. Define "frequently," because I sure as shit haven't seen them be wrong more often than not, and I REALLY haven't seen them be wrong more often than commentators on the internet.
- nradov 3y ago
  I have noticed that many of those "experts" don't seem to be getting very good results themselves. Weak, slow, overweight, and just visibly unhealthy. I know that doesn't constitute real scientific evidence of anything but it makes me question whether they really know what they're talking about. As a practical matter most of us would probably do better by ignoring the science and instead mimicking the practices of successful masters athletes. While there is a certain amount of survivorship bias, people who are still achieving sub-elite results into their 60's must be doing something right.
  - merry_flame 3y ago
    Genes as well as survivorship bias. On a related note, numerous seasoned athletes or fitness enthusiasts seem to "break" very fast as they age. While they probably boast excellent cardiovascular health, if the package includes worn-out joints and persistent issues like back pain opting for moderate physical activity appears to be a wiser choice compared to pushing the limits with sub-elite levels of exertion.
    - graphe 3y ago
      Who's breaking? Most athletes are much healthier than their equivalently aged non athletic peers.
    - nradov 3y ago
      People are too quick to blame "bad genes" for their poor results. In reality this is seldom a major factor and they usually can't point to a specific genetic test result. While genetics might play a role at the elite and professional levels there is no real evidence that it matters for masters athletes. Good habits and training are what count. There is no evidence that participating in sports wears out joints. Joints evolved to move. The majority of people who need joint surgery lead sedentary lifestyles. Building strong muscles helps to stabilize joints and reduces the risk of injury.
- dalore 3y ago
  They also have more to lose if they are wrong. They would have to admit they pushed something wrong for so long. So they need to double down.
  - p_j_w 3y ago
    I could imagine this sort of thing having an impact on a scattered group here and there, but these are not static groups. Why would a member who joined 10 years ago would give a shit about doubling down for the sake of the reputation of the same group from 40 years ago?
    - graphe 3y ago
      Look at the food pyramid. You're advocating for the same kind of diet that focuses on. It's known to be outdated, wrong and unhealthy.
      - p_j_w 3y ago
        That's an example of a body of scientists changing its recommendations when there's data available to support it, which is what GP was trying to argue wouldn't happen because it'd make them look bad. I'm not advocating for any kind of diet, though. I'm advocating for trusting the consensus opinion of multiple independent groups of scientists to determine what the data does and does not say about what's healthy.
        graphe 3y ago
        There is no consensus. There are different consensuses. That group has a consensus based on false evidence. Nordic countries have another consensus based on real evidence. https://nordstjernan.com/news/food/4668/ https://nordstjernan.com/news/food/4668/
        bsmith 3y ago
        That link recommends cutting fats, and increasing the amount of bread and vegetable oil. I can't take their advice seriously.
- spacephysics 3y ago
  That’s the key problem though, in the face of alternative hypothesis they fail to even acknowledge they may be wrong. Coupled with the intense lobbying
  - AlexandrB 3y ago
    Lobbying by whom? The beef industry certainly does a lot of lobbying itself[1]. [1] https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2017/03/wheres-the-beef-meat-lobby/ https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2017/03/wheres-the-beef-mea...
  - Vegenoid 3y ago
    Lobbying from the veggie industry persuading doctors to tell people to eat less meat and cheese?
  - p_j_w 3y ago
    >That’s the key problem though, in the face of alternative hypothesis they fail to even acknowledge they may be wrong. That is not they key problem as you originally laid out. Your original position is that they key problem is they ARE wrong. Further, I don't know that I've ever read any sort of paper or written guidelines that explicitly says "we might be wrong here." Should those all be ignored for that reason? The papers you yourself cited in a comment above don't explicitly say they may be wrong, yet you have no problem taking them as 100% established fact. This seems like a bit of a double standard and sloppy logic. >Coupled with the intense lobbying Do you have evidence for corruption in these institutions?
- graphe 3y ago
  According to whom are they considered experts? After how the government deals with COVID I don't trust "the medical consensus" which is code for "things I want you, the mainstream to agree with". Why would they be "experts"? What expertise do they have? It's not based on the best credentials, it's a job. They're nameless government entities. Depending if you feel knowledge always grows you may change your ideas. Waves of ignorance litter the medical field today, as hysteria was accepted as the only disease women could have: the wandering womb theory. Consensus of ignorance is still ignorance. There's no real evidence that high red meat is bad. There's no evidence that eating more veggies is bad.
  - p_j_w 3y ago
    >After how the government deals with COVID I don't trust "the medical consensus" which is code for "things I want you, the mainstream to agree with" I can't believe I'm about to spend time responding to someone who opens with this, but here we go. >It's not based on the best credentials, it's a job. Where are you getting this information? Looking at the CCS guidelines, for example, one sees that the authors are MDs or PhDs at medical schools. >They're nameless government entities. Not a single one of the bodies I cited is a government entity. What are you even talking about?

Why do they matter? Do you only care about everything they agree on? If not, why are you resistant to the idea they could be wrong?

by graphe 3y ago

Why do they matter? Do you only care about everything they agree on? If not, why are you resistant to the idea they could be wrong?

p_j_w 3y ago

>Why do they matter? Because they are the experts in their field. They are the most qualified to not only read through all of the literature, but actually properly understand it, debate it, and come to a reasonably correct conclusion. >why are you resistant to the idea they could be wrong? I'm not resistant to the idea they could be wrong. It's science, the whole thing is built on showing proving previous hypotheses were either wrong or somehow incomplete. However, when it comes to health, I feel I'd be better served by listening to the consensus of various medical bodies than commenters on the Internet, media outlets, or my own ability to digest the scientific literature. In mathematical terms, I think the expected value of my health outcomes where I listen only to the advice of medical bodies is better than the expected value of my health outcomes where I "do my own research," in spite of the fact that medical bodies may be wrong here or there. I'd get it wrong more often.

Phiwise_ 3y ago
Longevity scientists are mostly just experts in the field of getting duped by pension fraudsters who say what they want to hear: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_zone#Scientific_reception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_zone#Scientific_reception Parts of the field are in worryingly deep denial about the number and magnitude of confounding variables a moderate level of skeptical empiricism suggests could be present in their foundational research. As, again, in the specific case that user is worried you're glossing over: The lipid hypothesis was probably developed from studies with diets also high in processed foods, simple carbohydrates, added sugar, salt, and vegetable oils, and low in organ meats and heavy-metal-free fish. Don't we all agree these things as a staple in a diet will probably negative health outcomes on their own? How can the field be confident enough to publicly assert a model on that? Have they put the rice-fruit-and-legume diet through as rigorous a comparison to the chicken-veg-and-liver diet as they did to the McDonald's special diet? It'd be nice to develop a culture of a straight answer of "Yes, and here's the confirming metaanalysis [1]" on this question in place of this "mind-your-seniors" browbeating. Isn't that what science is supposed to be about?
- p_j_w 3y ago
  >Longevity scientists are mostly just experts in the field of getting duped by pension fraudsters who say what they want to hear: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_zone#Scientific_reception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_zone#Scientific_reception You've cited the debunking of a demographer to try to debunk the work of cardiologists. Okay? >Parts of the field are in worryingly deep denial about the number and magnitude of confounding variables a moderate level of skeptical empiricism suggests could be present in their foundational research. As, again, in the specific case that user is worried you're glossing over: The lipid hypothesis was probably developed from studies with diets also high in processed foods, simple carbohydrates, added sugar, salt, and vegetable oils, and low in organ meats and heavy-metal-free fish. Don't we all agree these things as a staple in a diet will probably negative health outcomes on their own? How can the field be confident enough to publicly assert a model on that? Have they put the rice-fruit-and-legume diet through as rigorous a comparison to the chicken-veg-and-liver diet as they did to the McDonald's special diet? Once again, I, and probably the vast majority of people on HN, aren't properly educated to have a comprehensive view of the medical literature on the matter and properly digest it all. I'm not going to participate in a debate on the merits of guidelines published and signed by thousands of medical and scientific experts from around the world, to even try and assume I could do so with a couple of hours here and there when they're looking into these issues for 8 hours a day for years on end would be arrogant on my part. >It'd be nice to develop a culture of a straight answer of "Yes, and here's the confirming metaanalysis [1]" on this question in place of this "mind-your-seniors" browbeating. Isn't that what science is supposed to be about? If you want to challenge someone who might be able to give you an informed answer, your best bet is to talk to an actual expert on the matter. You can find some people in the articles below. https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/article/41/1/111/5556353 https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/article/41/1/111/5556353 https://onlinecjc.ca/article/S0828-282X(21)00165-3/fulltext https://onlinecjc.ca/article/S0828-282X(21)00165-3/fulltext https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0735109718353798 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S073510971...
kcplate 3y ago
> Because they are the experts in their field. They are the most qualified to not only read through all of the literature, but actually properly understand it, debate it… Ok…point taken >..and come to a reasonably correct conclusion. Or more likely…probably will not come to the correct conclusion. Every past “accepted” or “settled” scientific consensus now known to be wrong once had its merits tested from the most qualified to not only read through all of the literature, but actually properly understand it, debate it people? In the last few years science has received a black eye because the populace was told we should blindly trust experts. We see now that experts are frequently wrong and affected by politics and money. I can weigh their opinion, but blindly trust? Not any more.
- p_j_w 3y ago
  >Or more likely…probably will not come to the correct conclusion. Every past “accepted” or “settled” scientific consensus now known to be wrong once had its merits tested from the most qualified to not only read through all of the literature, but actually properly understand it, debate it people? So what? You're quickly approaching "Science is a liar sometimes" territory. Has scientific consensus been wrong in the past? Yes. So what? >We see now that experts are frequently wrong and affected by politics and money. Define "frequently," because I sure as shit haven't seen them be wrong more often than not, and I REALLY haven't seen them be wrong more often than commentators on the internet.
nradov 3y ago
I have noticed that many of those "experts" don't seem to be getting very good results themselves. Weak, slow, overweight, and just visibly unhealthy. I know that doesn't constitute real scientific evidence of anything but it makes me question whether they really know what they're talking about. As a practical matter most of us would probably do better by ignoring the science and instead mimicking the practices of successful masters athletes. While there is a certain amount of survivorship bias, people who are still achieving sub-elite results into their 60's must be doing something right.
- merry_flame 3y ago
  Genes as well as survivorship bias. On a related note, numerous seasoned athletes or fitness enthusiasts seem to "break" very fast as they age. While they probably boast excellent cardiovascular health, if the package includes worn-out joints and persistent issues like back pain opting for moderate physical activity appears to be a wiser choice compared to pushing the limits with sub-elite levels of exertion.
  - graphe 3y ago
    Who's breaking? Most athletes are much healthier than their equivalently aged non athletic peers.
  - nradov 3y ago
    People are too quick to blame "bad genes" for their poor results. In reality this is seldom a major factor and they usually can't point to a specific genetic test result. While genetics might play a role at the elite and professional levels there is no real evidence that it matters for masters athletes. Good habits and training are what count. There is no evidence that participating in sports wears out joints. Joints evolved to move. The majority of people who need joint surgery lead sedentary lifestyles. Building strong muscles helps to stabilize joints and reduces the risk of injury.
dalore 3y ago
They also have more to lose if they are wrong. They would have to admit they pushed something wrong for so long. So they need to double down.
- p_j_w 3y ago
  I could imagine this sort of thing having an impact on a scattered group here and there, but these are not static groups. Why would a member who joined 10 years ago would give a shit about doubling down for the sake of the reputation of the same group from 40 years ago?
  - graphe 3y ago
    Look at the food pyramid. You're advocating for the same kind of diet that focuses on. It's known to be outdated, wrong and unhealthy.
    - p_j_w 3y ago
      That's an example of a body of scientists changing its recommendations when there's data available to support it, which is what GP was trying to argue wouldn't happen because it'd make them look bad. I'm not advocating for any kind of diet, though. I'm advocating for trusting the consensus opinion of multiple independent groups of scientists to determine what the data does and does not say about what's healthy.
      - graphe 3y ago
        There is no consensus. There are different consensuses. That group has a consensus based on false evidence. Nordic countries have another consensus based on real evidence. https://nordstjernan.com/news/food/4668/ https://nordstjernan.com/news/food/4668/
        bsmith 3y ago
        That link recommends cutting fats, and increasing the amount of bread and vegetable oil. I can't take their advice seriously.
spacephysics 3y ago
That’s the key problem though, in the face of alternative hypothesis they fail to even acknowledge they may be wrong. Coupled with the intense lobbying
- AlexandrB 3y ago
  Lobbying by whom? The beef industry certainly does a lot of lobbying itself[1]. [1] https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2017/03/wheres-the-beef-meat-lobby/ https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2017/03/wheres-the-beef-mea...
- Vegenoid 3y ago
  Lobbying from the veggie industry persuading doctors to tell people to eat less meat and cheese?
- p_j_w 3y ago
  >That’s the key problem though, in the face of alternative hypothesis they fail to even acknowledge they may be wrong. That is not they key problem as you originally laid out. Your original position is that they key problem is they ARE wrong. Further, I don't know that I've ever read any sort of paper or written guidelines that explicitly says "we might be wrong here." Should those all be ignored for that reason? The papers you yourself cited in a comment above don't explicitly say they may be wrong, yet you have no problem taking them as 100% established fact. This seems like a bit of a double standard and sloppy logic. >Coupled with the intense lobbying Do you have evidence for corruption in these institutions?
graphe 3y ago
According to whom are they considered experts? After how the government deals with COVID I don't trust "the medical consensus" which is code for "things I want you, the mainstream to agree with". Why would they be "experts"? What expertise do they have? It's not based on the best credentials, it's a job. They're nameless government entities. Depending if you feel knowledge always grows you may change your ideas. Waves of ignorance litter the medical field today, as hysteria was accepted as the only disease women could have: the wandering womb theory. Consensus of ignorance is still ignorance. There's no real evidence that high red meat is bad. There's no evidence that eating more veggies is bad.
- p_j_w 3y ago
  >After how the government deals with COVID I don't trust "the medical consensus" which is code for "things I want you, the mainstream to agree with" I can't believe I'm about to spend time responding to someone who opens with this, but here we go. >It's not based on the best credentials, it's a job. Where are you getting this information? Looking at the CCS guidelines, for example, one sees that the authors are MDs or PhDs at medical schools. >They're nameless government entities. Not a single one of the bodies I cited is a government entity. What are you even talking about?