9 ms·

Science can never tell us anything definitive about anything by definition. Science is trying to contradict previous results to refine and nuance our understand

Science can never tell us anything definitive about anything by definition. Science is trying to contradict previous results to refine and nuance our understanding. Confusion is essential to the process and pretending like something hasn't been published because it contradicts previous results is... well, anti scientific. Pointing out nutrition science is full of contradictions is kinda tired. Learning about research biases and epistemology is probably more productive.

tsimionescu 2y ago
Sure. But there are many things that science has come to a pretty good idea about. Nutrition is miles away from that. The only truly established theories we have in nutrition are how to cire vitamin deficiencies. Everything beyond how to avoid scurvy and the like is currently just noise. For every paper that finds an effect in nutrition, there is another paper that finds the exact opposite: so, there is no actionable advice to take from this. Maybe in 50 years when things have settled. Edit: I don't mean to say that this isn't part of science. It's a normal part of the process. But when we're just starting to experiment scientifically in such a complex field, it's normal that we just don't know a lot and our theories are just bad at the moment. They will get better, but there's no point whatsoever in following a theory that is not yet well confirmed by experiment.
- namaria 2y ago
  You really seem to be speaking from a place of ignorance here, with all due respect. There's quite a lot we know about nutrition. You may be conflating the whole field with the type of studies that grab the attention of journalists.
  - tsimionescu 2y ago
    Care to give some examples of well established theories in nutrition? Especially ones that can be used to inform a balanced diet?
    - namaria 2y ago
      https://online.stanford.edu/courses/som-xche0001-nutrition-science https://online.stanford.edu/courses/som-xche0001-nutrition-s...

tsimionescu 2y ago

Sure. But there are many things that science has come to a pretty good idea about. Nutrition is miles away from that. The only truly established theories we have in nutrition are how to cire vitamin deficiencies. Everything beyond how to avoid scurvy and the like is currently just noise. For every paper that finds an effect in nutrition, there is another paper that finds the exact opposite: so, there is no actionable advice to take from this. Maybe in 50 years when things have settled. Edit: I don't mean to say that this isn't part of science. It's a normal part of the process. But when we're just starting to experiment scientifically in such a complex field, it's normal that we just don't know a lot and our theories are just bad at the moment. They will get better, but there's no point whatsoever in following a theory that is not yet well confirmed by experiment.

namaria 2y ago
You really seem to be speaking from a place of ignorance here, with all due respect. There's quite a lot we know about nutrition. You may be conflating the whole field with the type of studies that grab the attention of journalists.
- tsimionescu 2y ago
  Care to give some examples of well established theories in nutrition? Especially ones that can be used to inform a balanced diet?
  - namaria 2y ago
    https://online.stanford.edu/courses/som-xche0001-nutrition-science https://online.stanford.edu/courses/som-xche0001-nutrition-s...