2 ms·
No, the label itself is incoherent. If we had a better education system, we probably wouldn't have quack science like this being accepted.
by breezybottom 4mo ago
No, the label itself is incoherent. If we had a better education system, we probably wouldn't have quack science like this being accepted.
- margalabargala 4mo agoI'm sure the label seems incoherent to you. It must be frustrating seeing others discuss things that you can't make sense of. The insight I offer, is that for many, a term may be both vague and lack a rigorous scientific definition, while still being meaningful and useful. This is a foundational concept and if you manage to internalize it I suspect that "ultra-processed" will be only one among many things that will begin to appear coherent to you.
- breezybottom 4mo agoI don't care if it's useful to you, you're obviously not a scientist. I am, and such sloppiness would never be accepted in my field.
- margalabargala 4mo agoWe've already established liguistics is not your field. You would benefit from gaining even a layman's understanding of it though. I do work as a scientist, but it's not so core to my identity that I throw tantrums over internet comments failing to adhere to the same professional rigor. > I don't care if it's useful to you > such sloppiness would never be accepted in my field. Braden dismissing useful tools and willful blindness to things beyond your exact field, I daresay you are a bad scientist.