4 ms·

What you are saying is scientifically false. As in: there is no evidence this is true, and the opposite has in fact been demonstrated. It may FEEL like you're

by rjurney 17y ago

What you are saying is scientifically false. As in: there is no evidence this is true, and the opposite has in fact been demonstrated. It may FEEL like you're getting more nutrients - but you aren't. You are getting fewer traces of pesticide, which is probably a good thing. But nutrients - no.

antonovka 17y ago
Neither of you have referenced supporting papers or research. Which one of you is correct?
- rjurney 17y ago
  http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/29/organic-food-nutrition-fsa http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/29/organic-fo...
  - antonovka 17y ago
    "The findings, partly published today in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, contradict previous work that has found organically grown food to be nutritionally superior." It doesn't seem as cut and dry as you've made it out to be above, but I'm no expert.
dejb 17y ago
Yes some evidence please. The most recent paper that supposedly 'debunked' the differences in nutrients actually did show some differences but the authors chose to describe them as negligible. The study certainly did not seem comprehensive enough to be definitive.
- rjurney 17y ago
  The authors said they were statistically insignificant - which means they have not been demonstrated as being present. Some studies showed organic had inferior quality. Vegetables have incredible amounts of variance.
  - dejb 17y ago
    One study such as this does not offer conclusive evidence. If you actually read all the way through the article you linked to you would see that there are numerous problems with the headline interpretations. One example 'The appendix of the FSA report shows that some nutrients, such as beta-carotene, are as much as 53% higher in organic food, but such differences are not reflected in its conclusions.' I suggest that if you are going to attempt to wield the sword of 'scientific proof' you should at least have some understanding of how it works. 'scientifically false' is a very strong statement. When used without proper evidence it does just as great an injury to science as a combined crystal healer / homoeopathy convention.
    - rjurney 17y ago
      I would suggest you actually parse what it says - that was a review of multiple studies. There are studies that swing either way.
      - dejb 17y ago
        'There are studies that swing either way' <> 'scientifically false' That is my whole point.
        rjurney 17y ago
        That is correct. He made an assertion of fact, and the assertion was scientifically false.
        dejb 17y ago
        Applying the words 'scientifically false' to any unproven proposition is ridiculous. Under that criteria most statements made by people would be 'scientifically false'. What point would there be in saying that? When a statement is made in isolation it could mean many things 'I think that X' || 'I've heard that X' || 'Most people think X' || 'It seems likely that X' || 'It is scientifically proven that X' You've obviously chosen the last one but there is no clear reason why. Even then it would strictly speaking be 'factually incorrect' not 'scientifically incorrect'. The interpretation most people (i.e. the correct interpretation) of 'scientifically false' is 'scientifically disproven'. When you make a statement like this you muddy the waters for those you aren't alert. Look at it logically. Let's say further studies do turn out show that organic food does actually have more micro-nutrients (as you seem to accept there is some possibility of). So the original statement magically transforms from being 'scientifically false' to scientifically true'?

by rjurney 17y ago

antonovka 17y ago

Neither of you have referenced supporting papers or research. Which one of you is correct?

rjurney 17y ago
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/29/organic-food-nutrition-fsa http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/29/organic-fo...
- antonovka 17y ago
  "The findings, partly published today in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, contradict previous work that has found organically grown food to be nutritionally superior." It doesn't seem as cut and dry as you've made it out to be above, but I'm no expert.

dejb 17y ago

Yes some evidence please. The most recent paper that supposedly 'debunked' the differences in nutrients actually did show some differences but the authors chose to describe them as negligible. The study certainly did not seem comprehensive enough to be definitive.

rjurney 17y ago
The authors said they were statistically insignificant - which means they have not been demonstrated as being present. Some studies showed organic had inferior quality. Vegetables have incredible amounts of variance.
- dejb 17y ago
  One study such as this does not offer conclusive evidence. If you actually read all the way through the article you linked to you would see that there are numerous problems with the headline interpretations. One example 'The appendix of the FSA report shows that some nutrients, such as beta-carotene, are as much as 53% higher in organic food, but such differences are not reflected in its conclusions.' I suggest that if you are going to attempt to wield the sword of 'scientific proof' you should at least have some understanding of how it works. 'scientifically false' is a very strong statement. When used without proper evidence it does just as great an injury to science as a combined crystal healer / homoeopathy convention.
  - rjurney 17y ago
    I would suggest you actually parse what it says - that was a review of multiple studies. There are studies that swing either way.
    - dejb 17y ago
      'There are studies that swing either way' <> 'scientifically false' That is my whole point.
      - rjurney 17y ago
        That is correct. He made an assertion of fact, and the assertion was scientifically false.
        dejb 17y ago
        Applying the words 'scientifically false' to any unproven proposition is ridiculous. Under that criteria most statements made by people would be 'scientifically false'. What point would there be in saying that? When a statement is made in isolation it could mean many things 'I think that X' || 'I've heard that X' || 'Most people think X' || 'It seems likely that X' || 'It is scientifically proven that X' You've obviously chosen the last one but there is no clear reason why. Even then it would strictly speaking be 'factually incorrect' not 'scientifically incorrect'. The interpretation most people (i.e. the correct interpretation) of 'scientifically false' is 'scientifically disproven'. When you make a statement like this you muddy the waters for those you aren't alert. Look at it logically. Let's say further studies do turn out show that organic food does actually have more micro-nutrients (as you seem to accept there is some possibility of). So the original statement magically transforms from being 'scientifically false' to scientifically true'?