3 ms·

What about cases where prestigious scientific institutions have deeply held and advanced utterly wrong ideas for decades? Nutritional science is particularly b

by api 12y ago

What about cases where prestigious scientific institutions have deeply held and advanced utterly wrong ideas for decades? Nutritional science is particularly bad in this regard. The recommendations that were advanced from (roughly) the 70s through the 90s lead to obesity and heart disease. One thing in particular comes to mind: margarine. I understand the nature of scientific theory, and that scientific theory is not dogma or absolute revealed truth, but does the public? And was that ever communicated? Vastly and systematically exaggerating your knowledge and certainty of something in order to present a "unified message to the public" is dangerously close to just lying. I also think science is much more vulnerable to corruption by moneyed interests than many people will admit. Research payola is very real. While I'm personally pretty convinced the CO2 problem is real, I do not blame people from being skeptical when government-backed science and jet setting rich do-gooders tell them they must accept higher energy costs and possibly a reduced standard of living in order to combat a threat they cannot directly perceive. It's particularly easy to understand in cases like China and India where fossil fuel energy is lifting billions out of abject poverty. I could afford to pay 3-4X for energy. A Chinese peasant or an American member of the working poor can barely afford to pay 1.01X for energy.

Retric 12y ago
The view on Fat moved a lot less than you might think. People used to eat a lot of fat which we still think is a bad idea. More recently we found that eating too little fat was also a bad idea. As to dietary guidelines, if you pick a target for a 2,000 calorie diet and someone on a 5,000 calorie a day diet tries to hit that same target there is a clear miscommunication going on. And yes, you can eat a relatively healthy 5,000 calorie a day diet if you’re tall and active enough. Or, you can rapidly become morbidly obese on 3k/day if you’re short and inactive. PS: I would suggest to most people that they talk with a registered dietitian nutritionist (RDN). Diet is far from a one size fit's all thing.
- WillPostForFood 12y ago
  Your post is full of the science that people no longer trust. There is plenty of evidence that fat doesn't cause weight gain or heart attacks, and that exercise doesn't lead to weight loss because it makes you hungry. I don't know the correct answer, but I know there is a lot of uncertainty now, and there seemed to be no uncertainty in the food pyramid days.
  - Retric 12y ago
    The current science does suggest eating too much fat is still bad. EX: "The American Heart Association’s Nutrition Committee strongly advises these fat guidelines for healthy Americans over age 2: •Eating between 25 and 35 percent of your total daily calories as fats from foods like fish, nuts, and vegetable oils." http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/Conditions/Cholesterol/PreventionTreatmentofHighCholesterol/Know-Your-Fats_UCM_305628_Article.jsp http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/Conditions/Cholesterol/Prevent... Note both the lower and upper bound. Eating say 75% of your daily calories as fat is generally a bad idea for most people. But so is limiting yourself to 1%. PS: This is one of those cases where oversimplification can be harmful. But, while looking at people with extremely high fat diets demonstrated a problem the translation from limit to eliminate is what most people heard.
    - WillPostForFood 12y ago
      According to that page you need to lower saturated fat to 5%-6% of calories. I'm suggesting that current science does not support the connection between saturated fat and heart disease. Nor does current science support their recommendation to cut salt. The AHA recommendations have been a dietary disaster for 30 years because they suggest that low fat food can be eaten without consequence, which has led to a massive uptake in the consumption of sugar and processed carbohydrates. And it was largely based on bad science.
      - dragonwriter 12y ago
        > According to that page you need to lower saturated fat to 5%-6% of calories. I'm suggesting that current science does not support the connection between saturated fat and heart disease. Studies, including recent ones, show that replacing saturated fat with polyunsaturated fat reduces cardiovascular disease risk (IIRC, in both sexes, but moreso in men than women.) Mostly, what's changed is that we now also have evidence that replacing saturated fat with trans fat or carbohydrates is, at best, no better than just staying with saturated fat.
        12y ago
- DanBC 12y ago
  Parent post mentions "margerine". We used to think that eating too much saturated fats caused heart disease. We switched people onto different types of fats. Tragically, we switched people onto trans-fats which we know now are terrible. The current advice (avoid saturated fat) is questioned by some calm scientists. It's frustrating that shifting scientific advice provides space for fucking wingnuts to spout nonsense.
  - api 12y ago
    Shifting advice coupled with dogmatic and unflinching posturing of authority provides ample space for fucking wingnuts to spout nonsense. It even works against religions -- this sort of thing led to the protestant reformation. "I am infallible, but the last Pope was wrong..." If you really look into the history of it, the protestants led by people like Calvin were often as bad as or worse than the Catholic Church and the understanding of theology was often quite crackpot. They gained power because the Mother Church discredited itself through hypocrisy, corruption, and self-contradiction.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
samspot 12y ago
What if the 70's science is right and current thought is wrong? There is no way to know! Argghghggh!
cookiecaper 12y ago
>I understand the nature of scientific theory, and that scientific theory is not dogma or absolute revealed truth, but does the public? And was that ever communicated? Yes, people are generally not hostile to science and understand it's a best-effort work-in-progress-type thing. The problem is that the Science Zealots haven't gotten this memo, and go around flashing "studies" in peoples' faces (often completely without specificity) like it justifies something. When they do this, people get defensive. The "rejection of science" is the rejection of science as inviolable truth, dogma, religion, not the rejection of the continuing enterprise of cooperative human improvement. If someone says "I can't even speak to someone who is anti-vax/anti-climate change/anti-same-sex marriage/etc", this is religiously motivated bigotry.
- api 12y ago
  The Science-as-religion movement, which I personally call fundamentalist positivism, is doing more harm to science than a million creationists and anti-vaccinationinsts and faith healers could possibly do. It undermines science from within by performing a kind of deep epistemological bait and switch -- replacing scientific epistemology at the root with religious epistemology while leaving the layers above superficially unchanged. Destroy it with fire.
  - lotharbot 12y ago
    I've seen this a handful of times, where someone with legit science credentials will say something like "the lesson of science is" and then follow it up with an entirely philosophical conclusion. Like "... there is no purpose to the universe" (that comes from Dr. Jerry Coyne.) I'm not aware of any scientific experiment or framework to test the hypothesis that there is or isn't a purpose to the universe, nor even the possibility of creating such an experiment. But a fairly well renowned scientist made that claim -- essentially a philosophical-religious claim -- under the label of science. I wouldn't say that does more harm to science than creationists etc. Instead, I'd say it contributes to the same mentality. It treats science as a label for a certain belief system, rather than a label for a set of processes and the data/explanations tied to those processes. As you say, it replaces scientific epistemology with religious epistemology -- stripping away the thing that makes science universal, and replacing it with something that makes it tribal.
loqi 12y ago
Speaking of recommendations that lead to heart disease, three sarcastic cheers for massively understating the risks associated with abstinence from alcohol. Mostly I just hear "moderate consumption is associated with some health benefits", which isn't anywhere close to conveying the findings (questionable, as always!) that not drinking is almost as risky as "heavy" drinking. Especially considering that you practically have to be a raging alcoholic to fall into the "heavy" category.
- apl 12y ago
  Do you have any decent sources on that one?
  - loqi 12y ago
    Didn't hang onto any links, sorry. The stuff I saw will probably turn up in a search for "alcohol" and "total mortality", though.
    - stephengillie 12y ago
      http://www.psmag.com/health-and-behavior/truth-wont-admit-drinking-healthy-87891 http://www.psmag.com/health-and-behavior/truth-wont-admit-dr... http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2017200,00.html http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2017200...
- yaddayadda 12y ago
  FYI: In regard to articles published in the Daily Mail about cancer research results, alcohol is still in the mixed camp, but leaning toward 'causes cancer'. beer both causes and prevents cancer (1 prevents: 5 causes) - http://kill-or-cure.herokuapp.com/a-z/b#term52 http://kill-or-cure.herokuapp.com/a-z/b#term52 wine both causes and prevents cancer (not counting dups - 14 prevents : 17 causes) - http://kill-or-cure.herokuapp.com/a-z/w#term234 http://kill-or-cure.herokuapp.com/a-z/w#term234
- tsotha 12y ago
  Adams has a good point relating to alcohol, though. They haven't been unable to untangle correlation and causation. I used to be a "moderate drinker" until I developed (unrelated) health problems that mean taking medication every day. When I take my meds I can't drink. These health problems are statistically likely to end me sooner than most people. So I'm likely going to be in the "doesn't drink dies earlier than average" column, but it has nothing to do with alcohol.
rybosome 12y ago
"...they must accept higher energy costs and possibly a reduced standard of living in order to combat a threat they cannot directly perceive." That's a tough one. From the perspective of a person whose livelihood depends on CO2-producing resources, or for whom the additional cost would push them into poverty, I can't blame them for feeling resistant - particularly when there is still debate as to the veracity, credibility and authenticity of the science. On the other hand, what if the climate scientists are correct? The idea that we must immediately take action or risk consequences ranging from disruption to extinction is terrifying. It is my hope that rather than forcing a small segment of the population to fall on their swords for the rest of us, we could instead transition gently to alternatives. This requires that we heavily invest in research and development for renewable sources in addition to providing tax incentives so that this reaches price parity with fossil-fuel-derived energy. I think that's very doable, but it means making this a priority; this is why Palin's "drill baby, drill" instantly lost my vote.
- TeMPOraL 12y ago
  And here is where the general population's mistrust in science makes us dig our own graves. You have all sorts of movements, from lobbies to NIMBYs to "environmentalist" organizations blocking transition to sustainable energy. And sadly, I just can't imagine a modern democracy really committing to an infrastructure project as big as rebuilding the power grid. We need more Elon Musks, who will push the right solutions in spite of the market, and in spite of what people say.
  - rybosome 12y ago
    Honestly, I agree. In some ways when I think about the future I feel very hopeful; advancements in narrow AI and medical technology in particular are very easy to imagine as beneficial. Mostly though I feel very cynical and depressed by what appears to be the cultivation of ignorance as a virtue. I am convinced that we are fucked, barring a massive breakthrough in photovoltaic efficiency or nuclear fusion.
    - TeMPOraL 12y ago

by api 12y ago

Retric 12y ago

The view on Fat moved a lot less than you might think. People used to eat a lot of fat which we still think is a bad idea. More recently we found that eating too little fat was also a bad idea. As to dietary guidelines, if you pick a target for a 2,000 calorie diet and someone on a 5,000 calorie a day diet tries to hit that same target there is a clear miscommunication going on. And yes, you can eat a relatively healthy 5,000 calorie a day diet if you’re tall and active enough. Or, you can rapidly become morbidly obese on 3k/day if you’re short and inactive. PS: I would suggest to most people that they talk with a registered dietitian nutritionist (RDN). Diet is far from a one size fit's all thing.

WillPostForFood 12y ago
Your post is full of the science that people no longer trust. There is plenty of evidence that fat doesn't cause weight gain or heart attacks, and that exercise doesn't lead to weight loss because it makes you hungry. I don't know the correct answer, but I know there is a lot of uncertainty now, and there seemed to be no uncertainty in the food pyramid days.
- Retric 12y ago
  The current science does suggest eating too much fat is still bad. EX: "The American Heart Association’s Nutrition Committee strongly advises these fat guidelines for healthy Americans over age 2: •Eating between 25 and 35 percent of your total daily calories as fats from foods like fish, nuts, and vegetable oils." http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/Conditions/Cholesterol/PreventionTreatmentofHighCholesterol/Know-Your-Fats_UCM_305628_Article.jsp http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/Conditions/Cholesterol/Prevent... Note both the lower and upper bound. Eating say 75% of your daily calories as fat is generally a bad idea for most people. But so is limiting yourself to 1%. PS: This is one of those cases where oversimplification can be harmful. But, while looking at people with extremely high fat diets demonstrated a problem the translation from limit to eliminate is what most people heard.
  - WillPostForFood 12y ago
    According to that page you need to lower saturated fat to 5%-6% of calories. I'm suggesting that current science does not support the connection between saturated fat and heart disease. Nor does current science support their recommendation to cut salt. The AHA recommendations have been a dietary disaster for 30 years because they suggest that low fat food can be eaten without consequence, which has led to a massive uptake in the consumption of sugar and processed carbohydrates. And it was largely based on bad science.
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      > According to that page you need to lower saturated fat to 5%-6% of calories. I'm suggesting that current science does not support the connection between saturated fat and heart disease. Studies, including recent ones, show that replacing saturated fat with polyunsaturated fat reduces cardiovascular disease risk (IIRC, in both sexes, but moreso in men than women.) Mostly, what's changed is that we now also have evidence that replacing saturated fat with trans fat or carbohydrates is, at best, no better than just staying with saturated fat.
      - 12y ago
DanBC 12y ago
Parent post mentions "margerine". We used to think that eating too much saturated fats caused heart disease. We switched people onto different types of fats. Tragically, we switched people onto trans-fats which we know now are terrible. The current advice (avoid saturated fat) is questioned by some calm scientists. It's frustrating that shifting scientific advice provides space for fucking wingnuts to spout nonsense.
- api 12y ago
  Shifting advice coupled with dogmatic and unflinching posturing of authority provides ample space for fucking wingnuts to spout nonsense. It even works against religions -- this sort of thing led to the protestant reformation. "I am infallible, but the last Pope was wrong..." If you really look into the history of it, the protestants led by people like Calvin were often as bad as or worse than the Catholic Church and the understanding of theology was often quite crackpot. They gained power because the Mother Church discredited itself through hypocrisy, corruption, and self-contradiction.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

samspot 12y ago

What if the 70's science is right and current thought is wrong? There is no way to know! Argghghggh!

cookiecaper 12y ago

>I understand the nature of scientific theory, and that scientific theory is not dogma or absolute revealed truth, but does the public? And was that ever communicated? Yes, people are generally not hostile to science and understand it's a best-effort work-in-progress-type thing. The problem is that the Science Zealots haven't gotten this memo, and go around flashing "studies" in peoples' faces (often completely without specificity) like it justifies something. When they do this, people get defensive. The "rejection of science" is the rejection of science as inviolable truth, dogma, religion, not the rejection of the continuing enterprise of cooperative human improvement. If someone says "I can't even speak to someone who is anti-vax/anti-climate change/anti-same-sex marriage/etc", this is religiously motivated bigotry.

api 12y ago
The Science-as-religion movement, which I personally call fundamentalist positivism, is doing more harm to science than a million creationists and anti-vaccinationinsts and faith healers could possibly do. It undermines science from within by performing a kind of deep epistemological bait and switch -- replacing scientific epistemology at the root with religious epistemology while leaving the layers above superficially unchanged. Destroy it with fire.
- lotharbot 12y ago
  I've seen this a handful of times, where someone with legit science credentials will say something like "the lesson of science is" and then follow it up with an entirely philosophical conclusion. Like "... there is no purpose to the universe" (that comes from Dr. Jerry Coyne.) I'm not aware of any scientific experiment or framework to test the hypothesis that there is or isn't a purpose to the universe, nor even the possibility of creating such an experiment. But a fairly well renowned scientist made that claim -- essentially a philosophical-religious claim -- under the label of science. I wouldn't say that does more harm to science than creationists etc. Instead, I'd say it contributes to the same mentality. It treats science as a label for a certain belief system, rather than a label for a set of processes and the data/explanations tied to those processes. As you say, it replaces scientific epistemology with religious epistemology -- stripping away the thing that makes science universal, and replacing it with something that makes it tribal.

loqi 12y ago

Speaking of recommendations that lead to heart disease, three sarcastic cheers for massively understating the risks associated with abstinence from alcohol. Mostly I just hear "moderate consumption is associated with some health benefits", which isn't anywhere close to conveying the findings (questionable, as always!) that not drinking is almost as risky as "heavy" drinking. Especially considering that you practically have to be a raging alcoholic to fall into the "heavy" category.

apl 12y ago
Do you have any decent sources on that one?
- loqi 12y ago
  Didn't hang onto any links, sorry. The stuff I saw will probably turn up in a search for "alcohol" and "total mortality", though.
  - stephengillie 12y ago
    http://www.psmag.com/health-and-behavior/truth-wont-admit-drinking-healthy-87891 http://www.psmag.com/health-and-behavior/truth-wont-admit-dr... http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2017200,00.html http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2017200...
yaddayadda 12y ago
FYI: In regard to articles published in the Daily Mail about cancer research results, alcohol is still in the mixed camp, but leaning toward 'causes cancer'. beer both causes and prevents cancer (1 prevents: 5 causes) - http://kill-or-cure.herokuapp.com/a-z/b#term52 http://kill-or-cure.herokuapp.com/a-z/b#term52 wine both causes and prevents cancer (not counting dups - 14 prevents : 17 causes) - http://kill-or-cure.herokuapp.com/a-z/w#term234 http://kill-or-cure.herokuapp.com/a-z/w#term234
tsotha 12y ago
Adams has a good point relating to alcohol, though. They haven't been unable to untangle correlation and causation. I used to be a "moderate drinker" until I developed (unrelated) health problems that mean taking medication every day. When I take my meds I can't drink. These health problems are statistically likely to end me sooner than most people. So I'm likely going to be in the "doesn't drink dies earlier than average" column, but it has nothing to do with alcohol.

rybosome 12y ago

"...they must accept higher energy costs and possibly a reduced standard of living in order to combat a threat they cannot directly perceive." That's a tough one. From the perspective of a person whose livelihood depends on CO2-producing resources, or for whom the additional cost would push them into poverty, I can't blame them for feeling resistant - particularly when there is still debate as to the veracity, credibility and authenticity of the science. On the other hand, what if the climate scientists are correct? The idea that we must immediately take action or risk consequences ranging from disruption to extinction is terrifying. It is my hope that rather than forcing a small segment of the population to fall on their swords for the rest of us, we could instead transition gently to alternatives. This requires that we heavily invest in research and development for renewable sources in addition to providing tax incentives so that this reaches price parity with fossil-fuel-derived energy. I think that's very doable, but it means making this a priority; this is why Palin's "drill baby, drill" instantly lost my vote.

TeMPOraL 12y ago
And here is where the general population's mistrust in science makes us dig our own graves. You have all sorts of movements, from lobbies to NIMBYs to "environmentalist" organizations blocking transition to sustainable energy. And sadly, I just can't imagine a modern democracy really committing to an infrastructure project as big as rebuilding the power grid. We need more Elon Musks, who will push the right solutions in spite of the market, and in spite of what people say.
- rybosome 12y ago
  Honestly, I agree. In some ways when I think about the future I feel very hopeful; advancements in narrow AI and medical technology in particular are very easy to imagine as beneficial. Mostly though I feel very cynical and depressed by what appears to be the cultivation of ignorance as a virtue. I am convinced that we are fucked, barring a massive breakthrough in photovoltaic efficiency or nuclear fusion.
  - TeMPOraL 12y ago