Scientific Consensus on the verge of being bunk in Nutrition

Discussion in 'Mayberry Lounge' started by TheonGreyJoy**, Jun 6, 2014.

  1. TheonGreyJoy**

    TheonGreyJoy** Banned Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2013
    Messages:
    4,899
    Likes Received:
    13
    Edit as suggested...


    It was about as near to a full consensus as science has seen and it was directly related to our health and well being.

    Fats are bad and Saturated fats are evil and the enemy. You did not want to be a scientist on the other side of this debate.

    In my personal experience in my first career job as a QA Manager for a major food Co, our focus based on the data being provided was to purge our foods and processes of saturated fats and foods like Coconut Oil which are now recognized as a Super food were replaced by oils like processed Canola and Soy which are now considered bad.




    There is no bigger example of this as to why skepticism in science must not only be maintained but encouraged. If a consensus is formed and those outside the consensus are ridiculed and pressure tactics are used to try and force them to conform because THIS TIME WE ARE ABSOLUTELY SURE WE ARE RIGHT, no body benefits. We learn as much through challenging convention as we do in coming to conclusions.
     
    Last edited: Jun 6, 2014
  2. Pliny Pete

    Pliny Pete Puts Butts In Seats

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2014
    Messages:
    16,837
    Likes Received:
    53,790
    Location:
    Taco Truck On The Corner
    I dont wanna talk to no scientist
     
  3. Rykusx

    Rykusx Green Belt

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2006
    Messages:
    1,179
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Bonny Scotland
    I have no idea what the OP is about.

    Most of the points OP brings up have been known about for years...nothing new at all and certainly no evidence whatsoever that "scientific consensus is on the verge of being bunk".

    Your comments about salt are a bit misleading as well. Salt certainly is essential to a balanced diet, but too much of it can kill you - excess sodium is a massive, massive public health problem.
     
  4. Jballer

    Jballer Red Belt

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2009
    Messages:
    7,890
    Likes Received:
    4,651
    Location:
    NJ Transit train car #5351
    Is this 1990? None of this is news

    But like all things, moderation is key. Too much of anything can kill you.
     
  5. TheonGreyJoy**

    TheonGreyJoy** Banned Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2013
    Messages:
    4,899
    Likes Received:
    13
    so what if they have been known about for years. For decades prior the consensus in science was the opposite and yes it can take 'years' of data to break such strongly held views from past decades.

    the OP is about why a 'consensus' in science in a topic should never dissuade skeptics from challenging the prevailing views and how consensus' can be proved wrong after the fact as more and more data comes in.
     
  6. Dogstarman

    Dogstarman Old man jiu jitsu

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2006
    Messages:
    11,586
    Likes Received:
    4,542
    Location:
    On the mats
    The thing about science is that they can change their views on things. It may take a while but if you present enough evidence they will change.

    Nutrition is one of those areas where they are starting to make good progress on now. It's not perfect but they are trying.

    Also, this nutrition evidence you have posted is actually old news.
     
  7. TheonGreyJoy**

    TheonGreyJoy** Banned Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2013
    Messages:
    4,899
    Likes Received:
    13
    it is not about the specifics of the articles and the STILL emerging evidence to support the NEWER views.

    it is about how something that was about a strong a scientific consensus from about the 1960's to 2000 has been slowly been torn apart and proved wrong in the last decade.

    There is a view amongst many that if a consensus in science is achieved it equals fact and those skeptics in science who challenge that consensus need to be demonized and drummed out.

    this huge turn shows exactly why that is not the case.
     
  8. thebluerider

    thebluerider caelgender ftw

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2007
    Messages:
    24,845
    Likes Received:
    1,791
    Location:
    the caelgenderverse
    i feel like they change there minds on coffee every 3-5 years.
     
  9. Michaelangelo

    Michaelangelo Okay USA Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2010
    Messages:
    26,094
    Likes Received:
    46,982
    2 glasses a wine a day keeps spousal abuse away.
     
  10. TheonGreyJoy**

    TheonGreyJoy** Banned Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2013
    Messages:
    4,899
    Likes Received:
    13
    yes, as long as skepticism is not demonized and discouraged to prevent other facts information being entered into the dialogue. As long as the scientists who pursue skepticism are not ostracized and punished.

    And see my post above as this is not about the articles per se.
     
  11. JosephDredd

    JosephDredd Gold Belt

    Joined:
    May 29, 2013
    Messages:
    21,008
    Likes Received:
    24,982
    Things changed because skeptics provided a scientifically-testable response. People who are not providing scientifically sound arguments should get their shit together if they really want to make change.
     
  12. jackietreehorn8

    jackietreehorn8 fine

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2010
    Messages:
    13,477
    Likes Received:
    635
    You should cut and paste this as the very first thing in your OP...the thread will do better. It's fairly confusing as it stands.


    Also, while I agree with you in principal, I really don't like encouraging people who are just "entitled to their opinion", even if that opinion runs opposite to everything the evidence and science tells them. Too many people think they are smarter than science and entitled to their opinion on issues that they are 100% empirically and demonstrably wrong about.
     
  13. TheonGreyJoy**

    TheonGreyJoy** Banned Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2013
    Messages:
    4,899
    Likes Received:
    13
    And most important to your point is those scientists were not dissuaded from pursuing the science that disproved the consensus. If you demonize and try and make sure no scientists pursue counter type information you make it unlikely such 'scientifically-testable responses' will be found.

    In the end the nut of my point is that scientist need to be left free or politics and coercion and skepticism must once again be welcomed into science since it was considered one of the corner stones of science prior to this modern era.

    This thread is proof of why skepticism against the strongest consensus is a very good thing.
     
  14. TheonGreyJoy**

    TheonGreyJoy** Banned Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2013
    Messages:
    4,899
    Likes Received:
    13
    Took your suggestion. thx.

    And this goes well beyond individuals. In todays politicalized climate, scientists are dissuaded and demonized for being skeptics and can pay a high monetary cost.
     
  15. JosephDredd

    JosephDredd Gold Belt

    Joined:
    May 29, 2013
    Messages:
    21,008
    Likes Received:
    24,982
    Scientific skeptics = deserve some room to speak. Non-scientific skeptics = deserve to get angry when people ignore them.
     
  16. TheBox

    TheBox Brown Belt

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2008
    Messages:
    4,432
    Likes Received:
    7
    Can you provide some examples you take issue with?
     
  17. TheonGreyJoy**

    TheonGreyJoy** Banned Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2013
    Messages:
    4,899
    Likes Received:
    13
    I am trying to not make this thread about one hot button topic and trying to keep it on the topic of 'skepticism in science IN GENERAL' being a good thing.

    So no, I do not want to give an example as I am pretty sure I will then end up trolling my own thread as it devolves into the same old topic.
     
  18. Dogstarman

    Dogstarman Old man jiu jitsu

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2006
    Messages:
    11,586
    Likes Received:
    4,542
    Location:
    On the mats
    You do know that if you prove a long standing theory in science wrong you become famous and are able to get more money be it grant money or from publishing books or what have you.

    The thing about science is you need to be able to show proof and retest your theory. You can't just be a dude who says I don't believe you your wrong because of x. You need to present evidence why x proves the long standing theory wrong.
     
  19. TheonGreyJoy**

    TheonGreyJoy** Banned Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2013
    Messages:
    4,899
    Likes Received:
    13
    yes, but again in this era of very politicized science it is not supported to be a skeptic.

    If you are a scientist in the University supporting the prevailing theories your university can get massive grants and lots of gov't money. You can and will get your university cut off from that money if you are pursuing the opposite side.
     
  20. SeventySeven

    SeventySeven Blue Belt

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Messages:
    700
    Likes Received:
    166
    Scientific 'studies' are paid for by people with agendas to push. Simple as that. You want to remove politics from mainstream science? Good fuckin' luck!

    Just look at the global warming fiasco...
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.