Scientific Consensus on the verge of being bunk in Nutrition

[TheonGreyJoy**]

Theon here is a story where a widely held theory was debunked by a regular guy. The theory was bad science that other scientist just took to believe.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/jan/19/mathematics-of-happiness-debunked-nick-brown

Very fascinating stuff.

Also you see how some in the scientific community reacts when this stuff happens.

Fascinating, yes. Thanks. What a great read and proof that scientists and the process of peer review can so easily be biased when there is a lucrative money trail to follow by doing so.

Definitely shows why we should all be skeptics as well of not just the science but also the process of peer review being used as the 'proof'.

 

[TheonGreyJoy**]

What is happening with climate change mirrors what happened with tobacco. People using the term 'denier' are trying to fight fire with fire. Yes it's misguided. Doesn't stop them being demonstrably correct.

It is wrong on both sides

One should always distrust the side with most lobbying dollars. That is those making money off products in your nutrition red herring and oil companies in the climate change debate.

there is every bit as much 'Big Money' on both sides of this debate. Don't be fooled into believing it is just one sided.

I see exactly where you are coming from. Read my last post. There is an article that addresses the issues you are discussing here. Name calling and other tactics like that are informal fallacies and should never be part of any scientists arguments. They should allow the science to prove their point for them.

agreed, 100%.

 

[IDL]

Yes, Yes, Yes!

I hate this increasing politicization I have seen creep exponentially into science and skepticism just in my life time. This idea that it is wrong and bad to be against the consensus and you will be labeled in the most negative ways if you are.

Yeah I think as we see the power and wealth more and more consolidated into fewer hands we'll be seeing this grow.

I think there is an assumption by people that it has become more difficult to put forth false and misleading claims to further an Agenda, like the Tobacco companies did.

In a lot of ways though, it is becoming easier. As power consolidates upwards, the easier it is for powerful people to pass their agendas without dissent.

Add the media consolidation to that as well. Over time we've seen the media bought up and consolidated to just a handful of major corporations so the ability to control information and strategically shape perceptions is much higher now.

And when you look at the revolving door from industry to politics to places like the FDA it is just a field of corruption up there.

 

[TheonGreyJoy**]

What is happening with climate change mirrors what happened with tobacco. People using the term 'denier' are trying to fight fire with fire. Yes it's misguided. Doesn't stop them being demonstrably correct.

One should always distrust the side with most lobbying dollars. That is those making money off products in your nutrition red herring and oil companies in the climate change debate.

just in case you need proof of the Billions and Billions that Wall Street and Al Gore were drooling over see the below quote section.

I am still looking for a quote where Al Gore was speaking at symposium of investors for his GIM Fund and predicted a 'wealth transfer' of over a Trillion dollars if they could price Carbon Credits and create the Market to trade them. He stated is would be bigger than the money changing hands on the regular stock markets.

Blood And Gore: Making A Killing On Anti-Carbon Investment Hype

...Gore told members: “As soon as carbon has a price, you’re going to see a wave [of investment] in it…There will be unchained investment.”

...It is built around the charismatic presence of the ex-vice president Al Gore, whose crusade is to persuade the world of the dangers of climate change caused by global warming…It is now common ground that this is not simply a science film- although it is based substantially on science research and opinion, but it is [clearly] a political film.”

And lets be clear. I am not pointing this out in denial of the politicizing of the issue but interests such as Big Oil, etc.

I just want people to understand that MONEY interests on the other side are equally as big and biased. The team, behind Gore was most of Wall Streets biggest names in that era, many of whom were the guys behind the Sub Prime crisis.

 

[IDL]

I just want people to understand that MONEY interests on the other side are equally as big and biased. The team, behind Gore was most of Wall Streets biggest names in that era, many of whom were the guys behind the Sub Prime crisis.

If you are looking into motivations in regards to this, then i'd say the political motives are far, far, higher than just the monetary ones.

You might want to take a look at the Club of Rome if you haven't already
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_of_Rome

This global think tank was quite open back in the 90's about their political motivations as mentioned in the wiki link.

 

[Gene Tunney]

Anyone who has ventured into the sciences will find many people who take their trade as a calling in life and who strive to find truth, above all else. Then you have those scientists who view their field as a gimmick for a paycheck and are only in the sciences and not selling used cars because they can string together obscure words in a report.

 

[RogerTheAlien]

Literally nothing in the op is some grand new discovery.

 

[TheonGreyJoy**]

Literally nothing in the op is some grand new discovery.

it wasn't meant to be which you would have noticed if you read the thread and saw the great conversations from people who understood and addressed the topic of the OP.

 

[Siderealmotion]

An excellent example of why proper understanding of terminology is important in looking at the sciences. Despite being the prevailing line of thought in nutrition for decades, the diet-heart connection was never elevated above the category of hypothesis. As Zankou pointed out, nutrition is a very difficult field to create controls for.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

Lots of refined carbs and sugar are still the enemy, though.

High-fat, high-protein, low-carb is the way to go.

 

[sangreporsangre]

Honestly though, as a non-coffee drinker who knows and is related to some hardcore coffee fiends, I would advise people who haven't got hooked on it to not get into the habit. I've told my son that, and said look at your grandpa and your uncle. If they don't get coffee for a day, they have terrible headaches. If I don't get my green tea in the morning, I'm fine. Of course, coffee isn't bad in moderation, but try to avoid getting hooked on it.

 

[bosox32]

Is this 1990? None of this is news

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

This

 

[Tooth and Nail]

Fat unhealthy scientists will one day be paid to tell us donuts and Ice cream are all we need to eat, and all the fatties will rejoice.

 

[Phlog]

Overwhelmingly scientists are motivated by respect within their community. This is gained by proving shit wrong or gaining better resolution on a problem.

Do you know any scientists? I do. I'm married to a senior scientist. There are scientists on the take, they are heavily criticised and lose all credibility when such biases are proven.

What TS has described is the reaching of new consensus. This is what happens. It is continously reassessed as new information comes in. Lies are easily revealed. Which is why you don't see a preponderance of evidence against climate change. There is very definite proof. Ice core samples, tree ring data etc which tracks the industrial revolution and pollution since. The only sources which spout anti climate change propaganda are politicians(the most gullible and easily bought)and a tiny percentage of generally discredited shills.

It is not sensible to give idiots and charlatans the same credibility as the large majority of scientists who gain from the publishing of new demonstrable evidence.

You play a game of balancing the fool with the wise man.

Either you or those you listen to have either vested interest to against or lack critical skills in the understanding of science.

 

[TheonGreyJoy**]

Overwhelmingly scientists are motivated by respect within their community. This is gained by proving shit wrong or gaining better resolution on a problem.

Do you know any scientists? I do. I'm married to a senior scientist. There are scientists on the take, they are heavily criticised and lose all credibility when such biases are proven.

What TS has described is the reaching of new consensus. This is what happens. It is continously reassessed as new information comes in. Lies are easily revealed. Which is why you don't see a preponderance of evidence against climate change. There is very definite proof. Ice core samples, tree ring data etc which tracks the industrial revolution and pollution since. The only sources which spout anti climate change propaganda are politicians(the most gullible and easily bought)and a tiny percentage of generally discredited shills.

It is not sensible to give idiots and charlatans the same credibility as the large majority of scientists who gain from the publishing of new demonstrable evidence.

You play a game of balancing the fool with the wise man.

Either you or those you listen to have either vested interest to against or lack critical skills in the understanding of science.

the community has to be open to new information coming in.

That is the issue because even as a scientists with the politicization even looking at or assessing new, contradictory information is spun as bad and being a 'denier', which is synonymous with dumb because you do not agree with all the smart people in the consensus.

We must be vigilant to not allow the politicization of science to drive the skeptics away because we all lose when a consensus must not be challenged.

 

[Siderealmotion]

the community has to be open to new information coming in.

That is the issue because even as a scientists with the politicization even looking at or assessing new, contradictory information is spun as bad and being a 'denier', which is synonymous with dumb because you do not agree with all the smart people in the consensus.

We must be vigilant to not allow the politicization of science to drive the skeptics away because we all lose when a consensus must not be challenged.

That's the awesome thing about science, though. If you come in and challenge the consensus with repeatably, methodologically sound science, your idea becomes the consensus. Pseudoscientists try to pretend that mavericks are excluded and shunned, while reality is that science is based entirely on results. If your kung fu is better, you become the new master.

 

[Flemmy Stardust]

I know very little of nutrition, but even I knew this.

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

If nutrition represented science as a whole then we'd really be fucked.

*Nudges social psychology behind the curtain

 

[TheonGreyJoy**]

That's the awesome thing about science, though. If you come in and challenge the consensus with repeatably, methodologically sound science, your idea becomes the consensus. Pseudoscientists try to pretend that mavericks are excluded and shunned, while reality is that science is based entirely on results. If your kung fu is better, you become the new master.

yes but the skeptics were a known necessary component of advancing science.

Now with the politics involved the skeptics are ones that need to be shut down and purged as we do not want new information that could potentially challenge the status quo. too many are vested in the status quo and care less about right and wrong and just want their position defended.

 

[Bebop]

nutrition is a young science with more politics in it than psychology. it's quite sad.

If nutrition represented science as a whole then we'd really be fucked.

*Nudges social psychology behind the curtain

unsurprisngly, i was beaten to the punch