Doing science is a lot like making sausages. There's a lot of conjecture, hypothesizing, testing, making observations, generating theories, testing those theories, throwing out the ones that don't hold up to repeatable studies. I don't think nutrition is unique in that matter. Where it differs from other sciences are: 1. The general public is very interested in the results, and so there's a lot of motivation for peop…
Science’s Biggest Fail
61–70 of 260 posts
Re: Science’s Biggest Fail
#62Re: Science’s Biggest Fail
#63"I think science has earned its lack of credibility with the public. If you kick me in the balls for 20-years, how do you expect me to close my eyes and trust you?" I'm really happy to see that someone else sees this. I've been harping on this for a long time -- that the reason people believe things like anti-vaxx propaganda is not because they are idiots but because scientific authorities, the media, and the medical…
> Believing such things and perpetuating them is an act of (often subconscious) protest -- akin to things like calling yourself a "Satanist" in protest against fundamentalist religion. You might call these kinds of things "protest beliefs." This is fascinating to me. I've read ample studies about how people do this, and I can't understand it as anything but the worst form of petulant childishness. Changing which FACT…
Such things are inherently dickish and often a bit petulant. Our evolutionary forebears liked to fling their own feces to express these kinds of emotions. We do it symbolically. Go listen to some punk rock.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8fLOJswWtk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAaQtDUNZHk
"Punk" style and sentiment isn't popular around here -- this is largely an upper class forum full of top-ten university graduates. When the system is good to you, it's hard to understand why others hate it so much that they're willing to engage in this kind of petulant rage-driven feces-flinging behavior.
Having been raised in a barn in the flyover country on food stamps, I personally really get it. I do not think Apollo was a hoax, but I do think advancing that crackpot theory is a good way to say fuck you to NASA for losing the will to actually go anywhere and to the US government for deciding that Vietnam was more important than humanity's future.
The "fuck you beliefs" effect is IMHO a bit broader than I implied. One of the reasons people are not vaccinating their children is that the president lied to us about Iraq. That's because if you are middle to lower class, the "authorities" start to look like an unreachable monolithic bloc from your perspective... like how a light source loses detail and vanishes into a point at infinity. This effect is magnified if you are both socially and physically distant from your authorities -- which is why a number of these beliefs are much more popular outside of coastal alpha world cities.
Edit:
I thought of another way to explain it, returning to the moon hoax theory...
If you are living in an underwater house in the flyover country somewhere and are working a dead-end job to service that and your mountain of student debt, "we" did not go to the moon. They went to the moon -- the same they who hold your writs of indenture and tell you what you must inject into your children. That "accomplishment" is one of the things they lord over you, so denying it is a way of denying their authority over you. Not vaccinating your kids is another. You don't have the power to escape your socioeconomic situation, but you do have the power to do those things. Protest, like water under pressure, will find whatever holes in a structure it can.
This process is only semi-conscious, and is driven by emotion. The process whereby an elite comes to believe itself above law and decency and to lord its "meritocratic" status over people is also only semi-conscious and driven by emotion. We all share 99.9~% the same genetic material, and none of us are perfectly rational beings.
The popularity of these "antagonistically irrational" beliefs is a major leading indicator of social trust collapse. This will be followed by the collapse of our society, since mutual trust is the basis of civilization. I think the rolling out of things like the surveillance state are due in part to our elite's understanding of this coupled with the fact that they lack the spine to take the high road and actually repair their lost trust by owning up to past mistakes and offering to remedy current wrongs. This in turn will only accelerate our social collapse as people, contrary to popular belief, are not utterly oblivious and see these moves for what they are.
Re: Science’s Biggest Fail
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And this has been shown to be unproven, right? On the specific issue of saturated fat and heart disease (saturated fat isn't the only problem fat -- trans fats are also an issue), its been shown to be more complicated than earlier thought; there's pretty strong evidence that certain high-saturated-fat foodstuffs are associated with higher risk of heart disease, but some large scale studies that seem to indicate tha…
The whole reason trans fats were invented or added to food is that food manufacturers needed a hard fat with the properties of animal fat that came from a vegetable source. The reason for that is scientists claiming that animal fat was bad for you.
Its true that once the health concerns about saturated fats first started appearing, the marketing of margarine and related products leveraged it to imply that there product was more healthy, but that's not why those products were invented.
Re: Science’s Biggest Fail
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
Personally I think medical science and the health care industry are so broken that they should just be rebooted from scratch.
What does that even mean?
Re: Science’s Biggest Fail
#66Re: Science’s Biggest Fail
#67Come to think of it, science related stories about what food is/isn't good for you etc are the original clickbait. They're a headline, when the devil is actually in the details.
A great example is why you hear that horrible list of side effects during every prescription commercial. Once, during testing, someone got cancer. Therefore, it's in theory possible cancer was caused by that medication, however unlikely.
Re: Science’s Biggest Fail
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
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 heal…
Re: Science’s Biggest Fail
#69I could have written the same article after reading the book. A real eye opener and I suspect a similar book will be written about climate science in 30 years.
Re: Science’s Biggest Fail
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
The blame is misplaced here, though. There's no real avenue for science to interact with the public currently (except for /r/AskScience, which is a terrific development). A vast majority of the misleading described is perpetuated by news headlines ending in question marks and "doctors" with mail order degrees trying to sell books. If there's any blame to be placed on scientific institutions it's not that they are bad…
> And how can they compete with exaggeration by media outlets? Well, we've seen lately an uptake in science evangelists like Bill Nye and Neil Degrasse Tyson. Both have been around for a long while, building reputation, but as-of-late both have been on a full assault against fallacies perpetuated by the media and the like. We need more publicly-accepted household-named science evangelists to promote science, how it w…