Live data from Hacker News

Science’s Biggest Fail

blog.dilbert.com

141–150 of 260 posts

Re: Science’s Biggest Fail

#141
There are two things to say about this:

1) Diet and fitness are hard problems because humans evolved as opportunistic hunter-gatherer-scavengers, so we are moderately well adapted to almost any imaginable lifestyle. When the optimum is broad and shallow (which it necessarily is, especially for diet, unless you are an evolution denialist) it is easy to wander around in the noise.

This is made worse by snake-oil salespeople who are dedicated to the idea that the optimum is narrow and deep, and they can sell you its precise location. They take any minor wobble that scientists identify--which based on evolution is almost certainly noise--and declare it the One True Location of Perfect Health.

2) Science fails to get traction with the public because it lacks narrative, which is an idea I explore in a lot more depth here: http://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Theorem-TJ-Radcliffe-ebook/dp/...

Re: Science’s Biggest Fail

#142
post #20

Earlier 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…

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…

>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.

Re: Science’s Biggest Fail

#143
post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem here is not with science itself, but the expectation of what science is, and what it tells us, and how. People are not educated on science, period. The popular perception is that science tells us facts about the world. This is false. What science is, at its core, is a complete and utter acceptance of an extremely high level of doubt and uncertainty. It is living with the unknown, and working with it anywa…

Adams wasn't criticizing science's updating of beliefs on new evidence. He was criticizing the practice of shouting "Hey! We're ultra-certain about this! Very important! You've got to do this!" when the truth was more like, "We kind of have some preliminary evidence this might be bad for you, stay tuned." (And I don't buy the claim that it's just the media overblowing this; why weren't the national academies of scien…

>>He was criticizing the practice of shouting "Hey! We're ultra-certain about this! Very important! You've got to do this!" when the truth was more like, "We kind of have some preliminary evidence this might be bad for you, stay tuned."

This is almost always a result of the "Science News Cycle."

http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?n=1174

Aside from that, there's a lot of pressure on scientists to produce actionable results. People who fund science don't really understand it, and approach it with a mindset of, "I'm investing X dollars per year into this, and I should get Y dollars in return." So scientists either fake confidence in their findings, or fake their data to support their benefactor's cause.

Re: Science’s Biggest Fail

#144

Jeez, I think Scott Adams is barking up a wrong tree here. The reason science has lost credibility is because of vested interest groups who put money into labs so as to get a result tailor made for them. Just as pattern recognition is one of our traits, fudging numbers and data is also up there. Add to it marketing which uses psychology to draw on our strings and play humans as puppets. I would be surprised if all th…

He mentions privately funded scientific ventures being fudged often.

And if what you say is the case, you present a stronger reason for skepticism of scientific claim than mere pattern recognition.

The piece is certainly sensationalist but it presents a valid point and tries to offer a view of understanding of alternative viewpoints. Walking in other people's shoes seems to be something many in the world have trouble doing.

I know I've certainly met some quite militant science folks who think everyone who doesn't vehemently believe in the latest scientific concept is an idiot because p < 0.05. That kind of attitude wins no hearts and changes no minds of the "non believers".

Re: Science’s Biggest Fail

#145
It seems what is missing in nutrition is the ability to _measure the results on your own individual body_ . For example, you can take a blood test, find out you're deficient in vitamin D, supplement for a while, then take another blood test and see results.

But you cannot do that for most things to do with nutrition. You can't check your gut biome, see a problem, take a specific probiotic, then check again and confirm improvement, because we don't understand the gut biome well enough yet.

You can't do it with most supplements. And even when you can, we hardly ever do. Insurance is not going to be a big fan of it.

You also can't do it with switching from margarine to butter, or drinking more water, or whatever it is you think might help. Without some concrete measurable change that you actually measure, you're taking shots in the dark.

I hope wearable devices can make some inroads here, at least for low hanging fruit (easily measured, well-understood things).

Re: Science’s Biggest Fail

#146
post #20

Earlier 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…

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…

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.

Re: Science’s Biggest Fail

#147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 u…

> 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 evid…

Recent studies also question the link between saturated fat and heart disease.

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/17/study-questions-fat...

There is probably no harm replacing saturated fat with polyunsaturated fat, but that's not what happened based on decades of AHA and govt. recommendations. What happened was that people replaced saturated fat with simple carbohydrates and trans fats, got fat, and had heart attacks. Take a look the heart safe foods the AHA currently approves. Bagels, rice, tortillas, orange juice, potatoes, cheerios. It is a recipe for obesity and illness.

http://checkmark.heart.org/ProductsByCategory

Re: Science’s Biggest Fail

#148
> science failed my parents generation with cigarettes

My father said that cigarettes were popularly called "coffin nails" when he was a boy in the 1920s, and that doctors routinely advised their patients to quit smoking. I've never heard of science advising people to smoke.

Any scientist who cut open a smoker and saw those black, puss-filled lungs knew it wasn't good for you.

Re: Science’s Biggest Fail

#149
post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I too am glad this is being realised by some people As an example with vaccines. Mercury containing substances have been phased out (thiomersal). Doctors and news outlets keep pumping information about the bad side of Mercury, etc, etc (which are true for the most part, but maybe exaggerated) But thiomersal is still used in a lot of vaccines. So people get all the negative messages about Mercury but they're supposed…

Very good point about mercury. What are people supposed to think? "Mercury is so bad I'm barely allowed to purchase or handle it, but then I'm supposed to then inject it into my baby?" Yes there's a lot of nuance here, and a lot of cost/benefit analysis around the risk of a tiny amount of mercury (in excretable compound form) vs. the risk of nasty diseases. But it becomes harder to communicate that nuance and be beli…

Well we could stop acting like pure mercury is all that dangerous to begin with...

Re: Science’s Biggest Fail

#150
The best demonstration of the fact that food science has failed, and the fact that commercial influence is prevalent in modern science and academics, is that obesity is still a significant global concern.

Almost everything you can buy at a grocery store in the United States has been altered to make it more addictive. If you go to a store and buy the foods labeled as healthy, you'll soon learn that they're not really that different after all. If you go to a store determined to buy only food that is actually healthy, you're limited practically exclusive to fruits and vegetables, and even that is questionable since we don't know what type of chemical treatments or preservatives have been applied.

"Make everyone eat only celery and go to the gym for 2 hours per day" is just not going to work. It may be a nice fantasy but it is never going to solve the obesity epidemic on a significant scale. Addictive ingredients have the side effect of causing obesity and as long as that's true, people are going to be cajoled into eating incorrectly at every turn, because everyone involved wants to sell you more food.

The obesity epidemic is a result of scientific advancements that have allowed us to acquire an unlimited amount of the most biologically desirable food ingredients on a near-global scale. We can't go back in time and uninvent this stuff, and we can't actually expect people to switch to a diet of 25 celery sticks per day, so we need a scientific solution that solves the problem. And there isn't one, because obesity doesn't really represent a commercial threat to anyone in particular -- if anything, it creates new commercial opportunity for another super-powerful industry in the U.S.: medicine.

Maybe the airline industry will fund a solution once people get too heavy to be effectively carried by airplane.

Post reply on HN