[deleted]
Science’s Biggest Fail
111–120 of 260 posts
Re: Science’s Biggest Fail
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And yet, for a while now, the general "scientific consensus" has been "fat is bad for you", No, it hasn't. The general scientific consensus may have been that most Americans are consuming fat in general, and certain varieties of fat in particular, at levels which are unhealthy , and therefore that most Americans would be better off reducing fat intake in general, and certain common varieties of fat intake in partic…
The scientific consensus was worse than "fat is bad for you", it was saturated fat is bad, so switch from butter to trans fat loaded margarine. It lead to things like McDonalds using hydrogenated vegetable oil instead of saturated fat laden beef tallow in their fryers. The scientific consensus was specifically wrong on the types of fat that were bad.
> The scientific consensus was worse than "fat is bad for you", it was saturated fat is bad, so switch from butter to trans fat loaded margarine.
That recommendation was never "the scientific consensus" -- for most of the time after saturated fat was identified as a concern and before trans fats were identified as a specific concern, the scientific consensus was that the best change was to eliminate the saturated fats and not replace them, since most people that were getting too much saturated fats were also getting too many calories and too much of their intake in the form of fat of any kind.
Obviously, marketers of alternative fat products had a different viewpoint.
And, actually, the scientific consensus still seems to mostly be that saturated fat is bad from a cardiovascular disease perspective, what has mostly evolved is that trans fats and carbohydrates as replacements now appear to be equally bad, and the value of monounsaturated fats as replacements is unclear -- studies focusing on replacement show that replacing saturated fats with polyunsatured fats generally is beneficial. There's also some reason to think that more research is needed on particular kinds of saturated fats, and that there may be significant differences between them (milk fat may be beneficial, for instance.)
Re: Science’s Biggest Fail
#113"How do you make people trust a system that is designed to get wrong answers more often than right answers?" You can start by teaching kids how real science is actually done in order to get them to understand and trust the process rather than the we-only-deal-in-absolutes pop-news headlines.
Shortest, most concise version of the right answer.
Science is the doubt and uncertainty part, not the results part. New and better results should always be celebrated, and when framed right, they are.
We need better science and liberal arts education for everyone. We no longer live in a world where it is optional.
Re: Science’s Biggest Fail
#114I have a pet theory that half the reason that the public bought the overly simplistic theory that fats are bad is due to the collision in English between the word "fat" as a type of substance, and the common use of the word "fat" as a pejorative adjective. This has even affected some of my family members for whom English is a second language, but who learned both meanings of the word simultaneously in the 80s in the…
I think another reason people jumped all over it was vegetarianism - less fat (especially saturated) equates to eating less meat. Whether you are a vegetarian for environmental (raising meat requires much more resources) or for ethical (PETA) you would want to latch on to the low fat thing because it agreed with you.
Re: Science’s Biggest Fail
#115The major problem is the influence of big corporations in funding studies and promoting certain points of view for their own benefit. This is a huge problem in the food industry and also the drugs and medicine business. If you look at the history of the popularity of vitamins, orange juice, the promotion of carbohydrates and sugars over fats and proteins etc. Not a problem with Science per se.
> The major problem is the influence of big corporations in funding studies and promoting certain points of view
If we cut government spending on science, then we are more dependent on private sources and their interests. Public funding is decided through a democratic process in the public's interest; private funders have their own interests and motivations, which even if altruistic might not be the best use of resources.
Re: Science’s Biggest Fail
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
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.
[deleted]
Re: Science’s Biggest Fail
#117I think there's a very real truth to what he's saying. I find myself wholly skeptical whenever I hear about the results of any scientific discovery such as a breakthrough in cancer research or diet/health issues.
Partly to blame are media outlets rushing to publish "definitive" results to get a headline before overwhelming evidence that the results are in fact conclusive before they are known to be. Also to blame are of course, scientists themselves, who conduct faulty research and publish the results in a conclusive manner prematurely as well.
That said, I think there's a distinction that needs to be made that Adams did not at the end of the post. He says that people are skeptical as to whether climate change is real due to the aforementioned credibility issues. I don't think this is really true. Most rational people (I realize that there are many who are not) do not dispute the existence of climate change. Any scan of climate data over the past century or photos of receding glaciers can quickly and conclusively show that climate change exists. What most people are skeptical of (and something that I do not believe scientists have yet convincingly proven) is that humans are directly responsible for the climate change. The climate of the earth was increasing prior to the industrial revolution, so how much humans are to blame is very much a debatable point.
To qualify that, I have no vested interest in either side of that argument, however as a skeptical person, I do not believe that there is convincing evidence to support the claim. My father, who was a geologist and climatologist had the same belief. I think for me the issue is that people, scientists and reporters alike, have proven themselves to just not be that smart. They lack credibility because they continue to make claims that are shown to be false. How many reports did we hear that oil was going to spike to $300/barrel and that the economy was on the brink of collapse? How'd that turn out?
Re: Science’s Biggest Fail
#118The major problem is the influence of big corporations in funding studies and promoting certain points of view for their own benefit. This is a huge problem in the food industry and also the drugs and medicine business. If you look at the history of the popularity of vitamins, orange juice, the promotion of carbohydrates and sugars over fats and proteins etc. Not a problem with Science per se.
It's not just corporations. Science funding, generally, is far too tied to producing results that fit with the preconceptions of the group with the money. Combined with peer review being a frighteningly effective mechanism for enforcing the status quo, and it's unsurprising that once an idea is entrenched moving away becomes nearly impossible. The underlying problem is an insufficient diversity in sources of funding…
Well put. I know someone who has elegantly solved five major outstanding problems in physics. The mystery of dark energy, one of the top 10 physics problems, is only one of them. But science is an industry nowadays, and there's no grant money in these solutions (indeed, grant money would more likely be pulled) so the odds of this person being listened to is nil.
Re: Science’s Biggest Fail
#119"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…
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 science criticizing the food pyramid, at least in the sense of "okay it's not actually that important to eat 11 servings of bread a day".)
The point, then, is: don't be surprised when people are skeptical in those cases where you really are deservedly confident (e.g. vaccines).
If your evidence isn't very good and prone to being updated, that's fine! Just don't pretend to be confident it it.
Re: Science’s Biggest Fail
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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/Prevent... Note both the lower and upper bound. Ea…
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.