Live data from Hacker News

Science’s Biggest Fail

blog.dilbert.com

211–220 of 260 posts

Re: Science’s Biggest Fail

#211

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. 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 att…

You can't just pigeonhole fats into three categories and be done.

Butyric acid and stearic acid are both saturated fatty acids, but they serve very different roles in the diet. Similarly, ALA and LA are both essential unsaturated fatty acids, but they compete for the same desaturating and lengthening enzymes in the body. So if you eat sufficient quantities of those fatty acids in the wrong ratio, you can still see symptoms of dietary deficiency. And different people produce different quantities of those enzymes or different variations with greater or lesser effectiveness.

The AHA made insufficiently informed recommendations, and the nonscientific population followed them, often by replacing animal-based fats with vegetable-based fats with vastly different fatty acid ratios.

These were sometimes chemically treated to turn them into trans-fats, which in a key-keyhole model of body chemistry is like bending a kink into the key to your front door, then jamming it into the lock with a hammer and forcing it with vise-grips every time you wanted into your house. The trans fats resembled saturated fats enough to be used in the same way, but that kink in the key would cause persistent damage.

And foods manufacturers also replaced fats with sugars and sodium salts, which caused different problems.

Different foods have different fat profiles, just as they have different protein profiles. Eggs and milk have amino acid ratios that very closely match what humans need, whereas beans and rice are insufficient in isolation, but complete in combination. Similarly, beef suet, pork lard, olive oil, coconut oil, and soybean oil have different fat profiles.

We still don't know what the "best fat" food is, like we know that poultry eggs are very nearly the "best protein" food. And "fat quality" might not even be as homogenous between individuals as it is for the amino acids.

Any recommendations at this time are almost certainly unfounded or unsupported by rigorous and repeatable research. You really have to do your own homework on this one, and avoid making any conclusions based on insufficient evidence.

Re: Science’s Biggest Fail

#212
The biggest problem with Science is that it usually doesn't answer the questions we actually want answered. The problem happens when we try to extrapolate from scientific results. When we make claims about human nutrition based on experiments with rats. That's when we run into trouble.

Usually the scientific answer should be "we don't know".

(That's also the reason why people run to some quack doctor and start taking homeopathic remedies. You'll get answers there. Unfortunately, people trust those giving answers more than those saying "I don't know".)

Re: Science’s Biggest Fail

#213
post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Yes, I am sure that those who say mercury is a highly toxic element don't know what they are talking about. Or perhaps they do.

Re: Science’s Biggest Fail

#214

Science changes it's mind in light of new facts. That's why science is great. I don't understand what the author wants from science? To make up it's mind? That's not how science works!

The author wants "science" to accurately communicate how certain particular conclusions are. By the time "science" new reaches the general public the certainty level always appears to be very high, even when there is no justification for that level of certainty. Even in well regarded scientific publications claims are often exaggerated and not reproducible.

Re: Science’s Biggest Fail

#215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry, but you're holding the media to an impossible standard. This isn't about "checking the CIA World Fact Book," it's "Read dozens of dense studies that assume PhD-level study in the relevant fields." The media does light fact-checking, and it's exactly that fact-checking that allows institutions to set an agenda. If a reporter sees a press release about a new study in, say, the field of cancer, and they try t…

They could at least stop making up bullshit claims in headlines and text. Research institution don't usually go saying they're 100% certain something is this-or-that and has huge implications for everything. It's the media outlets that add those things to the articles. Surprisingly, I don't recall a relevant xkcd, but then there's the famous Science News Cycle: http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?n=1174 . > What the…

>They could at least stop making up bullshit claims in headlines and text.

The problem there is that journalism has been decimated and they have to do something (to get clicks) to survive. I'm just pointing that out, not defending it.

Re: Science’s Biggest Fail

#216
I think part of the problem is that the human race is like that story about the six blind men and the elephant, where one guy argued it was like a spear because he had only touched a tusk and another guy argued it was like a tree trunk because he had touched a leg and so on. There are billions of people here, each with their own unique experiences, their own little slice of the truth. It is only reasonable that some think their piece is TRUE and attempts to rebut their piece of the truth must be crazy or something.

When I look back on historical concepts of things, often, they are decent mental models, given the limited information available. For example, Native Americans of the Pacific North West thought that the world was a bit of land floating on water in a bowl. This area is geologically active and when there is an earthquake, water runs up onto the land, not unlike what would happen if you floated something in water and then pushed down on one end with a finger, tipping it. So it's a fairly good mental model for the limited information available to them. It's not accurate given what we know today, but I think it's disrespectful and a disservice to act like it is simply "dumb."

I spend a lot of time trying to figure out how to take seriously the piece of the puzzle different people have and how to help people who see things very differently communicate effectively. It's shockingly hard. Most people want to insist, NOPE, you are an idiot and fucktard because I KNOW the elephant looks just like a spear. I have experienced that first hand, by god!

The part that most frustrates me is that the people who are the worst about this are often not the conspiracy theory "nuts" but the closed-minded folks doing it in the name of "science."

Re: Science’s Biggest Fail

#217

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. 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 att…

> 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.

One of the leading hypotheses is that omega-6 fat - which is a subcategory of polyunsaturated - is very very bad for you. So there is absolutely potential for harm in replacing saturated fat with polyunsaturated fat.

Re: Science’s Biggest Fail

#218
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…

> those cases where you really are deservedly confident (e.g. vaccines)

Why are you so confident in vaccines? There are papers saying your right to be confident

http://1796kotok.com/pdfs/MMR_withdrawal.pdf

... and rebuttals to those papers.

https://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2009/06/03/japvaxaut...

Should we, as non-scientists automatically discount the rebuttals?

Re: Science’s Biggest Fail

#219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, I'd never say that not agreeing with me makes anyone an idiot. Not agreeing with thousands of people from around the world whose entire professional lives revolve around investigating these very issues, though, requires a higher standard of evidence than your steely gaze and good old horse sense. But speaking of standards of evidence: >>>> For example, there was a significant hiatus from warming for the last 1…

I've heard phrases like "the science is settled" on global warming. If you can't write down a VERY detailed model on global warming, then it seems to me pretty arrogant to suggest that in fact "the science is settled." The fact that "Big Tobacco" hid behind that argument doesn't make it wrong! That kind of thinking isn't terribly sound, all kinds of folks use various argumentation strategies to advance various theori…

How about this: let's nobody ever say 'the science is settled' about anything. I'm fine with that. What about instead we use confidence interval logic, and say things like: 'With extremely high confidence we think that carbon emissions from humans are causing climate change.' You might not agree with that statement either, but it gets us over this non-productive pedantry and into an actionable discussion.

Let's try it out: is human nutrition and metabolism settled? Nope. Do you want to feed your child a diet of 100% JIF peanut butter and candy corns until it is? I'm guessing not.

We don't need to get to settled. We just need to stop reasoning backward from the conclusion we want to be true. Especially when the consequences for things are as high as they are.

Re: Science’s Biggest Fail

#220
post #80

The problem with the "science" around food and fitness is that there is an underlying assumption that is wrong, and that assumption is this: There are things that are inherently good for us. Nothing belongs anywhere, and nothing exists on purpose. Nothing is "designed" for us. So many diets and fitness fads tap into this idea of what is "natural" and try to implicate that there are certain things we are supposed to d…

This begs the question of why we consider the science of evolution to be so trustworthy, while considering nutritional science untrustworthy. At least we can experiment on nutritional science. Evolution has all the same headline-grabbing power as nutrition. Nutrition is actually what I think of when considering this. I am supposed to take their word for it on this complex topic, but we can't even decide if eggs are g…

The real science of evolution (i.e., paleontology and evolutionary biology) has an amazing wealth of evidence in the form of the fossil record, and there are basically zero viable alternatives to the hypothesis of evolution via natural selection when considering the history of life and its representation in the fossil record. It is also possible to do experiments on evolutionary science[1].

This is in stark contrast to anytime someone says that 'we should eat x because it's good for us because cavemen ate x', or worse yet, 'humans are good at pattern recognition because it helped our ancestors pick out lions in the grassland'. This is straight conjecture, and while it does occasionally come from the mouth of scientists, it's from psychologists studying human pattern recognition or something, not from anthropologists studying how pattern recognition developed in Australopithecus.

I think you're referring to the latter, or maybe you're confusing science with religion?

[1]: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IVB1bInthelab.s...

Post reply on HN