Debating Science isn't any better

ladyattis:

Notice, I didn't dispute that, but you're not listening. In the other countries, it's not common to liberally use sugars in all their foodstuffs. In the US it is. Why?

It could be for a myriad of reasons. Other countries subsidize their agriculture too. I have difficulty believing that the United States is the only country on earth that subsidizes corn. You should also account for genetics - like compare american swedes to swedish swedes, since the susceptibility of many of our minority groups to diabetes and obesity is markedly higher.

ladyattis:

That would be a boon in terms of health and the market in one shot.

I don't know that sweeteners are the problem. As long as we have high density palatable food, which can be anything from coke to fruit juice to dairy creamer, etc.

ladyattis:

Plus, your whole thing about science being objective? That's one thing I could easily dismantle here, but that's a whole other thread to make for some other time.

I don't mean that it expresses metaphysical truths. I mean that the studies do what they do. A study of 1000 people showing that X causes 1lb of fat gain, on average, means that it is statistically likely that similar patterns will be observed in a large segment of the population. There's no room for "well I just feel that it might be different". If you want to show why that study is wrong, you can point to its methodological flaws or something, but nothing you can do will categorically make controlled studies irrelevant to applied science (nutrition).

First, yes, many countries subsidize agriculture. The Eurozone is a bitch when it comes to this, but oddly they don't subsidize corn. It must be a culinary/taste thing. Second, genetics may factor into it strongly, but I think if that were the case then the logical choice is to stop subsidizing a known sweetener. Third, food stuffs around the world don't have sugar in the ratios we do. You can take just about any book by an ethnic chef and see the difference (mostly there's a preference for fats over sugars in most cultures).

 

As for my point about science not being objective, you're not grasping the gravity of my statement. I'm saying science doesn't even have the monopoly on the pragmatic truths of our world. Science is fundamentally limited because of methodological monism. It loses more in the attempt to universalize on a simple means to know the world than it gains.

seems to me that most science isn't a hard black and white realm of facts.  This debate is about nutrition.  There are plenty of paleo Austrians on these boards who have found the lifestyle very helpful, but that alone of course proves nothing.  I think shooting off the OPs broader points would have made more sense.  Evolution and Climate Science are both similar to economics in that you can't run true experiements.  Its pretty hard to run true experiments in nutrition as well.  You would need lots of money and would have to basically monitor every aspect of several hundred or even thousands of people for months to properly account for all the variables at play. 

I love seeing good points corroborated.

Ladyattis:

First, yes, many countries subsidize agriculture. The Eurozone is a bitch when it comes to this, but oddly they don't subsidize corn. It must be a culinary/taste thing. Second, genetics may factor into it strongly, but I think if that were the case then the logical choice is to stop subsidizing a known sweetener.

While as an anarcho capitalist I agree whole heartedly with agriculture deregulation, I simply cannot see the health benefits coming from changing out HFCS for some other sweetener.

Ladyattis:

Third, food stuffs around the world don't have sugar in the ratios we do. You can take just about any book by an ethnic chef and see the difference (mostly there's a preference for fats over sugars in most cultures).

Well I'm not looking to do a lot of research on it, but ideally you would compare two countries with similar agriculture policies with respect to corn or sugar and see if it produced similar results.

Here is a list of the world's fattest countries. You'll notice many of the ones in the top are very small, which probably just means selection bias is dominating. I.e. everyone is a white collar worker with the same really bad genetics. But Kuwait is very close to the United States on that list. Having lived there for a year myself as a kid (non-military), I can tell you that they eat lots of fast food just like Americans, even though they do not really have any asymmetric agricultural policy since they imoport all their food.

In fact, looking down the list, I don't see a very large difference between developed countries. Maybe its a bad dataset. I'm open to alternatives I guess. But my point is that for two countries with similar obesity rates and per capita GDP, they have drastically different agri policy.

Ladyattis:

You can take just about any book by an ethnic chef and see the difference (mostly there's a preference for fats over sugars in most cultures).

Which are just as easy to overeat as sugars.

Ladyattis:

As for my point about science not being objective, you're not grasping the gravity of my statement. I'm saying science doesn't even have the monopoly on the pragmatic truths of our world. Science is fundamentally limited because of methodological monism. It loses more in the attempt to universalize on a simple means to know the world than it gains.

Well the way I interpreted controlled studies is just that the results are statistically likely in the rest of the population. That's not really a "hard" universalization. Its also not science per se but the scientific method, which I recognize is non sequitur. It just has statistical plausibility. Whether you think statistics is relevant to pragmatism...

Joe:

seems to me that most science isn't a hard black and white realm of facts.  This debate is about nutrition.  There are plenty of paleo Austrians on these boards who have found the lifestyle very helpful,

I would not have expected you (nor do I think you should) read through the lot of this thread, but my opinion is that the best diet is the diet you can stick to. I have been clear that there are many different possible ways to succeed in nutrition, but the claims made by paleo authors (read: not necessarily paleo dieters) and low carb types is typically that non-paleo or high carb diets are objectively bad. This much is falsifiable in the general population. Maybe high carb diets are bad for certain individuals, but that doesn't justify any of the claims being made.

Joe:

I think shooting off the OPs broader points would have made more sense.  Evolution and Climate Science are both similar to economics in that you can't run true experiements.  Its pretty hard to run true experiments in nutrition as well.  You would need lots of money and would have to basically monitor every aspect of several hundred or even thousands of people for months to properly account for all the variables at play.

Yes. This is true. There are some scientific phenomena that are difficult to test. There are also some problems in nutritional studies, but these vary on study to study. Some studies just ask people to keep a food log, and others actually physically provide all the meals and/or have people eat them at the facility. Of course you can never prove that people don't go home and scarf down a bunch of other food, but that's kind of the point of some experiments anyway.

"Well the way I interpreted controlled studies is just that the results are statistically likely in the rest of the population. That's not really a "hard" universalization. Its also not science per se but the scientific method, which I recognize is non sequitur. It just has statistical plausibility. Whether you think statistics is relevant to pragmatism..."

Statistics that is frequentist in nature is boolsheet. I'll just say that for giggles. But seriously, controlled groups aren't hard fast absolutes, that's why you'll see multiple studies deal with similar circumstances or issues and come up with extremely variable results. That means, they're really not describing anything other than what is true for the circumstances at the time. That's why people talk of the black swan being more important than the white ones, but even that doesn't go far enough to describe the inadequacies of modern science.

Modern science has abandoned many things to become what it is, and what's lost is context. And you only get that from considering the seemingly non-scientific issues of a more philosophical nature. How you approach knowledge is as important as how you acquire it.

ladyattis:

Statistics that is frequentist in nature is boolsheet. I'll just say that for giggles. But seriously, controlled groups aren't hard fast absolutes, that's why you'll see multiple studies deal with similar circumstances or issues and come up with extremely variable results. That means, they're really not describing anything other than what is true for the circumstances at the time.

This is correct. But it only discredits individual studies, not the actual philosophy of controlled studies. Metastudies are an attempt to deal with this (I listed a couple).

ladyattis:

That's why people talk of the black swan being more important than the white ones, but even that doesn't go far enough to describe the inadequacies of modern science.

Whether or not black swans are important depends on context. For example, a sample of 1000 people might find that epehedra improves weight loss in all of them, but there might be 1 out of a million people who actually gain weight on it. But the majority of people don't care about that "black swan" since they are only interested in their individual personhood.

So black swans don't matter that much in nutrition, especially if we're trying to give good general advice. I admit that black swans do matter in other contexts, like war. Being 99% sure there's no war next month is a pretty crappy place to be in.

ladyattis:

Modern science has abandoned many things to become what it is, and what's lost is context. And you only get that from considering the seemingly non-scientific issues of a more philosophical nature. How you approach knowledge is as important as how you acquire it.

[edit] I don't understand. Can you elaborate?

Sieben:

This is correct. But it only discredits individual studies, not the actual philosophy of controlled studies. Metastudies are an attempt to deal with this (I listed a couple).

Nope, meta-analysis is even softer than individual studies. You have to be careful which studies you combine otherwise, you'll get some funny results.

Sieben:

So black swans don't matter that much in nutrition, especially if we're trying to give good general advice. I admit that black swans do matter in other contexts, like war. Being 99% sure there's no war next month is a pretty crappy place to be in.

Actually, they matter in all aspects of knowledge. If it doesn't work for X person, that means your assumptions about X person are W-R-O-N-G. So, you have to consider alternatives both in method and knowledge.

Sieben:

I don't understand. Can you elaborate?

Why can I find right answers from wrong assumptions? That's a good start for a question, I think.

ladyattis:

Nope, meta-analysis is even softer than individual studies. You have to be careful which studies you combine otherwise, you'll get some funny results.

True. But they are an *attempt* to deal with the problem of low sample sizes. And the idea that you can improve study accuracy by increasing sample sizes also holds statistical water.

ladyattis:

Actually, they matter in all aspects of knowledge. If it doesn't work for X person, that means your assumptions about X person are W-R-O-N-G. So, you have to consider alternatives both in method and knowledge.

I do consider alternatives. But only for person X. For everyone else my tools are working fine. And the alternatives I consider for X would also probably be based on the scientific method - trial and error, or educated guesses, etc.

ladyattis:

Why can I find right answers from wrong assumptions? That's a good start for a question, I think.

Because the assumptions are wrong. But the assumption that a sample size of 10,000 will be able to represent a large amount of the total population is correct, or at least statistically very very likely.

Sieben:

True. But they are an *attempt* to deal with the problem of low sample sizes. And the idea that you can improve study accuracy by increasing sample sizes also holds statistical water.

Well, that's why it's better to do it with one study than many. Ever read about the funny meta-analysis of 35k people using their birthsigns vs their perceived personality traits? The researchers claimed it was proof that horoscopes were accurate, but when it was found out that it was an meta-analysis and their definition of personality traits a tad loose, they were laughed at. :3~

Sieben:

I do consider alternatives. But only for person X. For everyone else my tools are working fine. And the alternatives I consider for X would also probably be based on the scientific method - trial and error, or educated guesses, etc.

But you're not considering the alternative that your theory is wrong. That's the problem.

Sieben:

Because the assumptions are wrong. But the assumption that a sample size of 10,000 will be able to represent a large amount of the total population is correct, or at least statistically very very likely.

Samples have nothing to do with it. It has to do with that knowledge is not deterministic in its formation. Knowledge follows not from cause-effect, but from another basis altogether. So, drop the assumption that statistics is the gateway to knowledge, it's not scientific to even use it in this context.

 

ladyattis:

But you're not considering the alternative that your theory is wrong. That's the problem.

If my theory is that the study is representative of a lot of (not necessarily all) people, then no its not wrong just because of black swans.

ladyattis:

Samples have nothing to do with it. It has to do with that knowledge is not deterministic in its formation. Knowledge follows not from cause-effect, but from another basis altogether. So, drop the assumption that statistics is the gateway to knowledge, it's not scientific to even use it in this context.

Well I said that sample size gives you statistical plausibility. Its assumed (maybe unjustifiably) that statistics has practical application. I don't know how this ties in with "knowledge". As far as I can see, I'm not making a knowledge claim beyond what the study has directly investigated in its sample. 

Lulz, personal attacks over fructose.

 

Not to change the topic, but what do you guys think of artificial sweetners causing cancer (not fat gain)? I use them a lot. Webmd and some other sites I've been on said they're fine, but social folklore tells me I will get cancer. Will I?

Sieben:

If my theory is that the study is representative of a lot of (not necessarily all) people, then no its not wrong just because of black

 

Um... Do you realize you just went against the very scientific method you're trying to protect? Any case which falsifies the theory means the theory is WRONG according the modern scientific method. This the same method taught in highschool, entry level college courses, and used as the general guideline to most of the sciences. So you can't have your cake of saying "I'm pro-modern science" and eat from a modified/truncated version of it. So, either you support methodological pluralism, therefore you could make a cause for limited theories, but even then such theories would be purely masturbatory in nature since they don't describe anything useful (gee lots of people are like X, but a few of them in that category are like Y too...). Meaning, it's not predictive.

 

And I won't bother quoting your statistics rambling any further since it seems you're not listening. Statistics do not describe reality. They simply describe what we know in terms of their likelihood. Nothing more. It's not the backbone of science. Otherwise, Public Choice Theory wouldn't be a science. Nor would computer SCIENCE (we don't use stats much, but when we do it's usually dealing with programs, rather than algorithms and proofs). Your obsession statistics shows your own lack of understanding of their limits and your own lack of understanding of their actual uses.

 

If you can't acknowledge that much, then we have nothing to discuss. You're wasting my time and yours.

Ladyattis:

Um... Do you realize you just went against the very scientific method you're trying to protect? Any case which falsifies the theory means the theory is WRONG according the modern scientific method.

Which is why the theory isn't that "this controlled study holds for everyone forever and ever". It uses statistics to show that these results are *likely* in the rest of the population. According to your interpretation there can be no empirical science of man whatsoever because "what if black swan"?

Ladyattis:

This the same method taught in highschool, entry level college courses, and used as the general guideline to most of the sciences. So you can't have your cake of saying "I'm pro-modern science" and eat from a modified/truncated version of it. So, either you support methodological pluralism, therefore you could make a cause for limited theories, but even then such theories would be purely masturbatory in nature since they don't describe anything useful (gee lots of people are like X, but a few of them in that category are like Y too...). Meaning, it's not predictive.

Well you're shifting the goalposts here. Is the issue that science is "falsifiable" or that its not predictive? If you use the scientific method to come up with a probabilistic theory, then yes it is predictive. If you use the scientific method to come up with an objective theory, then yes it is falsifiable by black swans, but that's not what I'm trying to do.

Ladyattis:

And I won't bother quoting your statistics rambling any further since it seems you're not listening. Statistics do not describe reality. They simply describe what we know in terms of their likelihood. Nothing more.

I know. That's my point.

Ladyattis:

It's not the backbone of science.

Its the backbone of empirical sciences. Unless you think empirical science is an oxymoron and there should be "science" and "empiricism".

Ladyattis:

Otherwise, Public Choice Theory wouldn't be a science. Nor would computer SCIENCE (we don't use stats much, but when we do it's usually dealing with programs, rather than algorithms and proofs). Your obsession statistics shows your own lack of understanding of their limits and your own lack of understanding of their actual uses.

I'm not obsessed with statistics. Its just that they're particularly relevant on this topic - nutrition. We don't have the analytical tools to figure out in advance what the results of certain actions will be, so an alternative is just to experiment under ceteris parabis conditions. Our results don't give us "laws" or "theories", but they give us probablistic guesses.

Sieben:

According to your interpretation there can be no empirical science of man whatsoever because "what if black swan"?

No you can have empiricism, but you have to accept that there's no absolute guarantees to its success. And to deny alternative methods is to invite blind faith to control the discovery of knowledge.

Sieben:

Well you're shifting the goalposts here.

No, I'm not.

Sieben:

Its the backbone of empirical sciences. Unless you think empirical science is an oxymoron and there should be "science" and "empiricism".

It is an oxymoron.

Sieben:

Our results don't give us "laws" or "theories", but they give us probablistic guesses.

So it's masturabatory, thanks for confirming that.

what do you guys think of artificial sweetners causing cancer (not fat gain)?

I'm not an expert in any way, but what I've heard has said that aspartame may cause cancer.

A quick scan of Wikipedia appears to sidpute this claim and cites sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame_controversy

If you are interested in alternative viewpoints (which may be incorrect, I don't know), I know some people who read Dr. Mercola, whose thgouhts/evidence on aspartame are here:

http://aspartame.mercola.com/

Note that Dr. Mercola appears to also not believe that HIV causes AIDS (which may or may not affect his validity on the topic of Aspartame).

ladyattis:

No you can have empiricism, but you have to accept that there's no absolute guarantees to its success. And to deny alternative methods is to invite blind faith to control the discovery of knowledge.

I meet both of these requirements.

ladyattis:

No, I'm not.

Yes you are. First you talk about "truth" and then later in the paragraph you shift to "practicality". Which one is it?

ladyattis:

It is an oxymoron.

I'm glad your whole problem with me has been over taxonomy.

ladyattis:

So it's masturabatory, thanks for confirming that.

If you think probabilistics is practical, then no it isn't.

Sieben:

I meet both of these requirements.

How? Explain, please.

 

Sieben:

Yes you are. First you talk about "truth" and then later in the paragraph you shift to "practicality". Which one is it?

I see no difference between truth and its application. Maybe you do.

Sieben:

I'm glad your whole problem with me has been over taxonomy.

And it's also over the fact that monism in science has impeded the progress of knowledge. Just sayin'.

Sieben:

If you think probabilistics is practical, then no it isn't.

Only in a limited way. Try and use statistics to actually construct a theory. Oh wait, that's unscientific. :3~

Also, sorry for being short with my responses, I'm busy doing other stuff. Nothing personal.

Sieben, I haven't had the time (or interest) to pore over the studies you linked to. I did find a article that references a study which found that medium-high fructose groups had increased waist/hip ratio, fasting blood glucose levels, and other such markers of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease: http://www.drbriffa.com/2011/06/22/fructose-found-to-be-more-harmful-than-glucose/

 

Thanks for describing the physiology of fructose metabolism. 

Ladyattis:

How? Explain, please.

Well I never said empiricism was "gauranteed success", and I never said it was the only method.

Ladyattis:

I see no difference between truth and its application. Maybe you do.

I see a difference between application and truth. Knowing how to accomplish a goal doesn't require you to have a philosophy.

Ladyattis:

And it's also over the fact that monism in science has impeded the progress of knowledge. Just sayin'.

I think most researchers are open to analytical exercises, but if you can't repeat analytical predictions in laboratories people usually conclude that there must be something wrong with the theory (assuming they cant find anything wrong with the experiment).

Ladyattis:

Only in a limited way. Try and use statistics to actually construct a theory. Oh wait, that's unscientific. :3~

You mean we can't use statistics to arrive at scientific law. But we can use statistics to generate a theory that 90% of the population responds positively to medication X.

Scrooge McDuck:

Sieben, I haven't had the time (or interest) to pore over the studies you linked to. I did find a article that references a study which found that medium-high fructose groups had increased waist/hip ratio, fasting blood glucose levels, and other such markers of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease: http://www.drbriffa.com/2011/06/22/fructose-found-to-be-more-harmful-than-glucose/

Here's the pubmed link. Non-fructose groups were told not to consume fructose outside the study, so they probably stopped drinking cokes etc and reduced overall calories. Soft drinks were probably one of the examples of things the researchers told them not to drink. Sodas can make up to 25% of people's calorie intake.

The relevance of calories is that basically everything improves on a weight loss diet. It doesn't really matter what you're eating. Your blood sugar will improve because your body is in an energy deficit, running out of sugar. Similarly with cholestoral and triglyceride levels.

I remember one study showed that if you put obese people on ephedrine/caffeine, and didn't tell them anything else, they lost weight. Even though ephedrine is a vasoconstricter and raises blood pressure in normal weight people, it actually lowered the blood pressure in obese subjects because they were losing weight (not that fast, mind you, compared to a proper diet). But even small amounts of weight loss/catabolism are so overwhelmingly beneficial that they even overpower pharmaceuticals used to treat low blood pressure.

Sieben:

I see a difference between application and truth. Knowing how to accomplish a goal doesn't require you to have a philosophy.

It is if you want to be called a scientist. Process and result comes to form the basis of method(s). Knowing how one influences the other is philosophy. And knowing how to make the influences to your advantage is a science.

Sieben:

I think most researchers are open to analytical exercises, but if you can't repeat analytical predictions in laboratories people usually conclude that there must be something wrong with the theory (assuming they cant find anything wrong with the experiment).

And that's the issue right there: experiments are not the end all be all of science. They need to take a backseat like they have for the majority of history. Not to be ignored, but not to be ruling the discourse.

Sieben:

You mean we can't use statistics to arrive at scientific law. But we can use statistics to generate a theory that 90% of the population responds positively to medication X.

If you can't get a scientific law then you're just making up a narrative, no better than your opponents. And I can treat their narratives with equal regard from now on.