DDL on 20/4/2015 at 16:23
You wouldn't necessarily associate weight gain with that study anyway (even long term) as it was isocaloric: same energy, just more of it "as fat".
The strongest link between diabetes/metabolic syndrome and 'diet' is simply "consuming too many calories, in any form". So a healthy, balanced diet where you nevertheless eat twice as much as you should is going to be more harmful, long term, than one where you eat an appropriate amount of calories in the form of vitamin pills and chicago town microwave pizzas.
Tony_Tarantula on 21/4/2015 at 02:55
This is referencing some of my previous arguments about "bias" as much as anything in this thread, but shit like this is why people don't trust "science".
I'm linking to Reddit because I there is NO WAY IN HELL that I am linking to "WL" while signed into my home computer:
(
https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/3320vb/wikileaks_has_proof_fox_disney_nbcuniversal/)
In Summary, major media companies have been caught attempting to influence ISP's to block sites they dislike and the correspondences were leaked to the internet.
Quote:
The objective of the session is to put us in the best position possible to make a decision as to whether we should proceed to the next steps in seeking site blocking in the US.
The first step is a pre-phase in which we will get prepared and try to create a more favorable environment for site blocking. This would involve multiple parallel tracks. Without attempting to be exhaustive, those tracks include:
Outreach to respected technologists to begin to forge agreement on technical facts and site blocking efficacy — and, where possible, garner policy support for site blocking (or at least dampen opposition to it).
Continued research and record building on the effectiveness of site blocking.
Outreach to academics, think tanks and other third parties to foster the publication of research papers, white papers and other articles that tell the positive story of site blocking: e.g., it is commonplace around the world and working smoothly; it has not broken the internet; it is not incompatible with DNSSEC; it is effective; legitimate sites/content have not been blocked; etc.
Building the record (and telling the story) that the sorts of sites at issue are dangerous. It is not just copyright infringement. Kids are one-click away from identity theft, graphic porn, malware, etc. Parent groups, consumer protection groups and other third parties can be cultivated to speak out against such predatory sites.
Telling the positive story of the widespread availability of legitimate content.
At the right time, we would quietly approach ISPs with which we have good relationships and which we believe might consider cooperating with us to test US site blocking. If any US ISPs are prepared to cooperate — and we can create a track record of effective site blocking in the US — the environment for US site blocking more broadly will become significantly more favorable.
We do not need to decide in advance how to proceed if no US ISP is prepared to work with us cooperatively. We recommend that we cross that bridge only if and when we need to, in context of the landscape we face at that point in time.
Let me repeat something:
Quote:
Outreach to academics, think tanks and other third parties to foster the publication of research papers, white papers and other articles that tell the positive story of site blocking: e.g., it is commonplace around the world and working smoothly; it has not broken the internet; it is not incompatible with DNSSEC; it is effective; legitimate sites/content have not been blocked; etc.
faetal on 21/4/2015 at 11:06
Do you also give up food after noticing a bad apple?
I'm going to save keystrokes in future, by replacing the phrase "throw the baby out with the bathwater" with "do a Tony".
So yeah, you're doing a Tony. If you weren't doing a Tony, then that phrase wouldn't make you distrust all science, much like that phrase doesn't make me distrust all science.
Tony_Tarantula on 21/4/2015 at 15:42
In that case then you're doing a faetal: distorting the point to make a strawman you can easily knock down.
faetal on 21/4/2015 at 16:19
No, I am pointing out the blatant fact (which I shouldn't need to point out), that evidence of scientific impropriety is not grounds for dismissing science, any more than realising that some food is not OK to eat would be grounds for deciding that food is not to be trusted. An analogy is not a straw man.
[EDIT] You've not even pointed out impropriety, you've pointed out that some bad policy wonks want to use legit research to prop up their points (if they can get it). Also, this isn't why the public distrusts science, since the public don't go looking for articles like this. The public distrust science because it is miscommunicated through the media, which has a varied agenda and little time to properly scrutinise the "peer reviewed" research, hence it puts out wildly contradictory and incoherent representations of science which probably amount to noise over time to a lot of people. This might be why YOU don't trust science, but that doesn't really count for a great deal since your prime argument seems to be putting words or phrases in quotation marks to show that you hold them in contempt.
Yakoob on 21/4/2015 at 17:31
Quote Posted by Pyrian
A little critical reading goes a long way, here. They didn't. (Nor did their findings prove the opposite.) They claimed it "could". It's just speculation, it's not what they studied.
I respectfully disagree. even though could does not imply causation the fact they included it (as opposed to other alternatives) shows they are advocating for it to at last a small degree (as opposed to the other explanations). Especially when the finding itself shows no basis for such a conclusion in itself. It might be based on another study but they still choose to include that particular "Educated" speculation for a reason.
I could go out and start saying "posting on ttlg could lead to internal hemorrhaging" and don't think I could just back pedal with "oh use some critical thinking I wasnt implying anything"
On the upside, science is (
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/collapse-food-babe-how-manage-crisis-morgan-fisher?trk=eml-b2_content_ecosystem_digest-recommended_articles-263-null&midToken=AQGQ11gTYfxv-Q&fromEmail=fromEmail&ut=1x27XqJiuqACI1) triumphing over at least one media quack l
Pyrian on 21/4/2015 at 18:00
I'm not trying to absolve them from responsibility for making the statement. I find that sort of thing rampant and irresponsible, and I've already written some criticisms here. I'm just saying that it's pretty easy to cut through the crap by reading carefully, paying particular attention to what was actually studied. And it's not like you were being any better. You claimed that not seeing weight gain or insulin resistance in a mere five days contradicts the hypothesis, which is IMO just as speculative as what they said.
Yakoob on 22/4/2015 at 05:12
I might have not been better, but I don't need to be. I'm neither a journalist nor a scientist, but a guy posting on a random web forum, I don't need to be super exact or precise with my words unless we embark on a serious debate (which this particular example wasn't).
Yes, you're right that "contradicts" was too strong of a word. In reality no real conclusion could be drawn about long-term effects since those were not studied, but if you did want to suggest some, I'd still argue the finding itself (no change in weight) more likely points at the opposite of their speculation, rather than the speculation outlined (eating too much fat could causes weight gain).
Tony_Tarantula on 22/4/2015 at 15:03
Quote Posted by faetal
This might be why YOU don't trust science, but that doesn't really count for a great deal since your prime argument seems to be putting words or phrases in quotation marks to show that you hold them in contempt.
Inline Image:
https://i1.ytimg.com/vi/bcJZERmA9zs/hqdefault.jpgTony_Tarantula on 22/4/2015 at 15:04
In regards to the obesity study, I don't see that conclusion as being illogical in the slightest. As I was stating in some earlier posts: all information has to be interpreted through the lens of time-frame and perspective.
