@strypey @arteteco that failure mode itself is an application of the scientific method. Thus its hard to see these kinds of losses-of-faith as anything more than a nihilistic fit.

Sure, it sucks that top nutrition counseling might not be enough to fix the top diseases in the west, but then we already knew that considering the ubiquity of literature on the topic for a long time.

Not to mention that the results of interventional studies which show a high rate of success discerning the mechanisms of serum HDL, dietary Saturated fat, and oxidative stress markers as it pertains to certain foods - when laid atop that of these less intensive methods - certainly point to a particular trend. If we're talking about science in aggregate I'd say its fair to weight results according to their rigour, which is what other replies in this thread are nodding towards when they mention institutions or other secondary bodies.

Sample size, budget, and peer review ain't everything, and its science that tells us that in any case.

@seasharp
> that failure mode itself is an application of the scientific method

This kind of apologetics is exactly what Scott is critizing. People qualified to speak for Science told us to avoid dietary fat at all costs, even if that meant replacing it with sugar and exessive carbs. People died. Science fucked up bad. People's trust in it is eroded. You can say that's how science is supposed to work, but I don't think so, and besides, claiming that won't fix the problem.
@arteteco

@strypey @arteteco what do we consider "qualified to speak for science"?

Its not apologetics to say that further scrutiny can disprove a theory. That's one of the reasons appeal to authority is such a dangerous fallacy. I have no problem holding statements to the facts and those responsible for said statements responsible. I won't, however, listen to skeptics tell me to abandon key tools of skepticism because we weren't skeptical enough or of the right things.

For those who said " avoid fat at all costs" there are still those who were adamant and steadfast in avoiding the carb scare, and they've been vocal about its effects for decades.

@seasharp I'm not sure who you're debating here. None of this addresses what Adam's piece is arguing. The fact a fringe of sceptics ignored the expert advice is irrelevant. Most people followed it and huge damage was done.
@arteteco

@strypey @arteteco it directly addresses scientific consensus as a vague term that can be manipulated for ones audience. Anyways, pointing out the obvious about signals of scientific competence and then using words like 'experts' and 'fringe skeptics' to describe people with those same exact signals does nothing to answer the begged question about consensus itself.

@seasharp
> scientific consensus as a vague term that can be manipulated for ones audience.

It's simple. Do you believe that there is a scientific consensus that human activity is driving unprecedented climate change? If so, it's because you recognize some people as experts qualified to support or block that consensus, and that the retired oil geologists etc who are the "skeptic" movement's "experts" don't count.
(1/1)
@arteteco

@strypey

I do believe that there is such a consensus, but I wouldn't say that it's only because of that that I think human-driven climate change is real. I read quite many researches, we surely have a margin of doubt on many things, especially on the ecological models that try to predict the effects of such a warming up (in that sense we are in high sea, IMO), but some stuff, some stuff we got it.

May be we wrong? Sure. I call back what I said before: we've been wrong in the past, it's ok. The amount of times the consensus has been right (or to better say, "right enough") is pretty strong, though, and we do not have any better option anyway. Or, do we?

I think I'm missing the point and I fear we are talking in parallel about 2 different things, because I feel confident we don't disagree in this.

I'm sorry in this case, maybe I can't catch your point or explain myself.

@seasharp

@arteteco as you are saying, as Adams says himself in the article, the whole idea of science is to become less wrong over time, often over multi-generational time scales. But this can clash with the idea of evidence-based public policy, which assumes there are answers that are *right* (not just less wrong), and can be known *now*. Both tend to assume a universalism (eg there is a healthy diet that works for all humans) that may be unjustified.
@seasharp