Questioning the Science is Not Misinformation – It’s the Essence of Progress - The Noakes Foundation [Article]
Science thrives on questioning
Science is not a fixed set of truths; it is a process of continuous inquiry. Every landmark shift in medicine, from handwashing to randomized controlled clinical trials, began with someone daring to challenge accepted wisdom.
![Questioning the Science is Not Misinformation – It’s the Essence of Progress - The Noakes Foundation [Article]](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/f513b2c4-a803-47b4-bc92-74446068733f.jpeg)
https://thenoakesfoundation.org/questioning-the-science-is-not-misinformation-its-the-essence-of-progress/Open linkView original on hackertalks.com
Self-reflection and peer reviews are an essential part of science. But that's a process where experts review other experts. Unqualified people questioning science is stupid.
this is an appeal to authority. anyone can learn to read these studies and evaluate the methodologies. if you only permit the priestly class to dictate the truth, you are creating an opportunity for them to pass off all kinds of mysticism as fact.
If a person learned science and created yourself a certain reputation, then you are an expert. If you encounter a random stranger who did their own research, you should be very careful with any claims they make. That doesn't mean that the strangers are necessarily wrong just because they don't have a PhD or thousands of publications. But as long as you don't have the necessary expertise yourself, they are an untrusted source of information. And if the information is controversial, it's highly likely to be wrong.
During COVID we could vividly see what happens if people self-promote themselves to be health experts and if others followed and multiplicated their advice.
and if someone explains the research and it's methodology and explains it's possible oversights or pitfalls, and you can read that same study, then it is up to you to evaluate both claims equally and draw your own conclusions.
that's what science is.
:::spoiler Very presumptive of you
:::
Assuming you read all of these you spent a significant amount of time on this topic. However, if I look at your library it's not exactly a balanced selection. It's more like an echo chamber with at least partly questionable scientific accuracy.
https://www.redpenreviews.org/reviews/the-diabetes-code/ https://www.redpenreviews.org/reviews/why-we-get-sick-the-hidden-epidemic-at-the-root-of-most-chronic-disease-and-how-to-fight-it/
Unfortunately, there is no review of your specific carnivore books, but you may have a look at this one instead to get a first impression on the scientific backing: https://www.redpenreviews.org/reviews/the-carnivore-code-unlocking-the-secrets-to-optimal-health/
And come on "Why vegans have smaller brains?" - that's the evidence for your nutritional knowledge?
If you're looking for a neutral stand point on the topic of science-based eating, maybe have a look at this one. No vegan propaganda, but surprise, surpise... "diet that is low in animal fats, red meat, and refined carbohydrate, and enriched in plant fats, whole grains, vegetables and fruit, poultry, fish, and eggs". https://www.redpenreviews.org/reviews/eat-drink-and-be-healthy-the-harvard-medical-school-guide-to-eating/
Oh, you have already read these books? Or are you making assumptions?
As you said, these reviewers are not medical experts, so listening to them would be stupid by your own logic.
Read the book
That literally is vegan propaganda.
Anyway - You had your say, on this article about the role of being inquisitive in science you have what-about-ismed us to many different topics. I don't think your a good fit for this community
I hope the author of the article passes your standards: https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=sZnJQoQAAAAJ
758 peer reviewed papers, 70,562 academic citations.
If you wont let him ask questions..... I question the directionality of your thinking.
@[email protected]
My comment is not about the author of the article, but this community desparately trying to proof the advantages of a carnivorous diet. I can see why people are sceptical of a purely plant-based diet, but a diet that's purely based on meat does not have scientific backing. It's not healthy for the individual and - from my perspective even more important - a desaster for the health of our planet.
Great, you have scientific backing for this position? I can provide a few counter examples from pre-westernized populations.
Wait.... this is EXACTLY what the article was talking about...
So yes, you are talking about the article - I suggest you read it.
Update - honoring your opinion it's stupid for people to read the literature and thus you can't provide any scientific backing for your position (as that would be stupid by your own words), allow me to give you a authority who summarizes the literature - https://doi.org/10.1093/af/vfy009
Where do the linked articles promote a carnivore diet? One questions high-carb and purely plant based diets (mainly for specific, rather poor regions of the world where people face malnutrition) and the other is about the role of meat in a healthy diet, not about a diet that's only meat.
Wikipedia summarizes it quite nicely:
If you think your sources can convince the other authors and lead to a different consensus, feel free to update the article with the reapective proofs.
But as said: my main concern is not about the individual health of someone following that diet. You can do with your body whatever you want and there are plenty of other ways to do harm to it. My main concern is about the impact of the animal industry on climate.
The article this post is about is about how science isn't settled. Each post has a different topic and theme.
You were saying meat isn't health earlier.
Wikipedia are not medical experts, by your own argument in the first message, it would be stupid to take their advice.
Ruminants have existed since before farming - they are part of the natural biocycle.
::: spoiler cows are not eco terrorists :::
The industrial agricultural model is not sustainable both for mono-cropping and animals. We need to move to sustainable agriculture, with no fossil fuel inputs. Ruminants are necessary part of sustainable soil redevelopment.
Meat can be part of a healthy diet. Meat is not a prerequisite for a healthy diet. There is strong evidence that certain forms of meat are unhealthy. Especially for large quantities of red meat and processed meat due to nitrosamines. It's fine for me if scientists question these points and peform further research, but until the respective counter-studies are performed and reviewed, I'd rather stick to what's consensus. And that means limiting your meat intake, especially in the two areas mentioned.
Great, something we can agree on. Without industrial production of meat, meat will become a scarce ressource. Something that most people will be unable to afford, let alone to base their entire nutrition on. So even it carnivore diets were super healthy (which they aren't!) they are still a bad idea.
I actually agree on both points. I've waxed poetic on this before - https://discuss.online/post/25952420 . There are many ways to be healthy.
That evidence doesn't stand up to scrutiny, per the meat in a healthy diet expert opinion I supplied earlier.
By all means, if your perfectly healthy, keep doing what your doing!
This advice is not supported by strong evidence (non-observational) and doesn't represent consensus. It's fine for you to run your life, but your opinion isn't sufficient to compel others - As you said you don't mind us here eating meat, so we should be bygones. As you indicated in your first message it would be stupid for people to extrapolate health advice on their own, and doubly stupid to take advice from other lay people. So your proffered opinion by your own words.......
You don't have data to support your position, and even expert opinion you can provide will not be informed on a zero-carb population it will be people extrapolating from FFQs on a high carb population.
Would you like to cast any more aspersions on well published scientists or is that all you've got to say?