Quote (mustbebetween3and32characters @ Dec 29 2018 09:11am)
Not a conspiracy, just misinformation and old science
This is a common misconception. Old science is not automatically displaced by new science. If the methodology is precise, the paper is checked for consistency and the level of evidence is high, then newer research results have to be even more convincing, which they are not when it comes to a lot of "new, groundbreaking" results in nutritional and medical studies. Good methodology and logically sound conclusions are very powerful evidence. Assessing the quality of a study is best done by an expert with good reasoning skills and a lot of experience in research. Laymen tend to succumb to mistakes that are well known in the scientific community.
It's good to be critical, but it also includes criticism towards one's own competence in giving criticism. It's good to question official guidelines, but it also requires actual knowledge of how they're made and realize that alternative or outright anti-mainstream recommendations usually have smaller circles behind them, which means there's less internal criticism. Anything with less self-criticism sucks, when it comes to science. How self-critical are the proponents of non-mainstream medicine and nutritional studies? Think about it for a while. It starts making sense once you realize that admitting the possibility of being wrong would harm their special diet program book or "superfood" sales or whatever
Never trust people who adamantly claim to know the true side of things when it comes to science. It also involves over-confident speechless communication. New science can displace old science, but only when there's good reasoning behind it. It also requires thorough knowledge of the papers related to the old science.
This post was edited by Neptunus on Dec 30 2018 04:46pm