ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Tuesday, April 26, 2016

Cargo Cult debate

One thing science fetishists can't bear is to have their obvious ignorance of science pointed out:

Babak Golshahi ‏@bgolshahi1
I love being able to back up what I say with hard evidence, peer reviewed scientific consensus.

Supreme Dark Lord ‏@voxday
50 percent of which is proven to be wrong when replication is attempted. You're out of date.

Babak Golshahi ‏@bgolshahi1
replication of what? You got a peer reviewed piece or really any article that backs up your claim? Waiting.

Supreme Dark Lord ‏@voxday
Mindlessly repeating the words "peer review" and citing "articles" shows you're a low-IQ ignoramus.

Babak Golshahi ‏@bgolshahi1
you apologize for that or you're blocked

Supreme Dark Lord ‏@voxday
Block away, moron. It won't fix peer review or change the fact that you're both stupid and ignorant.

Babak Golshahi ‏@bgolshahi1
You are blocked from following @bgolshahi1 and viewing @bgolshahi1's Tweets.
I wish more of these morons would use Randi Harper's anti-GG autoblocker, so I wouldn't be subjected to their repetitive idiocy.

It is important to understand that if you're prone to demanding "peer reviewed pieces" or shouting "logical fallacy" at people with whom you are arguing, you're probably a midwit who doesn't really understand what you're talking about. In both these, and other similar cases, what we have is a person who has seen someone else win an argument successfully refuting another individual's argument by comparing scientific evidence or identifying a specific logical fallacy being committed, and trying to imitate them without understanding what the other person was actually doing.

But if there is no genuine substance behind the demand or the identification, if you don't have your own competing scientific evidence or you can't point out the actual logical fallacy - and there is a massive difference between the set of flawed syllogisms and the subset of logical fallacies - then you have no business talking about such things.

The failure to cite a peer-reviewed study means nothing in the absence of competing citations. The claim of logical fallacy means nothing when the precise fallacy is not identified. If you don't understand those things, stop embarrassing yourself by arguing with people and start reading.

Otherwise, you're no different than the ignorant South Pacific islander building runways in the hopes that the magic sky machines will descend bearing gifts.

Labels: , ,

129 Comments:

Blogger Al From Bay Shore April 26, 2016 5:21 AM  

The SJWs arguments tend to rely on broad terms which they use as defensive shields while not understanding the need to add value to such through their own research and study. It reminds me of the way the term "problematic" developed value and fell into common usage. They'll counter with "that's problematic" but never explain "how" and "why" something is problematic.

Anonymous Boogeyman April 26, 2016 5:40 AM  

I bet he effing loves science!

Blogger Phillip George April 26, 2016 5:50 AM  

I think this is a useful summary.
For most people 'science' has become whole lot of technology that works and a big set of axioms/presuppositions they'll never question.

Hence, The West aren't standing on the shoulders of giants anymore; it's not how the 19th Century giants were taught.

Blogger Josh April 26, 2016 6:10 AM  

I saw someone who is smart use this phrase, if I also use it I will sound smart too.

The alt right isn't immune from this, as any ctr-f for Overton Window or Jaffe Memo will show.

Blogger weka April 26, 2016 6:16 AM  

Most working academics peer review papers. You cannot replicate them: recruiting people for clinical trials takes time and effort. You check if they report sound methodology for the question asked. It is a form of editing.

What is needed is replication. Which has never been funded.

And those who do not DO research. do. not. get. it.

Anonymous Miso Hawny April 26, 2016 6:22 AM  

Gosh I thought for sure you two would get along, what with your mutual love of science and all. Haha.

And did he seriously ask for a peer reviewed piece on the merits of peer review? That's deep.

Blogger Ahazuerus April 26, 2016 6:33 AM  

weka

since a huge proportion of academic research is externally funded, and the competition for funding is being weaponised as we speak, thus getting more intense and intensively cut-throat every day, the actual opportunities for reproduction are shrinking correspondingly. It's nigh impossible to get such funding in general, unless one wants to perform embarrassing meta-studies on the failure of peer review and the lack of reproduction(and the failure rate when it is done), and thus alienate ones peers. The very same peers who review your funding applications and research publications.

Hmmm... in my experience (I help research organizations like universities and such to implement research information systems) the entire endeavor is driven by relentless self promotion and ego-defense, so we ought not be surprised it is also riven with moral hazard and self-perpetuating circles of influence trading.

We should simply remember that scientists are people, too. All that flesh is heir to, etc.

Anonymous That Would Be Telling April 26, 2016 6:38 AM  

@4 weka:

Most working academics peer review papers. You cannot replicate them: recruiting people for clinical trials takes time and effort. You check if they report sound methodology for the question asked. It is a form of editing.

What is needed is replication. Which has never been funded.


Seldom is explicitly funded, but you might divide scientific papers into two extremes, low impact obscure stuff that could well be bogus but ideally no one is going to depend on it, beside the PI who's trying to get tenure etc.

And then there's the high impact exciting stuff, which other scientists then use as a foundation for further research. If the original paper was wrong, they're going to figure it out in due course, and at the very least report this to the grapevine.

When you're talking about more intense things like those requiring clinical trials, if again it's high impact enough, the results will be used on a much wider population of patients, and the truth will come out, although that can take a very long time because people tend to have a lot more invested in these things. Look at the no saturated fats/low fat people still fighting what looks to become a rear guard action soon, on "science" that goes back to the '50s.

And those who do not DO research. do. not. get. it.

Which hardly matters, science is an institution, a process, run by fallible human beings. In the long term, it tends to get things right, but the process is anything but clean. The real problems come from the cargo cultists and the like who deify it, use it inappropriately, like the idiots who used the names of Einstein's special and general relatively to justify moral relativism.

Anonymous VFM #6306 April 26, 2016 6:50 AM  

"Waiting."

What? Tables?

Go die, cultists. To do so, after all, is science.

Blogger Josh April 26, 2016 6:50 AM  

The claim of logical fallacy means nothing when the precise fallacy is not identified.

The only fallacy they even know is ad hominem.

Anonymous That Would Be Telling April 26, 2016 6:55 AM  

@6 Ahazuerus:

Echoing my @7 comment, I think it's important to avoid fetishizing simple reproduction. I think it's only demanded when the experiment is really out there, like cold fusion (the positive results of the original experiments seem to have been measurement errors, as I recall), or say that drug company which, prior to committing serious money to a set of interesting results, tried to reproduce a bunch to then decide which to themselves pursue.

And even then, their failures don't necessarily mean the original experiments were wrong, there's a degree of skill and so on involved in a lot of this. Rather than say their failures to reproduce X set of experiments definitively show those were wrong, the successfully reproduced Y set showed the drug company which experiments both seem to be correct and are within their capabilities to work with and build upon.

Blogger FALPhil April 26, 2016 7:00 AM  

Vox said:

"I wish more of these morons would use Randi Harper's anti-GG autoblocker, so I wouldn't be subjected to their repetitive idiocy."

But it is so entertaining to watch you skewer them.

Blogger CM April 26, 2016 7:06 AM  

The alt right isn't immune from this, as any ctr-f for Overton Window or Jaffe Memo will show.

I personally feel like an idiot when I use the term "Overton Window", mainly because I have an unread book by Glen Beck on my bookshelf of that name...

But prior to hearing that phrase here and then looking it up, I was going around pointing out how "what is acceptable to say and what is taboo has been shifting in one direction for too long. There must be a better way to phrase that."

And behold, there IS. So, if it saves me words and gets my point across, Overton Window it is!

Now to find out what a jaffe memo is...

Blogger CM April 26, 2016 7:08 AM  

The only fallacy they even know is ad hominem.

They don't even get that one right!

Blogger Cataline Sergius April 26, 2016 7:17 AM  

I think you guys are missing the big picture here.

This is a major defeat for us.

Vox has now been blocked by Babak Golshahi. I mean...good lord...Babak fucking Golshahi! And...and vox is blocked now.

Totally blocked! You can't... you can't undo that!
(*Cataline breaks down in tears*)

Blogger Michael Maier April 26, 2016 7:19 AM  

Is it reasonable to say "peer review" is simply another sign of inflation in the post-WW2 university system?

"Publish or die."

It looks like a giant circle jerk to justify the existence of too many riders on the science gravy train.

It's downright anti-innovation, too:

" Peer reviewers, they argued, cannot be expected “to ferret out cleverly concealed, deliberate deceptions.”

So an entrenched weasel can write plausible bullshit that will slip right by peer-review but a true innovator whose work defies "conventional wisdom in the state of science" will be ridiculed and ostracized.

So it's just another shade of politics.

Blogger FALPhil April 26, 2016 7:19 AM  

@14
Vox has now been blocked by Babak Golshahi. I mean...good lord...Babak fucking Golshahi! And...and vox is blocked now.

Did you guys take a look at his LinkedIn profile? He's a pompous peackock.

Anonymous Takin' a Look April 26, 2016 7:21 AM  

@ That Would Be Telling

"Look at the no saturated fats/low fat people still fighting what looks to become a rear guard action soon, on "science" that goes back to the '50s"

Very true and the implications are deep. Look at how much work has come out in the last 15 years showing how vital plant and yes, animal fats are to maintaining human health. The Dementia/Alzhiemer's epidemic may have it's roots in large part to the low fat/high carb diets that have been aggressively pushed on everyone in the last 50 years.

You have to remember that even the very poor pre-1950s were often frying and cooking/boiling their carbs with tallow, lard and marrow-bones _everyday_ _every meal_.

Blogger Michael Maier April 26, 2016 7:22 AM  

"Peer reviewers, they argued, cannot be expected “to ferret out cleverly concealed, deliberate deceptions.”

Seriously... this quote is sticking in my craw.

Of what purported use IS peer review if it cannot do so?

Anonymous NorthernHamlet April 26, 2016 7:29 AM  

It seems like in the past year or two, it's become incredibly common to shout ad hominum online for almost everything. When you explain to the other person why they're using the term incorrectly,they never can understand or at least pretend not to. SJWs seem especially prone to this.

Blogger Phillip George April 26, 2016 7:32 AM  

So it's just another shade of politics.
No its worse than politics. A lot of our grandparents could do the wire windings of a generator or build a valve amplifier and know a lot of the maths behind it. Science/ technology/ physics didn't try to displace metaphysics with a search for the Holy Grail Theory of Everything. Science then wasn't trying to abolish the mind with brain chemistry.
In this way Scientistry is much more the High Priesthood of the New Age Post Human Sanhedrin. C S Lewis' Abolition of Man, again and again.

Anonymous That Would Bet Telling April 26, 2016 7:36 AM  

@18 Michael Maier:

"Peer reviewers, they argued, cannot be expected “to ferret out cleverly concealed, deliberate deceptions.”

Seriously... this quote is sticking in my craw.

Of what purported use IS peer review if it cannot do so?


It's to weed out the obvious garbage, to maybe find gross errors, it's only a first pass filter. You can't, after all, publish every paper written by a crank with a perpetual motion machine (the Patent Office eventually handled that particular issue by requiring working models they could test).

If a researcher is just going to plain lie to you and your journal's audience, the only thing peer reviewers can do is to catch inconsistencies in the fable being presented, as well as a general gut check if the results are extraordinary.

Blogger Nate April 26, 2016 7:51 AM  

"It's to weed out the obvious garbage, to maybe find gross errors, it's only a first pass filter."

I would disagree.

Initially the idea was to critique the methodology of the experiment involved.

Now...

Well now the point of peer review is to maintain the narrative.

Blogger Cataline Sergius April 26, 2016 7:52 AM  


"Peer reviewers, they argued, cannot be expected “to ferret out cleverly concealed, deliberate deceptions.”


And bullshit flag goes up accompanied by fireworks and dancing robots.

Every paper contains deliberate deceptions because everyone who writes a paper has an axe to grind.

They are always going to stick their thumb on the scale. Part of grad student training is...or at least used to be learning how spot where the submitter deliberately did that.


Blogger Nate April 26, 2016 7:52 AM  

""Peer reviewers, they argued, cannot be expected “to ferret out cleverly concealed, deliberate deceptions.”"

This is entirely correct. That's not the point of peer review.

That's why we repeatability is so important. That's why we have to actually DO science instead of sitting around patting ourselves on the back while talking about it.

IT doesn't matter how clever the deception is. The results will not be repeatable. Thus... FAIL.

Blogger weka April 26, 2016 7:54 AM  

Seriously, the people who DO replicate are big Pharma. Because of regulations in the EU and US do not match. (US wants placebo arm, EU active controls) you need four powered trials to get the drug onto the market in the two places you can make money.

And since all trials must be registered, you can go digging for the trials that were not published: you can now get at the trials in the EU and FDA regulatory packets. Which improve our meta analyses of the same.

The crap science, in my field, is psychotherapy research. Wait list controls imply that any placebo effect is only on the active arm, with a corresponding increase in effect size.

Says me, who is doing controlled trial when the open label pilot worked... despite the managers, as I want to not release packages that don't work.

But I don't get big grants.

Blogger Phillip George April 26, 2016 7:55 AM  

I suggest it is the defining question to every discussion about the limits of science. Are you on the quest for the Theory of Everything? [how's it going, nudge nudge, wink wink]

Kurt Godel and Paul Davies were too polite to tell you what you are.

A theory with unprovable bits will be how satisfying? The Russians made a film about a serial killer driven mad by sex without orgasm. So it goes.

Anonymous Athor Pel April 26, 2016 7:56 AM  

"19. Anonymous NorthernHamlet April 26, 2016 7:29 AM
It seems like in the past year or two, it's become incredibly common to shout ad hominum online for almost everything. When you explain to the other person why they're using the term incorrectly,they never can understand or at least pretend not to. SJWs seem especially prone to
"


It's because everything to them is personal so if you attack their ideas they interpret it as attacking them.

Everything is offensive to someone that takes offense at reality.

Blogger Nate April 26, 2016 8:02 AM  

"Seriously, the people who DO replicate are big Pharma."

funny isn't it? They are the ones people bitch about the most... and they are the ones actually doing science. In fact I believe it was Big Pharma that blew the lid off this whole story to begin with.

Blogger Escoffier April 26, 2016 8:06 AM  

Not to mention McDonalds frying their fries in beef tallow well into the seventies until the nice people from CSPI sued to make them use trans fats and without a whisker of shame thirty years later sued them for using trans fats. I crap you negative.

Blogger Escoffier April 26, 2016 8:10 AM  

But big pharma also are instrumental in keeping the lid on ketogenic diets. I mean if like my wife you can simply get rid of type ii diabetes how can they rake in billions?

Anonymous Athor Pel April 26, 2016 8:14 AM  

" 1. Blogger Al From Bay Shore April 26, 2016 5:21 AM
...They'll counter with "that's problematic" but never explain "how" and "why" something is problematic."


I noticed something a few decades ago. There are many people that cannot justify their convictions. They believe things but can't tell you why. No matter how many questions you ask they don't seem to know their own minds.

I noticed it in myself first and set about rectifying it one subject at a time.

I've come to the conclusion that if you don't know why you believe something then you don't really believe it. You may want to believe it but the only thing you have a grasp of is your own emotions on the subject.

I suppose this is why rhetoric is so effective with so many people

Blogger Anchorman April 26, 2016 8:19 AM  

Anyone who has worked in the social science research field knows the dubious nature of "peer review" studies. They are rubber stamps, typically given when the reviewer is or has been mentioned in the study, or when the reviewer knows they will need a favorable review in the next year.

Blogger Nate April 26, 2016 8:20 AM  

"But big pharma also are instrumental in keeping the lid on ketogenic diets."

No one is keeping the lid on that. Everyone knows you can control it with diet... hell a shitty diet is how it got there in the first place.

They don't need to keep a lid on it. They know damn well only a tiny fraction of the people who get that way will have the drive and discipline to actually change their lifestyle. They'd much rather just take the pill.

Blogger Anchorman April 26, 2016 8:23 AM  

The biggest "flaw" in peer-review is that when the study is shown to be flawed years later, there's zero accountability for this that "peer reviewed" it years prior and found it, "good scientistry."

There's no accountability for bad research in many fields when they're funded by advocacy groups, universities, and the government.

Blogger Nate April 26, 2016 8:24 AM  

I have a sister-in-law who is an expert in diabetes care. She educates patients all the live long day on diet and how it can help them and how important it is.

And all the live long day patients ignore her.

No one is hiding anything. Hell no one has to hide anything.

Anonymous Millenium April 26, 2016 8:28 AM  

To become a scientist requires a beginners level of statistics and no study of epistemology, logic or even basic reasoning.

Every so often there is a meta analysis in some field exposing how papers where something is found are published disproportionately as opposed to those who back up the null hypothesis. Everyone writes a few diatribes and waggles their finger at each other and then it is quickly forgotten.


The problem of scientistry is that it was once a gentlemanly pursuit involving honor and seeking higher understanding. There was an expectation of honesty. Peer review was for letting fresh eyes find your faults. All very good for 19th and early 20th century white academics in their ivory towers but thoroughly unworkable in a world where science is big business and anglo-saxon/germanic customs and sense of nobility and fairplay are outdated.


@3 "How dare you filthy plebs use smart words." Whines Josh.

The overton window is simply a convenient term for an idea many of us worked out on our own. Do you also whine about people using the term cost/benefit analysis or taanstafl or any other convenient term that describes something most people work out on their own?

Jaffe Memo - Congrats, you read a conspiracy book before the internet was popular. It must suck to live in the information age and realize you cannot feel superior to the unwashed masses when any fancy term or little known document can be searched for in less than a second.

@17: The whole low fat craze is not just a case of bad science run amok but bad science pushed by the government on behalf of their lobbyists. Ancel Keys work would have been forgotten had not the USDA and their big ag lobbyists seen the dollar signs in promoting low fat.



Blogger Josh April 26, 2016 8:34 AM  

"How dare you filthy plebs use smart words." Whines Josh.

Yes, it's a smart word used by smart people, and I'm sure you think using it also makes you sound smart.

My hearty thanks for volunteering to be an example of the very thing Vox is talking about.

Anonymous Millenium April 26, 2016 8:38 AM  

@31 I found that once I know something I tend to forget how I know it, or at least cannot recall easily. I knew the name Jaffe memo but I had to google it to remember what it was.

@33  Everyone knows you can control it with diet
You really do live in your own world cut off from the average person. I would love to be so naive. I have met a a fair few people who do not know that diabetes can be fixed by diet. I find that average intelligence and below cannot really understand it even if you explain it to them. You are right on the discipline though but then sugar is an addiction the same as any other.

Blogger Nate April 26, 2016 8:39 AM  

"describes something most people work out on their own?"

No. Most people don't work that out on their own.

Blogger Nate April 26, 2016 8:40 AM  

". I have met a a fair few people who do not know that diabetes can be fixed by diet."

No. You have met a fair few people who CLAIM to not know that diabetes can be fixed by diet.

They were told about controlling with diet 1000 times by their doctors. But telling you that they know, and they are ignoring it makes them look lazy and dumb. So instead.. they blame doctors.

Anonymous Millenium April 26, 2016 8:44 AM  

@37 Reading comprehension is not your strongest attribute is it?

As I explained, the term overton window encompasses something I worked out on my own long before I read the word. I also worked out the distinction between the scientific method and the act of doing science before I read Vox's terms for them. Just like I will use scientody and scientistry because they are conveninent short hand so I will also use the term overton window as convenient short hand instead of a cumbersome explanation.

Can you understand that or do I have to make it even simpler for you?

Blogger Josh April 26, 2016 8:51 AM  

Can you understand that or do I have to make it even simpler for you?

Perhaps you could provide us with some relevant Wikipedia links on the subject?

Blogger Saber McScarthrust April 26, 2016 8:51 AM  

Vox, wouldn't it have been easier to just throw a few links in his face? Poor reproducability of "studies" is well documented.

I can only guess at how you choose your rhetorical tactics and they certainly are effective. I'd assume you believe that person is beyond reason so dialectic would have been unprofitable and full engagement would have been a waste of time therefore the quick rhetorical beat-down.



Blogger Nate April 26, 2016 8:53 AM  

"As I explained, the term overton window encompasses something I worked out on my own long before I read the word."

and tell me... do you know the difference between "I" and "most people"?

Blogger Nate April 26, 2016 8:54 AM  

"Vox, wouldn't it have been easier to just throw a few links in his face?"

no. Because he was throwing out bullshit rhetoric. you fight rhetoric with rhetoric. He wouldn't have even bothered to read the links. He just would've dismissed them with rhetoric.

Blogger Saber McScarthrust April 26, 2016 8:54 AM  

"4. weka April 26, 2016 6:16 AM
Most working academics peer review papers. You cannot replicate them: recruiting people for clinical trials takes time and effort. You check if they report sound methodology for the question asked. It is a form of editing.

What is needed is replication. Which has never been funded.

And those who do not DO research. do. not. get. it."

What a great point. Everyone should have this one in their quiver when engaging with Progtards.

I am so f*cking sick of heaving the term "peer reviewed" spat at me as if it were the word of God.

Blogger Ahazuerus April 26, 2016 8:55 AM  

It's not just about the reviewers. The funders have enormously deep pockets, and are rewarded for how much of it they give away each year. The governments who provide the funds are rewardded politically for making loud noises about improving research metrics for their country. The PIs are rewarded with grants based on the impact / citation metrics of their publications from their previous grants. The university administrators are rewarded for growing the annual research grants throughput, by luring Professors and grad students with big name publications in their resumes. My employers are rewarded for helping them improve their applications to grants ratio by updating their information systems.

Enormous sums of money flow through this system annually and enormous egos are driving it.

Get radical (please do look up the root of this word) and attack the foundations of this monstrosity and all the political intellectual and social firepower in the world is arrayed against you.

That's BEFORE we start to discuss apocalyptic religious manias like anthropogenic climate change ...

Blogger Automatthew and the Bosoms of Liberty April 26, 2016 9:02 AM  

Millenium wrote:The overton window is simply a convenient term for an idea many of us worked out on our own. Do you also whine about people using the term cost/benefit analysis or taanstafl or any other convenient term that describes something most people work out on their own?

Pay no mind. This is just today's Two Minute Hate topic in Josh's quixotic campaign against Trump.

Blogger JaimeInTexas April 26, 2016 9:03 AM  

Appropos to the topic, me thinks.

Dilbert
http://assets.amuniversal.com/783c92f0d8e901334e5c005056a9545d

Blogger Thomas Davidsmeier April 26, 2016 9:03 AM  

"It is important to understand that if you're prone to demanding "peer reviewed pieces" or shouting "logical fallacy" at people with whom you are arguing, you're probably a midwit who doesn't really understand what you're talking about. In both these, and other similar cases, what we have is a person who has seen someone else win an argument successfully refuting another individual's argument by comparing scientific evidence or identifying a specific logical fallacy being committed, and ***trying to imitate them without understanding what the other person was actually doing.***"

That is all they are taught to do in school, so why would they ever do anything else?

Blogger Saber McScarthrust April 26, 2016 9:05 AM  

"4. weka April 26, 2016 6:16 AM
Most working academics peer review papers. You cannot replicate them: recruiting people for clinical trials takes time and effort. You check if they report sound methodology for the question asked. It is a form of editing.

What is needed is replication. Which has never been funded.

And those who do not DO research. do. not. get. it."

What a great point. Everyone should have this one in their quiver when engaging with Progtards.

I am so f*cking sick of heaving the term "peer reviewed" spat at me as if it were the word of God.

Anonymous Millenium April 26, 2016 9:06 AM  

@42: us

I doubt anyone other than you does not understand. I would assume you are being willfully ignorant but based upon your past comment history I sometimes doubt you understand much.

@44 MPAI, and I am making the same assumption about people on the alt right who use the term overton window as you are about people knowing diabetes can be handled through diet. I guess we are both guilty.

Blogger Dr. T April 26, 2016 9:07 AM  

Oh dear. As an active scientist, I am well aware of the shortcomings of peer-review. It works well as a rough filter, keeping out the moronic and the most sub-standard work. Unfortunately, it also acts as a censor, keeping out the politically incorrect. In both cases it is generally possible to get your work published in some paper if you try hard enough. Thus I tend to be very skeptical when reading papers that did not even manage to clear this low hurdle.

But the dispute started, when Mr. Goshahi first argued that "race as a concept doesn't make a lot of sense" and for this got called a "science lover" by someone, who in turn forwarded his answer to our host. I went through the moves of checking the literature references. Obviously Mr. Goshahi's "hard evidence, peer reviewed science" is backed up by an article in popular science (aka not science) journal "Scientific American". Which in turn is based on an article in high-level journal "Science", titled "Taking race out of human genetics". However, this is not a paper describing scientific work, but an opinion piece published in the "policy forum" of the journal. There is no data at all in this article, only references to the opinions of other authors. Even so, the article clearly states "Today, scientists continue to draw wildly different conclusions on the utility of the race concept in biological research." Somehow, this got lost in the popular science version.

Long story short, Mr. Goshahi is not only not aware of the recent scientific, peer-reviewed work done, among other things, on the non-reproducibility of peer-reviewed medical studies. He also does not know the difference between a not peer-reviewed popular science article, a peer-reviewed opinion paper, and a proper scientific paper. But he still runs its mouth off with an assumed certitude that in itself should be anathema to scientists.

Blogger Josh April 26, 2016 9:08 AM  

Pay no mind. This is just today's Two Minute Hate topic in Josh's quixotic campaign against Trump.

I just want to make the comments great again

Blogger Nate April 26, 2016 9:13 AM  

"Pay no mind. This is just today's Two Minute Hate topic in Josh's quixotic campaign against Trump."

Monomania aside... the fact remains that the term Overton Window is abused in exactly the same way as Ad Hom. Its a valid observation.

Blogger Nate April 26, 2016 9:14 AM  

"But the dispute started, when Mr. Goshahi first argued that "race as a concept doesn't make a lot of sense" and for this got called a "science lover" by someone, who in turn forwarded his answer to our host. "

I predict this is going to end badly.

Blogger Escoffier April 26, 2016 9:16 AM  

With respect that is not standard of care today and while I laud your sister in law ehst she is doing is extremely rare. At least in my experience with a wife who was diabetic for twenty + years.

Blogger Student in Blue April 26, 2016 9:16 AM  

@Nate
Monomania aside... the fact remains that the term Overton Window is abused in exactly the same way as Ad Hom. Its a valid observation.

I've never seen someone try to shut down an argument by saying "he's just shifting the Overton Window!" It's not abused in exactly the same way.

It's very likely being abused, but it's not a debate-ender like "Racist! Sexist! Ad Hom!" is.

And as an aside, what other word could people use when they use Overton Window incorrectly?

Blogger JaimeInTexas April 26, 2016 9:17 AM  

@13. CM

The SJW use the ad Houyhnhnm ... because horses are so smart.

The failure is in not providing enough resources, always. Sound familiar?

Which reminds me of one of my favorite chapters in one of my favorite books:

PART III.
A VOYAGE TO LAPUTA, BALNIBARBI, LUGGNAGG, GLUBBDUBDRIB, AND JAPAN.
CHAPTER IV
http://www.literatureproject.com/gulliver-travel/gulliver_20.htm

Anonymous kfg April 26, 2016 9:20 AM  

"You cannot replicate them: recruiting people for clinical trials takes time and effort."

Not only does science not equal "Clinical Trial", most clinical trials are not science and never were.

Anonymous kfg April 26, 2016 9:23 AM  

" . . . ad Houyhnhnm . . ."

I hope to get a chance to steal that someday.

Anonymous Gecko April 26, 2016 9:23 AM  

50 percent? Feeling generous today, aren't we, Vox?

Blogger Nate April 26, 2016 9:25 AM  

"And as an aside, what other word could people use when they use Overton Window incorrectly?"

its most often used to describe someone expanding the idea of what is and is not acceptable discourse... or used to talk about someone who is not being PC. Both are inaccurate uses of the phrase.

people shout Ad Hom not to end debate... but because they heard someone say it and they thought it sounded smart. So they repeat it hoping to sound smart too.

That is what is happening with Overton Window.

American political rhetoric lives in a very small bubble in a small corner of the Overton Window. Trump didn't expand the Window... he burst the bubble. He pointed out the delta of what politicians think is acceptable... and what is actually acceptable. That doesn't minimize trump's success. in fact I would argue it better explains his success. He is more in-touch with both reality and the opinions of the common citizen than the insulated hand-wringing political class.

Blogger Nate April 26, 2016 9:31 AM  

"With respect that is not standard of care today and while I laud your sister in law ehst she is doing is extremely rare. "

It absolutely is standard of care. Every patient that is diagnosed with diabetes is given TONS of information about diet.

My own father controls his diabetes purely with diet and that information didnt' even come from my sister-in-law... it came from his primary care physician. She merely confirmed it.

Now.. its possible that your wife has a burned out doc that's just tired of telling people things they are just going to ignore anyway... but education is absolutely the standard of care no one is hiding anything. As I said.. they don't have to.

Blogger Ahazuerus April 26, 2016 9:33 AM  

Don't bug me with all that self discipline / self denial shit, Dr Nate; just give me the fucking pills!!

Blogger Nate April 26, 2016 9:38 AM  

"Don't bug me with all that self discipline / self denial shit, Dr Nate; just give me the fucking pills!!"

I mean that's really it. its a lot nicer to say there is some evil drug company conspiracy... behind the scenes working with doctors to fuck people over.

The fact is doctors have to many patients already. They work to much... not to little. They arent' worried about making more work for themselves they want to make less.

If they could get some of these people out of their offices by teaching them to eat right... they would.

They don't because its a waste of time.

Blogger Nick S April 26, 2016 9:45 AM  

Dr. T wrote:Long story short, Mr. Goshahi is not only not aware of the recent scientific, peer-reviewed work done, among other things, on the non-reproducibility of peer-reviewed medical studies. He also does not know the difference between a not peer-reviewed popular science article, a peer-reviewed opinion paper, and a proper scientific paper. But he still runs its mouth off with an assumed certitude that in itself should be anathema to scientists.

Babak is a fan of Sam Harris. That's a clue to his capacity for objective critical thinking. Vox rightly concluded Babak wouldn't be amenable to dialectical arguments and proceeded accordingly. Well done, Vox.

Blogger Student in Blue April 26, 2016 9:48 AM  

@Nate

None of that was a word or a short phrase. You instead spent a paragraph describing it, which is exactly why people use a word, even incorrectly, instead.

people shout Ad Hom not to end debate... but because they heard someone say it and they thought it sounded smart. So they repeat it hoping to sound smart too.

Using it to sound smart is not the most egregious abuse of ad Hom.

And if they were only using it to sound smart, they'd use it far more outside of arguments, and trying to end an argument with it.

Face it Nate, people use ad Hom like 99% when personally engaged in an argument. There's certainly an aspect of wanting to sound bright, but that's not the main driving use of it.

Blogger Nate April 26, 2016 9:51 AM  

"None of that was a word or a short phrase. You instead spent a paragraph describing it, which is exactly why people use a word, even incorrectly, instead."

I've been thinking about that. "The Bubble" and "popping the bubble" is my suggestion.

Blogger Nate April 26, 2016 9:53 AM  

"Face it Nate, people use ad Hom like 99% when personally engaged in an argument."

Sure. But it doesn't shut down the debate as it describes behavior. not the individual. The problem here is you are focusing on SJWs... but Vox himself complains about its use here. Not among SJWs but among midwits.

Blogger Automatthew and the Bosoms of Liberty April 26, 2016 9:55 AM  

I saw someone the other day---was it here?---use the phrase "... that begets the question ..."

Brilliant.

Anonymous Takin' a Look April 26, 2016 9:57 AM  

@ Nate

Part of it is ignorance. A large part is that sugar isn't recognized for the incredibly addictive substance that it is. It is HARD to kick the sugar habit. Especially in this day and age where it is everywhere, in pretty much everything and is the primary source of cheap food. Most people simply give up and resign themselves to their lot.

Remember, we a dealing with an atomized society that is full of people who are under constant low level stress that never,ever ends. EVER. I am not talking about hard work productivity and other happy challenges. I am talking about the financial and residential uncertainties, insecurities that define the life of the average american. So, most don't drink, smoke, drug or whore around. Sugar is what's left, it provides a warm, escapist feeling, especially combined with the Tee-Vee.

Blogger Nate April 26, 2016 10:01 AM  

sure. I don't disagree TaL... I'm just saying doctors and big pharm aren't out there conspiring to hide the info.

Anonymous Slowpoke April 26, 2016 10:08 AM  

So those Polywater papers in peer reviewed journals were right? Who knew?

Blogger CM April 26, 2016 10:10 AM  

He pointed out the delta of what politicians think is acceptable... and what is actually acceptable.

Is it ACTUALLY acceptable? Forgive my solipsism but I may enjoy the political discourse here, in my in-laws' or parents' homes, or over a date night steak, but outside of the "safe space" that family offers, I do not get the impression that Trump's positions are ACTUALLY acceptable.

I do live in a semi urban area, so the leftward is entertained in my environment, but I didn't think it was an outlier given Orlando is more moderate on the urban liberal scale.

Blogger Student in Blue April 26, 2016 10:11 AM  

@Nate
I've been thinking about that. "The Bubble" and "popping the bubble" is my suggestion.

Everyone's going to think you're talking about economics instead.

Sure. But it doesn't shut down the debate as it describes behavior. not the individual. The problem here is you are focusing on SJWs... but Vox himself complains about its use here. Not among SJWs but among midwits.

Au contraire, I only brought up raciss/sexiss because it's in a very similar class, not because I'm focusing on SJWs. It's a useful example, not who I'm talking about.

Raciss and sexiss don't "shut down" the debate either, instead what they do is signal that "I am superior to this trash, thus I do not need to respond further". Same thing as when most people misuse ad Hom.

Anonymous Michael Maier April 26, 2016 10:14 AM  

Heh....

http://dilbert.com/strip/2016-04-26

Blogger wrf3 April 26, 2016 10:23 AM  

Nate wrote:No one is hiding anything. Hell no one has to hide anything.

Except the moon landing, right?

Anonymous BGKB April 26, 2016 10:28 AM  

Probably the worst thing for scientific advancement is that studies can be hidden if the results are undesirable, like the one studying demographics of speeders in NJ.

Seriously, the people who DO replicate are big Pharma.
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2016/05/scientific-regress
"pharmaceutical industry that half of all academic biomedical research will ultimately prove false, and in 2011 a group of researchers at Bayer decided to test it. Looking at sixty-seven recent drug discovery projects based on preclinical cancer biology research, they found that in more than 75 percent of cases the published data did not match up with their in-house attempts to replicate."

Hence, The West aren't standing on the shoulders of giants anymore; it's not how the 19th Century giants were taught.

Standing on the shoulders of giants let man walk on the moon when the entire world had less computing power than a smart phone. Because those giants are white, the only scientists kids are taught about is the lie that a black man invented peanut butter that native Americans made before.

The Dementia/Alzhiemer's epidemic may have it's roots in large part to the low fat/high carb diets that have been aggressively pushed

The question is if it was deliberate destruction of white people.

A lot of our grandparents could do the wire windings of a generator or build a valve amplifier and know a lot of the maths behind it

Common core takes math problems Asians and whites can do in their heads, and forces people to take 100+ steps(points of failure) with following the steps being more important than accuracy. They understand equality doesn't exist or they would have copied how math is taught in Japan/Germany instead of how Haitians can muddle thru math.

discipline to actually change their lifestyle. They'd much rather just take the pill.

People will get the stomach reduction surgery only to burst their stomachs with overeating.

Anonymous BGKB April 26, 2016 10:32 AM  

No one is hiding anything. Hell no one has to hide anything.

No one tell the niggers that showing up on time & knowing your dads name are the keys to white privilege. http://www.uschronicle.com/white-privilege-conference-testing-students-know-expecting-show-time-racist/#

OT: Weka- Remus is posting again.

Anonymous Sir_Chancealot April 26, 2016 10:40 AM  

The old “sources?” request in this day and age really gets my goat.

It took me 30 seconds to type “50 percent wrong science replication” into a search engine, and get thousands of results. Long gone are the days when you had to travel 4 states over to some obscure college library to find information.

Are people that request that lazy, stupid, or just dishonest?

Oh, and by the way: someone found the cure for type 2 diabetes. Not treatment, not management, cure. I suggest the following search terms “diabetes cure type 2 diet 600 calories”

Anonymous kfg April 26, 2016 10:47 AM  

" . . .the lie that a black man invented peanut butter that native Americans made before."

There is some evidence that the Inca may have made peanut butter. That evidence was unknown until recently.

Peanut butter using roasted peanuts was invented by a white man in Montreal, and using boiled peanuts by a white man in Battle Creek.

It wasn't something learned from the Indians. Grinding nuts into a flour isn't the same thing as grinding them into a butter.

Anonymous kfg April 26, 2016 10:54 AM  

“diabetes cure type 2 diet 600 calories”

Yeah, if you eat almost nothing, you're not eating much of what you shouldn't be either. The poison is in the dose.

And if you eat nothing at all your blood glucose levels will be rock steady at low normal around the clock, although in the long run you may experience other undesirable symptoms.

" . . . prompts the body to expel fat clogging the pancreas . . ."

Woo woo, the train is fine.

Blogger CM April 26, 2016 10:54 AM  

The old “sources?” request in this day and age really gets my goat...

Are people that request that lazy, stupid, or just dishonest?


I think confirmation bias in search results lends to skewed findings. There are certain sibjects that are so politicized and controversial, it is difficult to figure out what is True or not.

For the lay man, trusting authority figures and experts to give honest accounting is a given... and with that trust, they could lie with no one being the wiser... so you end up with dozens of contradictory studies and analyses that are trying to dictate to you who is Right and who is Wrong.

On top of that, Google's search algorithm pretty much guarantees your search results will be different from a lefty's results.

So... probably a combination of all of the above?

Anonymous Aachen April 26, 2016 11:05 AM  

Slightly OT: I was in Mongolia a while ago for business and noticed the diet here is basically fatty meat non-stop. Free range meat from nomadic herds that eat grass whenever they want. Vegetables and fruits simply do not exist in the diet. Given scientific consensus Mongolians should be incredibly unhealthy.

While interacting with them I noticed a few things, they are big, kinda of like the pacific islander body shape for NE Asians. They do not really seem unhealthy, except the smokes and alcohol issues. The grandparents despite being old prefer the nomad lifestyle and still live on the plains herding animals while their children live in the city. The babies are huge (could be due to the extreme cold) and that the people think much more like Europeans than Chinese. They also appeared intelligent and watchful people.

So I checked life expectancy, not as high as China but higher than a country at a similar economic level. But IQ was the standout, ranked 6th highest in the world which is excellent considering they have been nomadic for thousands of years until only the last 20 years. My gut impression is the diet plays a significant role in this.

Anonymous kfg April 26, 2016 11:12 AM  

@85:

http://highsteaks.com/the-fat-of-the-land-not-by-bread-alone-vilhjalmur-stefansson.pdf

Blogger Nate April 26, 2016 11:14 AM  

"People will get the stomach reduction surgery only to burst their stomachs with overeating."

a local surgeon has had so many patients nearly die this way he started requiring people to lose 50 pounds or so before he would even do a second consult with them.

Blogger Nate April 26, 2016 11:22 AM  

"Everyone's going to think you're talking about economics instead." meh. There is a book out talking about social bubbles I think. its a concept that is easy enough to apply to any situation.

The problem is... it doesn't make you sound super smart like Overton Window does.

Blogger L' Aristokrato April 26, 2016 11:23 AM  

You're being far too generous on the credibility of "peer review": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3Sjp_hIrQ0

Anonymous Aachen April 26, 2016 11:31 AM  

@kfg. Thanks will have a read of it

Blogger Quintus Maximus April 26, 2016 11:49 AM  

Too bad there's not an anti-GG autoblocker for real life.

Anonymous Eduardo April 26, 2016 11:50 AM  

Let me tell you something Brother! All that really counts is the argument in the study. Peer review is crap... Is just another guy using peer pressure to make sure you don't fall too far from the line, that is there is to it. You can easily find studies that repeat results but its objectives are not in anyway to repeat the results. Repeating results is just a minor importance thing, you are not going to get grants with that, you wont advance knowledge with, James Tiberius Kirk didn't live out of repeating other people's experience

To boldly go where no men went before

Blogger SciVo April 26, 2016 11:57 AM  

But the dispute started, when Mr. Goshahi first argued that "race as a concept doesn't make a lot of sense" and for this got called a "science lover" by someone, who in turn forwarded his answer to our host.

I'm familiar with both sides of the debate, and the one side is basically arguing that since genetic and morphological differences are a continuous spectrum with arbitrary boundaries, race does not exist. Which to me is like arguing that since the rainbow is a continuous spectrum with arbitrary boundaries, color does not exist.

Blogger Flannel Avenger April 26, 2016 12:00 PM  

Eduardo wrote:Let me tell you something Brother! All that really counts is the argument in the study. Peer review is crap... Is just another guy using peer pressure to make sure you don't fall too far from the line, that is there is to it. You can easily find studies that repeat results but its objectives are not in anyway to repeat the results. Repeating results is just a minor importance thing, you are not going to get grants with that, you wont advance knowledge with, James Tiberius Kirk didn't live out of repeating other people's experience

To boldly go where no men went before


Shatner or Pine?

Anonymous kfg April 26, 2016 12:00 PM  

" . . . since genetic and morphological differences are a continuous spectrum with arbitrary boundaries . . ."

. . . pigs are people too. Human rights for pigs!

I wish that were a bit of satire I made up.

Anonymous Eduardo April 26, 2016 12:06 PM  

I have the original series in a dvd box... Shatner of course XD.

It's just who I knew as captain of the Enterprise. Nothing against Stewart or Piccard.

Anonymous Eduardo April 26, 2016 12:10 PM  

What about... Pigs rights for humans

"You know... There is a flip side to that coin. - Heat"

Blogger tweell April 26, 2016 12:14 PM  

It's been known for decades that type II diabetes can be overcome purely by diet. Dad knew it in the 70's, but wouldn't stop eating ice cream, he went on insulin and into a wheelchair instead. His brother also knew it, but wouldn't stop drinking until he was legally blind, even then he gobbled down cookies.

I damaged my body by overeating, and I both knew better and had examples of what would happen. My poor excuse is that I was watching my wife die of cancer, and afterwards... didn't care that much. My doctor issued a wakeup call last year, telling me that I was an uncontrolled diabetic, to change my diet, exercise and lose weight, or I was going to have to go on insulin.

Rigorous dieting, exercise and cutting out carbohydrates has worked wonders. I'm eating meat, nuts, leafy vegetables and cheese, no grains or fruit. 90 pounds lighter, cholesterol of 160, triglycerides of 30, A1C of 5.5 after nine months. My doctor deleted the Metformin prescription (wasn't using it anyways) and declared me a non-diabetic.

I wonder about a tendency towards self-destruction, why we indulge short term thinking and emphasize today over tomorrow. Father would not give up ice cream, his brother would not give up beer and my wife would not give up smoking. I overindulged enough to stare disability in the face before pulling back (for now, anyways). It's depressing.

Anonymous Jack Amok April 26, 2016 12:27 PM  

They were told about controlling with diet 1000 times by their doctors

Nate, they're advocating the wrong fucking diet. They're still saying some variation of a low-fat diet, and the few fats they do say are okay are mostly the wrong damn ones (they tell you to stay away from animal fats and coconut oil, but call Canola oil "healthy").

Now, maybe your sister is on board the future train and telling people something better and good for her if she is, but the majority of dieticians and doctors are still telling people to eat the wrong food.

Telling a diabetic they can manage their disease with diet and handing them the guidelines you'll find at, say,diabetes.org is like telling someone they can fix a flat tire with tools and then handing them a cordless drill and a hacksaw. Wrong tools. Bad results most likely.

Blogger Student in Blue April 26, 2016 1:17 PM  

@Nate
meh. There is a book out talking about social bubbles I think. its a concept that is easy enough to apply to any situation.

The concept is about framing, and moving the frame and shifting the boundaries of what's acceptable and what's not, not about something that explodes violently.

And the corresponding implication of bubbles bursting is that it'll "return to normal" after said violent explosion. As if we'll go back to the normal of not being able to disagree with immigration without being looked at as a racist.

It just doesn't fly as a metaphor. The implications are wrong and it's already being used with something else that's commonly in the average Joe's head.

The problem is... it doesn't make you sound super smart like Overton Window does.

The problem is it doesn't work.

Anonymous Bz April 26, 2016 1:24 PM  

As some have said, part of the problem is that papers that have passed peer review are as a rule still not really ready for prime time, even if they get a lot of press time. More work is usually needed ... However, there are also some special cases of extraordinary refereeing effort, like for Andrew Wiles' proof of Fermat's theorem. Letting through a bad proof of such a famous theorem would have been quite embarrassing for everyone involved.

Here are a couple of topical references for future use. The first two set off the "replication crisis", one might say.

Only 6 of 53 landmark cancer studies could be replicated

"Over the past decade, before pursuing a particular line of research, scientists (including C.G.B.) in the haematology and oncology department at the biotechnology firm Amgen in Thousand Oaks, California, tried to confirm published findings related to that work. Fifty-three papers were deemed 'landmark' studies (see 'Reproducibility of research findings'). It was acknowledged from the outset that some of the data might not hold up, because papers were deliberately selected that described something completely new, such as fresh approaches to targeting cancers or alternative clinical uses for existing therapeutics. Nevertheless, scientific findings were confirmed in only 6 (11%) cases. Even knowing the limitations of preclinical research, this was a shocking result."

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v483/n7391/full/483531a.html

Of 67 projects, only a quarter could be replicated

"We received input from 23 scientists (heads of laboratories) and collected data from 67 projects, most of them (47) from the field of oncology. This analysis revealed that only in ~20–25% of the projects were the relevant published data completely in line with our in-house findings (Fig. 1c). In almost two-thirds of the projects, there were inconsistencies between published data and in-house data that either considerably prolonged the duration of the target validation process or, in most cases, resulted in termination of the projects because the evidence that was generated for the therapeutic hypothesis was insufficient to justify further investments into these projects."

http://www.nature.com/nrd/journal/v10/n9/full/nrd3439-c1.html

(or a lighter treatment http://www.reuters.com/article/us-science-cancer-idUSBRE82R12P20120328 )

Anonymous Bz April 26, 2016 1:26 PM  

Something of a classic regarding the problems of getting it right.

"There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among the relationships probed in each scientific field. In this framework, a research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a field are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there is a greater number and lesser preselection of tested relationships; where there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes; when there is greater financial and other interest and prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a scientific field in chase of statistical significance. Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research."

Ioannidis, Why most published research findings are false
http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

And I'll throw in a recent article in Nature on peer review that may be of interest:
http://www.nature.com/news/peer-review-troubled-from-the-start-1.19763

Let's not even get into rather questionable practices like data mining, trolling with computer generated papers or outright fraud. Or the lure of political interference for that matter (AGW).

Anonymous Bz April 26, 2016 1:33 PM  

By the way, on the topic of fancy phrases like ad hominem: I always have a private chuckle at "free reign" or "towing the line", but the true filter is "begging the question" which everyone gets wrong, except perhaps those with oxbridge degrees.

Anonymous Bz April 26, 2016 1:35 PM  

Huh? Did I just get two approved comments unpublished? And they had references to Nature and all. Sigh.

Blogger Ahazuerus April 26, 2016 1:44 PM  

In the first series, in the episode where Kirk's friend comes back thinking he's God, he creates a grave for Kirk.

On the headstone is the name:

"James R Kirk"

All this Tiberius stuff came along much later.

Anonymous Marty April 26, 2016 1:54 PM  

I wonder if I'm a midwit. I wouldn't have written, "at people with whom you are arguing" - I'd have put the preposition at the end of the clause as Orwell often did. He's probly a goodnuf style guide. My retort to AGW types is, "jobs program for hippies."

Anonymous kfg April 26, 2016 2:00 PM  

" . . .except perhaps those with oxbridge degrees."

Before the Long March through the Institutions settled in to being the establishment, we had some fine centres of higher learning here in Yankland.

And I would add "religious tenant" to your list.

Blogger Ahazuerus April 26, 2016 2:11 PM  

@Tweell

"I wonder about a tendency towards self-destruction, why we indulge short term thinking and emphasize today over tomorrow."

Because the first cigarette don't kill you. The first hamburger don't kill you. The first affair don't kill your marriage. Long ago a wiser man than I put it this way:

"Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore it is fully set in the heart of the sons of men to do evil."

An Austrian economist would simply say "time preference."

But it's not merely a description of human nature, it is also vital advice to the ruler: hit back, twice as hard.

For the sake of the sinner, never let evil be profitable or pleasurable. If we didn't enjoy sin, we wouldn't have any problem avoiding it.

Anonymous Takin' a Look April 26, 2016 2:15 PM  

@ Jack Amok

You are absolutely correct. The reality of us humans is this, we are omnivores who evolved into extreme lipophages or adipovores. Literally, we are fat-eaters.

Blogger Were-Puppy April 26, 2016 2:39 PM  

:P

I imagine that guy in the OP as happily walking along on a sunny day whistling in delusion and then getting jumped by VD.

Anonymous kfg April 26, 2016 2:56 PM  

". . . we are omnivores . . ."

In the broader sense of the word, yes, but we are not "true" omnivores like, say, rats.

I think it would more accurate to say that we are facultative carnivores, like dogs.

Blogger Were-Puppy April 26, 2016 3:09 PM  

@79 BGKB
People will get the stomach reduction surgery only to burst their stomachs with overeating.
---

There was a guy at a job long time back who was gigantic. He had that surgery. Then he slowly became gigantic again, after an initial run of success for a few months.

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents April 26, 2016 3:32 PM  

And I would add "religious tenant" to your list.

Back when I was a landlord I rented to religious and not religious people alike, so don’t quite get your point, here.

Anonymous Jack Amok April 26, 2016 3:32 PM  

As to peer review, the most legitimate use is to determine if the author included enough detail for one of his peers to attempt replication if they were so inclined.

Anonymous Eduardo April 26, 2016 3:40 PM  

Aha!-Zuerus (the band and a portguese word look-a-like!)

I watched that episode... He was kind of a god, just not a very sane one. Didn't see that R, you sure it isn't a typo?

-----------

Uhhh fat-eaters lolololol. Chubby ladies jokes come to mind!

Anonymous kfg April 26, 2016 4:15 PM  

"Chubby ladies jokes come to mind!"

Tie it in with pigs rights for humans for the bonus point.

Blogger tublecane April 26, 2016 4:21 PM  

"but never explain 'how' and 'why' something is problematic"

They don't need to, and they're mostly correct. They're safe in assuming that either their problems are the problems of culture at large, because they run our culture, or their problems will soon be everyone's problems, because the culture is perpetually headed in the direction of more of their sort of problems. Plus, not very many people bother calling them on it.

Blogger tublecane April 26, 2016 4:40 PM  

@10-They get that one wrong often enough. The informal logical fallacies, or argumentative fallacies, have always bugged me. Because Samuel Johnson kicking a rock to disprove Berkeley, for instance, is a joke. Or at least I think it is. Anyway, it's not a syllogism, and he knew it. Same with, for instance, most uses of appeals to common sense and authority, ad hominem, absence of evidence, shifting the burden of proof, and so on.

Most of the time the perpetrator of the supposed fallacy isn't trying to put forth a logical claim. They're not saying you're wrong because you're stupid. They're saying you're wrong and you're stupid. If someone commits one of these supposed fallacies without it being a false syllogism you can knock down, your job is to redirect the argument, or prove you're not stupid, not to beg the ref to blow the whistle. Or give up, because you don't have to stay in every argument forever. I just don't like how often logic is invoked when it's not really at issue.

Blogger Kona Commuter April 26, 2016 5:06 PM  

Firstly - my sincerest thanks to Vox & everyone who contributes here. I'm learning quite a lot.

Secondly a personal anecdote about diabetes. My mother-in-law has diabetes and controls it with diet. Has done so for 16 years and doesn't use medication. She's a right royal pain when it comes to food though. The song and dance she made when her muffin was served with caster sugar sprinkled on top was quite frankly, embarrassing.

A former co-worker was diagnosed with diabetes whilst we worked together. I identified it by picking up on his shitty attitude and other symptoms revolving around his eating. I gave him some sources of stories about people sorting out their diabetes through diet. He wasn't interested, wouldn't even watch the video's.

Lastly on diet (I'm interested in the whole idea of Food as Medicine & juicing). I know people with various health complaints (why do people feel the need to share their ailments?). There are various diets out there claiming to ease / cure those ailments. I share this information & not one person is interested. Now if I was suffering from X ailment that was impacting on my quality of life and say Veronica Vegan (TBF Mark Sisson makes similar claims) said she suffered from it but after going plant based that it went away. What? I'm not going to give it a go for say a month? Nah, rather take expensive pills with side effects thanks. Much easier.

Blogger Kona Commuter April 26, 2016 5:33 PM  

Sorry one more anecdote - a relative of mine was having allergic reactions when eating chicken. It caused him to cough and his throat to swell up. So we're potentially talking life threatening. My solution was to simply stop eating chicken. His solution was to take medication. He still had some reactions to eating chicken & insisted on eating it.

Anonymous kfg April 26, 2016 5:42 PM  

" . . .her muffin was served with caster sugar sprinkled on top . . ."

Complaining about a few granules of disaccharides on her great lump of polysaccharides.

People are funny critters.

Anonymous Sagramore April 26, 2016 5:46 PM  

"B-b-but yoy'very been out grouped!"

Glenn Greenwald pulled this when I criticized him for supporting Shawn Howard Grifter. His Portugal reporting helped guide Canadian drug policy for the good, a shame he's stooped to this level.

Anonymous Sagramore April 26, 2016 5:57 PM  

@24 I think Ezra Levant doesn't like me because I caught a friend of his (who is now a BC Liberal MLA) doing just that. In any event I have no time for (((Rebel Media))).

Anonymous BGKB April 26, 2016 6:07 PM  

" . . .her muffin was served with caster sugar sprinkled on top . . ."

So are sugar tits so last year?

Anonymous Takin' a Look April 26, 2016 6:17 PM  

@ kfg

True, with fatty meat and organs being a large part of our diets. We CAN eat vegs, tubers and fruit, but it seems it's best done cooked/grilled just like meat. We've been heating our food for a very long time.

Anonymous Eduardo April 26, 2016 6:43 PM  

Your solution sucks Kona... The person would have to learn to let go and that is like giving poison to most people.

Imagine telling dicky Dawks to let go of Saint Darwin.

Anonymous Malwyn's apprentics April 26, 2016 8:26 PM  

16. Michael Maier April 26, 2016

So an entrenched weasel can write plausible bullshit that will slip right by peer-review

Yup. Within my first 3mos as a production editor in scientific publishing, I published a retraction for an article that was TEN years old.

It takes quite a while to track down the fakers (as opposed to people who make an honest typo), and by the time they're found they've published dozens (if not hundreds) of papers. Fashionable fields tend to lead in fraud (stem cells in 2000s, climate studies now) 'cause that's where the money is, but other fields aren't immune. The old saying, "if it sounds too good to be true" is certainly relevant.

Blogger Anaya April 28, 2016 7:50 PM  

cbse result 2016 shall be declared few days. You can find your cbse 10th results 2016 and cbse 12th results 2016 from cbseresults.nic.in 2016 which is the official website of board.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts