Re: greed vs "lifestyle food cult" - which makes more sense


monty1945@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
The solution, TC, is to do some thinking and learning, because the
evidence is there, and mostly available on the internet now. The
problem is that the textbooks are filled with nonsensical claims,
models, and assumptions. If you have not been trained to examine
evidence and claims critically, as I was in graduate school, it will
indeed be difficult to separate the wheat from the chaffe, which is why
I put together my web stie.

I learned to be examine things, such as evidence, critically from my
training in IT. There is no one who can claim to have the definitive
answer to any question. You have to examine the situation (data)
yourself and come to your own conclusions on what you see and what
makes the most sense as to what the right answer is. The moment that
you apply this sense of doubt and criticality to what is currently the
state of the science in nutrition, is the very moment that you realize
that there is something very wrong with this picture.

The very sad thing is that we have thousands of advanced degree
pinheads running around spouting their garbage by rote with no sense
whatsever of doubt. No ability whatsoever to look at the science
critically in any way. A science that does not question its own basis
is no longer a science, it becomes a religion. Which makes it quite
funny to think that the industry trolls in this ng that repeat their
nonsensical mantras ad-infinitum by rote actually have the temerity of
accusing the SAD diet sceptics of being part of a religious-like cult
ie. this so-called lifestyle food cult.

I watch the science channel quite often and I follow science news very
closely. When a new discovery is made, often we see interviews with
scientists who say that this discovery may challenge fundamental
aspects of theories and beliefs that have been held for ages. And when
they say this, they are often very excited at the prospect of seeing a
major shift in scientific belief in their field of study. They are open
to the possibility of old beliefs being wrong and new paradigm
re-writing their scientific textbooks. In fact they are excited by the
prospect.

Not so with nutrition. When low-carb was becoming very popular and many
many people started seeing that it not only works, but it works better
than the mainstreams low fat diets, the mainstream scientists were
under pressure to explain this away or at least respond to it. Studies
were coming out left, right and centre showing how low carb worked
better for weight loss and for general health. One of the responses I
saw was an appearance by certain scientists on a popular science show
on the science channel. Their response was a re-iteration of the
mainstreams concepts of higher calorie fats vs lower calorie carbs and
proteins, etc. etc. And their message was that these new studies are
wrong and we have always been right even though low fat fails most of
the time and low carb seems to work better. There answer was that they
were absolutely certain that what has been believed for generations is
completely unassailable and to question the science is unthinkable and
unscientific.

So, with virtually all other fields of science, change is part of the
process and the scientists find it exciting to examine and accept new
findings regardless of what it does to their beliefs. In nutrition, the
current state of utter confusion and massive obesity and other
malnourishment diseases is the state of the science, and it will remain
the state of the science for as long as the thought leaders in
nutrition have their way. All nutritional thought is frozen in time and
no-one ought to dare challenge it. Have faith in the advanced degree
pinheads that insist on perpetuating the current paradigm in the face
of global massive increases in nutritional diseases. Meanwhile if you
try to challenge the paradigm, you are labelled a "religious lifestyle
food cultist". Now that is IRONY.

TC

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: canRe: Moderatorial Note
    ... > where possible are pretty much the core of it. ... > Evidence, rationality, ... I presume that if one were to omit "quantitative" from that list, one might no longer be talking about science, though even there you seem to regard it desirable but not essential. ... even among scientists, puts some limits on how severe any ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: Gould vs. Dawkins
    ... and am told by scientists that that is beyond knowing. ... that opinion in the light of evidence. ... what are called beliefs, which are actually opinions. ... science, then tell me what causes a thought, give me a scientific ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Gould vs. Dawkins
    ... and am told by scientists that that is beyond knowing. ... that opinion in the light of evidence. ... what are called beliefs, which are actually opinions. ... science, then tell me what causes a thought, give me a scientific ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Gould vs. Dawkins
    ... and am told by scientists that that is beyond knowing. ... that opinion in the light of evidence. ... what are called beliefs, which are actually opinions. ... science, then tell me what causes a thought, give me a scientific ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Fundies worry about their own kids. Oh, the horror!
    ... If you assert that I am referring to science as a "new god" you are ... It was accepted because the evidence showed that the events ... We have observed evolution through mutation and natural selection ... You should try reading articles from scientists. ...
    (talk.origins)