Charlie Primero
Member
Discovery and investigation of unknown natural forces is called Science.
How can something so simple go over your head? Your ego is bruised like a bananaDiscovery and investigation of unknown natural forces is called Science.
Possibly the row about the best diet for type-2 diabetes can serve the same purpose as climate change for our purposes. The advantage is that the stark truth is that increasing numbers of people are reducing or reversing their own T2 diabetes simply by reversing the advice given to them - instead of eating a low fat high carb diet, they are recovering by eating a high fat low carb diet!
I postponed a response to this, David, because I wanted to wait until I'd had a chance to discuss it in person with somebody close to me who has been working as an Accredited Practising Dietitian for over sixteen years, having graduated from university in 2001 with First Class Honours in a BNutrDiet degree, and one of whose specialties is in helping diabetics with their diets. This dietitian prefers, though, not to be identified or quoted, so the following is my own understanding and any errors in it are on me.
This is a pretty systemic problem around here these days.David, I don't object to it being noted that there are controversies in nutrition science, but for you to present one side of the controversy as definitively correct and emblematic of a systemic failure of the mainstream perspective (linking this to a supposed similar failure of mainstream climate science) when this is obviously just your personal bias or will to believe speaking is downright offensive, not least of all because it's hard enough for us advocates of parapsychology to get past the "You just want to believe in psi - it's just a personal, emotional, irrational bias" reaction without that psychology being actively demonstrated amongst advocates of psi such as yourself in the non-parapsychological sciences. Please, exercise some judgment.
Do you really think a man with a Nobel Prize in physics wades into a debate like this without great care? Climatology is a specialised form of physics, and he has every right to say what he does, and to debate his views with the mainstream scientists. He is retired, and I think this is the point - very little pressure can be put on him to confirm. I don't know if he is still able to debate by now, but my suspicions are immediately raised when senior people raise objections and are essentially ignored.You rarely miss an opportunity to spam this talk! The speaker is by your claim "suitably qualified". Oh? What qualifications relevant to climate science does he have? He has a Nobel Prize in physics, yes - but this is a different field than climate science, and the discovery for which he won the prize - "tunnelling phenomena in solids" according to Wikipedia - has no obvious relationship to climate science. He has a degree in mechanical engineering, yes - but again, this is a different field than climate science, and not obviously related to it. He has worked - again, according to Wikipedia - in biophysics, but again, this field has no obvious or direct relation to climate science.
Do you really think a man with a Nobel Prize in physics wades into a debate like this without great care?
he has every right to say what he does, and to debate his views with the mainstream scientists
My hunch is that your dietician friend didn't even acknowledge the fact that there really is a big row internally about the current dietary advice.
Maybe hiscourse never even exposed him to this divergence of opinion.
I mean Laird, I don't think you accept the standard scientific view of materialism (though I think Silence probably does) - you see how science can seem nearly unanimous and yet be wrong.
Well the first step in any scientific debate is that the two sides should acknowledge that there is another, potentially valid, alternative point of view.My dietitian connection was also already aware of Noakes and the controversy surrounding him in the context of sports nutrition, since my dietitian connection is, as I've already mentioned, both a professional sports dietitian as well as a competitive endurance and ultra-endurance athlete. The conclusion my dietitian connection has reached after looking into the controversy is that at best, the clinical evidence Noakes has presented for the benefits of a low carb, high fat diet for athletes is that such a diet doesn't harm their performance. I doubt that many athletes are going to be persuaded to change their diets on that basis.
Well do you really - I mean how does that expectation connect with Alex's experience?I expect that all or at least most of the scientists on both sides of the debate believe that they're taking great care. That's not an argument for any particular scientist on any particular side being correct.
I think you read far too much into that throwaway remark. I don't know whether you listened to the rest of the talk, or thought about what he said, but IMHO he clearly spent a lot of time on preparing that talk. Don't forget he was a high grade scientist, and he knows how hard/impossible it must be to measure the average temperature of the Earth to such absurd precision. This was what struck me (I am not trying to compare myself to him) when first became curious about this subject (previously I had just assumed Global Warming as a fact).Moreover, at the beginning of his talk he openly admits that he formed his - "horrified" - opinion on global warming after half a day's googling! If that's your idea of a "suitable qualification", then ... I don't know, maybe you need higher standards...?
Well the whole point is that there is more than one scientific viewpoint about this.These are strong but, according to my dietitian connection, simplistic and misinformed claims.
I don't think the position is as clear as that. If materialism is false, and the mind is not wholly contained within the brain, or is not in fact generated by the brain, then that has obvious scientific consequences. Philosophy and science overlap each other to some extent. Also many/most scientists consider philosophy irrelevant to their discipline - even to neuroscience!Materialism isn't a scientific view though, it's a philosophical one, and in most cases scientists who offer philosophical opinions are operating outside of their area of specialty.
Materialism isn't a scientific view though, it's a philosophical one, and in most cases scientists who offer philosophical opinions are operating outside of their area of specialty. Where a group of scientists operating within their area of specialty comes to a consensus, though, I generally (at least as a default) tend to accept it over the (especially tendentious and accusatory) claims of outsiders as to suppression of the truth and conspiracy.
Well the first step in any scientific debate is that the two sides should acknowledge that there is another, potentially valid, alternative point of view.
Alex has often interviewed sceptical academics about these topics, and found that they haven't read any of the literature that they are profess to disagree with.
Laird: I expect that all or at least most of the scientists on both sides of the debate believe that they're taking great care. That's not an argument for any particular scientist on any particular side being correct.
David: Well do you really - I mean how does that expectation connect with Alex's experience?
I think you read far too much into that throwaway remark.
I don't know whether you listened to the rest of the talk, or thought about what he said
IMHO he clearly spent a lot of time on preparing that talk.
Don't forget he was a high grade scientist
he knows how hard/impossible it must be to measure the average temperature of the Earth to such absurd precision.
This was what struck me (I am not trying to compare myself to him) when first became curious about this subject
Well the whole point is that there is more than one scientific viewpoint about this.
1) Laird, if I remember correctly, there is one area of science and medicine there your position is anti-consensus - psychiatry.
As far as I know you - as well as I - do NOT agree that:
mental differences are "illnesses" or "disorders" in the strict clinical sense, not different from, say, diabetes;
life-long psychoactive drugging (and, if psychiatrists deem necessary, even electroshock) is the proper way to deal with them;
persons who are "mentally ill" have no insight in their condition and thus need to be subjected to psychiatrists' violence "for their own good".
Yet all of the above statements are the mainstream consensus of psychiatry. And critical psychiatrists, post-psychiatrists and anti-psychiatrists are contrarians who defy this mainstream consensus. And you, as far as I know, is among these contrarians.
2) To a more general degree, you are anti-consensus in the mind-related science disciplines in general - from psychology to cognitive science to neuroscience: don't you forget, your very identification of materialist position as a dubious philosophical one is itself outside of mainstream; for the overwhelming majority of mind scientists believe materialism to be a kind of self-evident axiom lying in the bedrock of any serious science - and, simultaneously, perpetually proven true by it. Any attempt to describe materialism is something open to debate, and to present the scientific evidence against it, puts one outside of the mainstream consensus for sure.
3) Rupert Sheldrake is a plant biologist by his profession; yet he dares to think and criticise across the whole range of the scientific disciplines. For example, take physics: let's recall his statement that the laws of physics may be not fixed forever but rather be changeable. And he makes it as an evidence-based scientific claim, not just some conceptual philosophical postulate. Would you condemn him for transgressing the borders of his original narrow specialisation?
If one is a Materialist who does not believe any invisible, super-natural realms exist, can they still practice Magick, or would a more honest description of their practice be Psychology?
OK now you are missing the point, which was that I pointed out that you tried to distinguish your disbelief in mainstream science re ψ, by arguing that the issue was philosophical not scientific - so I pointed out that the two overlap - in effect you do not think that the fact that the overwhelming majority of scientists dismiss ψ invalidates your belief in the likelihood of ψ.Re philosophy and science: I agree with David that there is overlap, and also that philosophy/ideology can colour scientific research. A physicalist/atheist ideology might, for example, discourage investigation into the role that intelligence might have played in the origins and development of life.
Do metaphysical beliefs have any bearing on nutrition science or climate science though? It doesn't seem much like it to me.[1] If anything, ideology seems most relevant to climate change contrarians, some of whom have political or economic reasons to object.
The author of the article is a Doctor (presumably medical or related) and you can look up the qualifications of Prof Salim Yusuf for yourself.Those having three portions of dairy - which could mean two slices of cheese, a full-fat yoghurt and half a pint of whole milk - and one and half portions of red meat daily fared best. This equates to around 20-25 per cent of calories coming from dairy.
Their rates of early death were 25 per cent lower than those of people consuming less, with 22 per cent fewer heart attacks.
OK now you are missing the point, which was that I pointed out that you tried to distinguish your disbelief in mainstream science re ψ, by arguing that the issue was philosophical not scientific - so I pointed out that the two overlap - in effect you do not think that the fact that the overwhelming majority of scientists dismiss ψ invalidates your belief in the likelihood of ψ.
Regarding the nutrition issue, here is another study of 220000 adults that found roughly what I was claiming - that the official health guidelines are wrong.