From: gts (gts_2000@yahoo.com)
Date: Sat Apr 19 2003 - 14:54:21 MDT
"Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" <sentience@pobox.com> wrote:
> gts wrote:
>> "Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" wrote:
>> Or rather, it doesn't matter what the null
>> hypothesis or Bayesian prior or whatever
>> *was*, because there are now enough specific
>> cases of modern diets being detrimental because
>> of violating ancestral invariants that I would,
>> indeed, tend to take as the *new* working
>> assumption that the ancestral diet is better until
>> proven otherwise.
>> Actually that is what I mean by the paleodiet
>> being the null or default hypothesis.
> No, that *would* be just playing burden-of-proof
> tennis. The paleodiet hypothesis is an interesting
> one, but if your sole justification is "because
> that's what our ancestors ate", in the absence of
> any evidence
Eliezer, that is NOT my "sole justification."
Apparently I haven't made myself clear. I wonder how
many more times I will need to repeat myself on this
particular point. I've done so at least three times
here already with Harvey and others, in this thread
and in other diet-related threads populated by the
same people.
The evidence is clear that paleolithic foods are more
nutrient-dense and healthier than non-paleolithic
foods, and this evidence comes not only from
archaeology but also from entirely outside of
paleodiet theory, directly from nutritional science
itself. As I wrote to Harvey, I shouldn't need to
remind anyone interested in nutritional science that
the literature is replete with evidence that
paleolithic foods are among the healthiest foods
available. Who with any basic knowledge of nutrition
can argue that fish, lean meats and poultry, fruits,
and vegetables are not among the healthiest and most
nutrient-dense foods in existence? And that foods like
ice cream, pizza, candy, milk-shakes, bread, and
pancakes have by comparison very little food value?
These basic ideas should not really be a matter for
debate here, I would think.
I was agreeing with your *entire* paragraph at the top
of this post, including and especially your words
"especially because there are now enough
specific cases of modern diets being detrimental
because of violating ancestral invariants that I
would, indeed, tend to take as the *new* working
assumption that the ancestral diet is better until
proven otherwise."
What I'm trying to convey here is this: when you say
as you did above that you would...
"tend to take as the *new* working assumption that the
ancestral diet is better until proven otherwise"
...you are saying precisely what I am also saying.
I restate the exact same idea in statistical research
terms:
"I tend to think paleodiet theory is the null
hypothesis which needs be disproved by some competing
hypothesis, as opposed to being one of those competing
hypotheses."
As for so-called "Burden of proof table tennis," I
really don't see what the problem is. Burden of proof
is not some kind of dreaded term to be avoided. It is
an emotionally neutral idea. It does not alone imply
that either side is right or wrong. It's merely an
artifact of statistical research. For scientific
progress to take place, someone must compare and
discredit the null hypothesis by providing proof that
a competing hypothesis better explains the empirical
data.
In terms of paleodiet theory testing, the experimental
setup would look like this:
Definition: "'Optimal Diet' causes a, b and c." (where
a, b and c are some measurable parameters of good
health and longevity agreeable to both camps.)
The Null Hypothesis:
"The Optimal Diet is Paleolithic."
The Competing Hypothesis:
The Optimal Diet is paleolithic except with respect to
adding [insert non-paleo item(s) here] and/or removing
[insert paleo item(s) here].
If a test on humans showed that the health parameters
associated with the competing hypothesis were
healthier than those from the null hypothesis, with
statistical significance > 95%, then we would reject
the null hypothesis and accept the competing
hypothesis.
This has already been done successfully, for example,
with respect to adding non-paleo antibiotics. The
tests were not directly against the paleodiet but few
would dispute that they pertain also to the paleodiet.
-gts
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Apr 19 2003 - 15:04:19 MDT