From: Greg Jordan (jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu)
Date: Tue Apr 29 2003 - 17:20:57 MDT
One of the things I see a lot is the simple fallacy of confusing
correlation with causality. Almost every pop media source views a
correlation as obvious proof of causation, so every single nutritional
study yields a fad - of intake or avoidance, depending on the research
outcome. It's quite insane...
gej
resourcesoftheworld.org
jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu
On Tue, 29 Apr 2003, Keith Elis wrote:
> Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 18:28:13 -0400
> From: Keith Elis <hagbard@ix.netcom.com>
> Reply-To: extropians@extropy.org
> To: extropians@extropy.org
> Subject: Vitamins: More May Be Too Many
>
> Happened across this article today, which seems relevant to the recent
> spate of diet threads.
>
> So far, it seems that all anyone really knows about nutrition is that
> too much of almost everything is bad, and too little of almost
> everything is also bad. The infuriating part of this is that no one can
> agree on what 'just enough of everything' means. I haven't the least bit
> of confidence that any of these nutritionists know what they're talking
> about.
>
> If every physicist with a half-baked 'new' interpretation of QM saw the
> chance to inaugurate the next 'physics fad' with a mass-market paperback
> hyped to the gullible public, the real science being done in physics
> would inevitably be drowned-out by the din of cranks. I suspect
> nutritional science is in this kind of predicament today. There is a
> demand for cranks. Wait around long enough, and even the diet of a 500
> pound bed-ridden obese person will come into vogue.
>
> Keith
>
> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=68&ncid=68&e=1&u=/nyt/20ri.org
> 030429/ts_nyt/vitamins__more_may_be_too_many
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Apr 29 2003 - 17:30:56 MDT