jsalvatier comments on Alternative Places to Get Ideas (Also, "In Defense of Food") - Less Wrong

14 Post author: Raemon 26 December 2010 06:36PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (36)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 27 December 2010 03:44:42AM *  10 points [-]

There is a decent talk "Big Fat Fiasco" (about an hour long) that explains what happened with nutrition science.

Some of the interesting parts are near the end of part 2/start of part 3:

Specifically senator McGovern dismissing complaints from scientists that there was not enough evidence that fat caused hear disease by saying:

Senators don't have the luxury that a research scientist has of waiting until every last shred of evidence is in.

A little latter the video mentions that at the time 90% of all funding for research on heart disease was provided by the US Government and American Heart Association. Thus once both said that fat causes heart disease it was nearly impossible for scientists who got conflicting reports to get funding.

Edited conclusion to make it clearer:

There are two problems here:

1) The attitude that this area is too important to wait for "every last shred of evidence" and thus we must go with science based upon weak evidence.

Where else have I heard this, which appears to be prevalent in climate science and pandemic medicine today.

2) Nearly all funding provided by a few large organizations that are thus subject to politics and group think.

This appears to be true in most sciences today.

As such, unfortunately, it appears the case nutrition science isn't just an isolated incident.

Comment author: jsalvatier 30 December 2010 11:58:04AM 3 points [-]

I suppose the lesson here is that an inability to wait until all evidence is in to being to act does not imply that you should stop investigating new evidence once you begin to act.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 30 December 2010 07:08:05PM *  5 points [-]

The problem is that once you begin to act you're subject to commitment bias. Namely, as happened in the example, you have a psychological and possibly institutional commitment to the correctness of the theory you're acting under.