= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
CasioTheSane comments on If calorie restriction works in humans, should we have observed it already? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (33)
There are certainly anecdotes of Taoist monks with insanely long lifespans. And Moses lived to 120. What even counts as evidence here?
Under the Bayesian definition, the Taoist anecdotes would be pretty weak evidence, and the Biblical accounts of Moses barely evidence at all. Under a scientific defintion, on the other hand, neither of those is evidence at all. I think that the point of this post was "can anyone find any scientific, or at least non-weak Bayesian, evidence that calorie restriction improves lifespan?"
I thought the point of the post was that there isn't any scientific evidence, and the author was scouring for anecdotes, generally involving monks. I was asking what makes one monk-anecdote better than another - in general, what counts as evidence.
Irony is surprisingly hard to detect over the internet. I too have interpreted your original comment wrong.
I'm confused. Did you think that my comment was ironic before, or do you think so now?
I was asking a straightforward question, I thought.
I was thinking that this
is ironic. Especially because "Moses lived to 120" is most probably false if taken literally.
Was this downvoted because folks disapprove of asking what counts as evidence for a particular request, or something else?
I assume LW disliked the implication that the bible's account of Moses' lifespan is reliable.
Interesting - I had the opposite implication in mind.