= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
jimrandomh comments on Critiquing Gary Taubes, Part 1: Mainstream Nutrition Science on Obesity - 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 (99)
Will this be a steelmanning? I don't much care about the quality of Taubes' arguments unless they're the best arguments to be had, and I'm pretty sure they aren't.
I definitely think it is interesting criticised as it is, without steelmanning.
I agree, if only because Taubes' arguments are probably more widely known by a large margin than the steelman arguments.
If your goal in reading these posts is to (possibly) come away with the best possible argument against the Taubes-esque position on nutrition, then a steelmanning is what you should desire.
If your goal in reading these posts is to help others understand why they should or shouldn't listen to Taubes' advice, than a critique of Taubes' specific arguments will likely be helpful.
Of course, this probably depends on how close Taubes' arguments are to a steelmanned version...
Right, there are two interesting questions that steelmanning would obscure:
I'm mainly interested in Taubes because of what people cite him as supposedly showing, which requires dealing with his actual arguments. I will to an extent end up looking at actual evidence that supports the effectiveness of low-carb diets. I'm not sure how to steel an the wilder accusations Taubes makes against mainstream nutrition science, except maybe to frame it as a case of bad science communication, but... actually, come to think of it, I should probably talk about that.