= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Kutta comments on Intellectual Hipsters and Meta-Contrarianism - LessWrong
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 (323)
All I can say is that actual studies' results and science is the thing making it rationally possible to discern someone pulling a Semmelweis or being a quack. You can definitely do better than the outside view if you're willing to expend at least some personal effort to investigate. Especially if a quick meta-glance (you can think of Hanson here, among others) on medicine suggests that governmental medical institutes and guidelines are a lot less trustworthy than what is usual in non-medical domains.
Yeah, they also tend to be inconsistent over time. Consider: butter or margarine? The mainstream view isn't very solid, but the non-mainstream views don't seem like they're any better either. (If they were better, then why aren't they mainstream yet?)
I think the butter thing, like a lot of very specific dietary concerns, is hard to settle popularly because the answer may not be the same for everyone. Carbohydrate intake is another good example of that phenomenon (I hestitate to even call it a "problem"--the problem is the alleged need for a universal answer). A lot of people who live relatively sedentary lifestyles take in a lot more carbs than they use, and might reasonably be advised to cut back. That does not make it good advice for, say, a bike commuter who's actually getting a reasonable amount of cardiovascular exercise.