Provide counterarguments

[Basman]

2 hours ago, Socrates said:

The only experiment that's actually about you is the one you run on yourself. That's not arrogance — it's just correct epistemology.

It's not 🤢, it's 🤮

[PsychedelicEagle]

On 5/23/2026 at 1:27 AM, Leo Gura said:

Metabolism is unique per person.

 

On 5/23/2026 at 1:27 AM, Leo Gura said:

Your body can tell you things that no scientist can.

Yes, and I would add that one should complement their subjective assessment with "objective" biomarkers such as blood, urine, stool, etc., types of tests. Some of these are cheap and can catch things that one may be oblivious to. Speaking from personal experience.

Part of the scientific literature addresses populational averages (e.g., nutritional guidelines for an entire country), but there is also a lot of useful information about references and causal relationships of biomarkers that one can leverage to understand their particular nutritional status.

 

 

Edited 10 hours ago by PsychedelicEagle

[PsychedelicEagle]

On 5/23/2026 at 2:33 AM, Hojo said:

The best argument is that they change it all the time. That means they are grifting what they know. Science always makes absolute claims about something they know absolutely nothing about.

The food pyramid will change again and again and again. Its changed like 4 times since I've been alive.

Its just a guess and it's always a wrong guess that they are always right about.

You can make the distinction that the media reporting scientific findings is what make absolute claims. (Good) nutrition scientists will give you nuanced and non-absolute perspectives.

Also, the fact that the pyramid changes doesn't mean it's useless. Someone starting from ground zero is better off following it than not. Only after you add personalization the odds of good health outcomes may increase with deviation from what's recommended for the average. Without personalization, a random person is better off following it than random eating.

Edited 10 hours ago by PsychedelicEagle

[Hojo]

@PsychedelicEagle my problem is science will claim it to be true. Then change their mind. Science cant say anything is true but say everything they come up with is true and can't be argued. This is bullying.

Its not just media its scientists and the population.

If science said here's a food pyramid but its wrong then I wouldn't have a problem.

Edited 7 hours ago by Hojo

[PsychedelicEagle]

@Hojo, what proper science models is, e.g., based on the evidence given a target population & set of circumstances, there is strong/weak evidence for [blank], or the likelihood of X increases 20% with Y given Z.

I.e., science points at statistical and scope-bounded correlations, sometime possible causations. It's up to the reader to resist generalizing these beyond their scope of application, or treating them as absolute. Most people are unable to do so, but some are — in which case science is valuable. This connects to meta-rationality.

It's the same thing when playing poker. Most people are unable to model the game as a distribution over a range of cards — if you ask them what a given player has, they'll say a single or couple possible starting hands. Ask a good player and they'll give you a range like in the image, with probabilities associated to each hand.

The proper application of science in poker could easily make someone rich in the 2000's. In the same way, the proper application of science in nutrition can make one healthier (or, much better said, increase their likelihood of a good health outcomes).