General fitness, health and nutrition · Public discussion

Re: markd's "standard guidelines for verity set in this group"

Email address hidden · 2004-11-17T01:14:34+00:00

I take your point, there is a danger of bias being introduced into published info and it must be taken with a grain of salt. There is a process in science that over time real fraud gets caught, but that is not what is at issue in your observation. It is when info is massaged by what is included and what is left out or minimized etc. that becomes the problem. But even here this tends to be balanced over time as competing intrests, both commercial and academic and philosophical, present their best. This process leads in time to a concensus of the middle ground that most folk hold. The charge used in this group by "he who makes standards" that any research is a fraud if some group supporting it has a vested intrest and that can not be maintained for long in light of the above. For each beef council pushing the consumption of more meat by supporting studies to show some benefit for their products there is a agri biz who is eager to make known the benefits of nuts or some other commoidity. This can in fact be healthy because it forms in time the middle concensus of science. Just because the beef and the nut intrests support the research to show the respective benefits of the nutrition of their products is not based on fraud or faking data and so on as is the charge. The same thing happens with various schools of thought on a scientific question, such as some theory in cosmology and the evolution of the universe. But "he who makes standards" starts with the notion that all science is suspect and can easily be dismissed, especially if it contridicts one's dearly held view about something. He now wants to qualify that anti science by qualifying whtt is "good" and "bad" science now that low carb is in it's infancy in scienctific research. The point all along is that the quality of the research must always be found in itself, unless fraud can be shown. I haven't been following the current discussion/s, and I do very much appreciate your posts. But I wonder how practical it is, on forums like this, to completely ignore possible bias in sources. For example, I saw a long list of studies of a certain controversial sweetener, giving alleged sources of their funding. Are we to take this list at face value, or consider the source the list came from? Skinny

Started by Email address hidden · 17 November 2004 · Last activity 24 November 2004 · 5 posts · 292 views

← Back to General fitness, health and nutrition

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section: General fitness, health and nutrition
Published: 17 November 2004
Last activity: 24 November 2004
Original author: Email address hidden
Posts: 5
Discussion status: Public discussion
Total views: 292
Views / 30 days: 0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Original post
Email address hidden
Archived post

17 November 2004, 01:14 UTC #1

I take your point, there is a danger of bias being introduced into
published info and it must be taken with a grain of salt. There is a
process in science that over time real fraud gets caught, but that is not
what is at issue in your observation. It is when info is massaged by what
is included and what is left out or minimized etc. that becomes the
problem. But even here this tends to be balanced over time as competing
intrests, both commercial and academic and philosophical, present their
best. This process leads in time to a concensus of the middle ground that
most folk hold. The charge used in this group by "he who makes standards"
that any research is a fraud if some group supporting it has a vested
intrest and that can not be maintained for long in light of the above.
For each beef council pushing the consumption of more meat by supporting
studies to show some benefit for their products there is a agri biz who is
eager to make known the benefits of nuts or some other commoidity. This
can in fact be healthy because it forms in time the middle concensus of
science. Just because the beef and the nut intrests support the research
to show the respective benefits of the nutrition of their products is not
based on fraud or faking data and so on as is the charge. The same thing
happens with various schools of thought on a scientific question, such as
some theory in cosmology and the evolution of the universe. But "he who
makes standards" starts with the notion that all science is suspect and
can easily be dismissed, especially if it contridicts one's dearly held
view about something. He now wants to qualify that anti science by
qualifying whtt is "good" and "bad" science now that low carb is in it's
infancy in scienctific research.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
The point all along is that the quality of the research must
always be found in itself, unless fraud can be shown.
I haven't been following the current discussion/s, and I do very much
appreciate your posts.
But I wonder how practical it is, on forums like this, to completely ignore
possible bias in sources. For example, I saw a long list of studies of a
certain controversial sweetener, giving alleged sources of their funding.
Are we to take this list at face value, or consider the source the list came
from?
Skinny

Report
Doug Freese
Archived post

17 November 2004, 12:51 UTC #2

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
But "he who
Quoted message said:
makes standards" starts with the notion that all science is suspect
and
can easily be dismissed, especially if it contridicts one's dearly
held
view about something. He now wants to qualify that anti science by
qualifying whtt is "good" and "bad" science now that low carb is in
it's
infancy in scienctific research.
He has been using this ploy for so long I'm surprised that anyone
believes his missives. At first I though he was a troll but sad to say
he seems to believe himself. If you keep saying the world is flat even
a satellite picture will be visually transformed into a plane. He has
created his own Catch-22 to preserve "his standards." We have the Nobel
Prize and the Darwin awards to view the extremes. There should be a
"Renaissance man conspiracy" award for our beloved TC. I read him with
amusement to keep abreast of his latest conspiracy theory. It's healthy
to review his fodder as humor is health.
ALL I could see from where I stood
Was three long mountains and a wood;
..
..The sky was not so very tall.
The sky, I said, must somewhere stop,
And-sure enough!-I see the top!
..
..
-DF

Report
tcomeau
Archived post

18 November 2004, 14:46 UTC #3

"Doug Freese" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...
Quoted message said:
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
But "he who
Quoted message said:
makes standards" starts with the notion that all science is suspect
and
can easily be dismissed, especially if it contridicts one's dearly
held
view about something. He now wants to qualify that anti science by
qualifying whtt is "good" and "bad" science now that low carb is in
it's
infancy in scienctific research.
He has been using this ploy for so long I'm surprised that anyone
believes his missives. At first I though he was a troll but sad to say
he seems to believe himself. If you keep saying the world is flat even
a satellite picture will be visually transformed into a plane. He has
created his own Catch-22 to preserve "his standards." We have the Nobel
Prize and the Darwin awards to view the extremes. There should be a
"Renaissance man conspiracy" award for our beloved TC. I read him with
amusement to keep abreast of his latest conspiracy theory. It's healthy
to review his fodder as humor is health.
ALL I could see from where I stood
Was three long mountains and a wood;
.
.The sky was not so very tall.
The sky, I said, must somewhere stop,
And-sure enough!-I see the top!
.
.
-DF
I hope that all scientific authors get this message loud and clear:
Declare your financial interests up front or look like a crook when
someone else digs them up and posts them for all to see.
Until then we will do nothing but sling mud at each other without
being able to focus on the science.
This sad situation us not my doing. All I'm doing is pointing out the
dishonesty and the apparent lack of integrity.
TC

Report
Email address hidden
Archived post

18 November 2004, 19:15 UTC #4

The reason "he who invents standaerds" can find info on research folk is
because it * IS * published on the internet, many journals now require it
so and if one looks at full research articles and not abstracts and/or
news articles they are in plain view to be seen. All this effort to show
that some group suppports research is not new or particuarlly revealing,
but only to reveal lack of knowledge of how it works. All research is
supported by grants from some source outside the person doing it and the
university/center at which it is done. All, repeat, all of those groups
providing support have intrests to serve. What is lacking is demonstrated
fraud or some such as can be show in the quality of the research. Was
data faked, were results cooked, were negative results not shown and so
forth. This brings us round again, if atkins or beef councils or the
grain companies; which fattens animals, or any other folk who are
nowsupporting carb related research buying the results now starting to
appear? With our new "standard" they just need to identify that there is
such support; and we still don't know if they are crooks bought off by
"finanual intrest".
"I hope that all scientific authors get this message loud and clear:
Declare your financial interests up front or look like a crook when
someone else digs them up and posts them for all to see.
Until then we will do nothing but sling mud at each other without
being able to focus on the science.
This sad situation us not my doing. All I'm doing is pointing out the
dishonesty and the apparent lack of integrity."

Report
Dunne E. Dawe
Archived post

24 November 2004, 05:46 UTC #5

On 18 Nov 2004 06:46:13 -0800, [email hidden] (tcomeau) posted:
Quoted message said:
All I'm doing is pointing out the
dishonesty and the apparent lack of integrity.
In what? That you have not been aware of funding sources for some
studies? You go wrong when you think that studies are science. Studies
are merely raw material for science. The robust scientific process
irons out all anomalies and the very rare fraud. Look, any scientist
who reports fraudulently has a professional death wish. Every
scientist I've known is genuinely seeking the truth, whatever that may
be. Of course, in Australia there is a lot of funding from government
sources with no strings attached.

Report

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.

What we know about this thread

Continue through CyclingForums

Active in this thread