If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Dr. Atkins' Dietetic Revolution: Mu Critique?
In article , MU wrote: You wouldn't know a properly performed study if it smacked you in the face. You have no clue what a well documented citation should look like, no idea if the science is bad or worse, if the researchers are credible or paid buffoons. You wouldn't know a control group from a drug controlled groupie. On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 17:09:20 GMT, Luna wrote: Um, hold on a minute. When the results of studies are discussed here, the things you mention above are also very often discussed here. Many people on this group look further into the studies, question how they were done, and report any financial ties the "researchers" might have to the rest of the group. There are some things about the average person on the low-carb group that make us a bit different from the average person on the street, and those things, imo, make us more qualified to discuss scientific research than you might think. Qualified to use research as an information tool for practical discussion is not a "gosh I took Biology" kind of thing. One is either educated and properly experienced or not. Excepting a few, no one participating in this discussion is except Chung. Next, for the most part the people here are on low-carb diets. That means we are skeptical of long-standing beliefs about how we're supposed to eat to stay healthy. That skepticism carries over into how we view research. So what if we're self-taught? Qualified to use research as an information tool for practical discussion is not a "gosh I took Biology" kind of thing. One is either educated and properly experienced or not. Excepting a few, no one participating in this discussion is except Chung. Want a self-taught surgeon cutting on you? If anything that makes us more motivated to get to the truth. We're not doing it for a grade, a degree, or a job, we're doing it for our own personal health and well-being, and for some of us it's even a matter of life and death. Then treat it as such. Go to the research community and ask them for help. I recently took up racing (again). Jump in the bucket and fly? Nope. Back to school I went, out to the track, got the pros, got the help. Whenever a news article about a diet study is posted here, the responses are along the lines of "who did this study? how many participants? where did their funding come from? how was it controlled? were the dieters self-reporting? where is the full research report, not the abstract?" etc. And with this info you do what? Make uninformed judgments on things outside of your capabilities to understand. Maybe no single one of us is qualified to accurately interpret the results of a scientific study, but with a bit of knowledge here and a bit from over there, we can collectively ferret out the truth. No you can't. What you collectively ferret out is what you erroneously believe is the truth. I think my most important point here is that one needn't be a trained scientist in order to view the world in a scientific way. It means that we don't just accept what we're told, we question and research, and then question that research, we apply hypotheses to the real world (testing diets on our own bodies) we observe the results, we question causation vs. correlation. This is how we think, how we live. Undestanding science is more about how you _think_ than the facts that you know. Understanding science is about higher education, relative experience and repetitive application. Nothing less is the truth. Facts can be learned, terminology can be looked up, even by a lay person. The qualifications for understanding what you learn are skepticism and logical thought processes, which do not require a scientific degree. You can look up all the facts you want but, for instance, reading about fine tuning a suspension is about physics and wrenches. Here's a better question. Would you rather spend your time guessing at science or having science properly interpreted for you? Same amount of time, same amount of effort. Which do you choose? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
In article , MU wrote: You wouldn't know a properly performed study if it smacked you in the face. You have no clue what a well documented citation should look like, no idea if the science is bad or worse, if the researchers are credible or paid buffoons. You wouldn't know a control group from a drug controlled groupie. On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 17:09:20 GMT, Luna wrote: Um, hold on a minute. When the results of studies are discussed here, the things you mention above are also very often discussed here. Many people on this group look further into the studies, question how they were done, and report any financial ties the "researchers" might have to the rest of the group. There are some things about the average person on the low-carb group that make us a bit different from the average person on the street, and those things, imo, make us more qualified to discuss scientific research than you might think. Qualified to use research as an information tool for practical discussion is not a "gosh I took Biology" kind of thing. One is either educated and properly experienced or not. Excepting a few, no one participating in this discussion is except Chung. Next, for the most part the people here are on low-carb diets. That means we are skeptical of long-standing beliefs about how we're supposed to eat to stay healthy. That skepticism carries over into how we view research. So what if we're self-taught? Qualified to use research as an information tool for practical discussion is not a "gosh I took Biology" kind of thing. One is either educated and properly experienced or not. Excepting a few, no one participating in this discussion is except Chung. Want a self-taught surgeon cutting on you? If anything that makes us more motivated to get to the truth. We're not doing it for a grade, a degree, or a job, we're doing it for our own personal health and well-being, and for some of us it's even a matter of life and death. Then treat it as such. Go to the research community and ask them for help. I recently took up racing (again). Jump in the bucket and fly? Nope. Back to school I went, out to the track, got the pros, got the help. Whenever a news article about a diet study is posted here, the responses are along the lines of "who did this study? how many participants? where did their funding come from? how was it controlled? were the dieters self-reporting? where is the full research report, not the abstract?" etc. And with this info you do what? Make uninformed judgments on things outside of your capabilities to understand. Maybe no single one of us is qualified to accurately interpret the results of a scientific study, but with a bit of knowledge here and a bit from over there, we can collectively ferret out the truth. No you can't. What you collectively ferret out is what you erroneously believe is the truth. I think my most important point here is that one needn't be a trained scientist in order to view the world in a scientific way. It means that we don't just accept what we're told, we question and research, and then question that research, we apply hypotheses to the real world (testing diets on our own bodies) we observe the results, we question causation vs. correlation. This is how we think, how we live. Undestanding science is more about how you _think_ than the facts that you know. Understanding science is about higher education, relative experience and repetitive application. Nothing less is the truth. Facts can be learned, terminology can be looked up, even by a lay person. The qualifications for understanding what you learn are skepticism and logical thought processes, which do not require a scientific degree. You can look up all the facts you want but, for instance, reading about fine tuning a suspension is about physics and wrenches. Here's a better question. Would you rather spend your time guessing at science or having science properly interpreted for you? Same amount of time, same amount of effort. Which do you choose? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AIDS, Anthrax, Atkins....Scarlett A's Part II | Steve Randy Shilts Bayt | General Discussion | 18 | July 8th, 2004 09:47 PM |
AIDS, Anthrax, Atkins....Scarlett A's Part II | Steve Randy Shilts Bayt | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 18 | July 8th, 2004 09:47 PM |
Atkins & new Lo-Carb frenzy | jk | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 21 | April 16th, 2004 04:26 AM |
Atkins Refresher - From Atkins Online Support | Ropingirl | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 1 | December 18th, 2003 08:10 PM |
Playing games | Logorrhea | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 102 | November 9th, 2003 08:39 PM |