This week, says Lara Brown in The Telegraph, the US Heart Association said that 5 coffees a day could reduce the risk of heart disease. Great news, so long as you don’t believe other studies showing that caffeine increases blood pressure, or it’s inflammatory or only safe to drink in the morning. That’s the trouble with today’s “health-obsessed” culture: it’s impossible to know what to believe. Eggs were out of favour but are now a “nutritional godsend”. Wine is bad but might prevent cancer!
@kibcol1049 It’s not impossible to know what to believe: follow the science. You can reduce the amount of conflicting advice by trusting information that comes from a reputable scientific journal or secondary source (such as US Heart Association). In medicine, for example, JAMA and Lancet are the top journals. There are also specialty area medical journals (but that’s more digging than anyone wants to do). You can safely disregard any report in ordinary media that doesn’t cite a credible scientific source.
@meltedcheese @kibcol1049 Honestly though, “follow the science” or “trust the science” are phrases that grate on me a bit, because they imply that the scientific consensus is always clear, unbiased and final, which it isn’t. Certainly, our sensationalist media make everything worse by glomming onto whatever latest (perhaps poorly done) study will get clicks. And some people are blockheads and ignore an overwhelming body of evidence, e.g. for global warming. But even…
@kibcol1049 @Jonricha @meltedcheese Add to that the problem that modern science often leaves empirical evidence behind, in favour of "model wanking".
This is especially common in "climate science" and in theoretical physics, giving us such nonsense as multiple worlds and dimensions which some people seem to take a literal truth.
And don't even get me started on the environmentalists, the biggest sinners of them all.
@h4890 @kibcol1049 @Jonricha Sorry, I must disagree with most of this. Physicists do have a problem communicating complex info, and languages other than mathematics don’t help. The best they can do is find useful metaphors, like “multiple worlds.” If they said “multiple, internally consistent closed sets of physical propositions” (I just made that up) then it would not be clearer. So I cut them some slack.
@meltedcheese @kibcol1049 @Jonricha Read again my man. Yes, I do not doubt that physicists strive to find analogies and metaphors, but the probem is that many people are starting to believe that the map is the territory, and that is a serious error.
If physicists cannot communicate without making it seem that they have discovered parallel universes ,then perhaps they shouldn't communicate at all until better ways of explaining are found?
Right now, this is basically destroying science.
@meltedcheese @kibcol1049 @Jonricha The cure is after all very easy. Demand empirical proof, like science has always done. If this test is consistently applied, before "enobling" theories with the stamp of science, then a lot of these problems will vanish.
Today, billions are poured into nonsense since there is no empirical grounding.
@h4890 @kibcol1049 @Jonricha You are right to demand empirical proof. In science, theory and empirical data (experimental observation) work side by side. Ultimately, theory provides the explanation, but it must be supported by the data. Sometimes, that data can be very hard to collect. Maybe a new instrument is needed, and it must be invented first. That might take a very long time. If a theory is inherently untestable, it doesn’t contribute to science. Skepticism is healthy.
@meltedcheese @kibcol1049 @Jonricha Agreed! We have a harmonious and spiritual meeting of the minds here!
