Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Provide Your Sources
Replies
-
FWIW, I read to learn, not so I can prove a point on some message board. I don't bookmark studies, articles, etc, so I rarely have sources at the ready if my thoughts don't fit all nice and tidy with what others think.
That's really OK as long as you're not presenting your opinion as scientific fact. Most of the discussions on the message boards are informal - this is the debate forum so here you would be expected to back up what you say.
Isn't there also an expectation that, in a debate forum, people would be open minded to differing points? Don't forget, facts change over time (i.e. the world is no longer flat)... and nowhere is that more evident than in topics of health.
And just to be clear, I'm mostly playing devil's advocate here. I think the overwhelming majority of the MFP regulars enjoy the learning and the helping as much as anything else.
Would you prefer to wade through a forum of people repeating the same irrational nonsense opinion in perpetuity or at would you at least like to see them attempt to formulate and present a position based on a rational observation that is demonstrably tied to some form of logic?
I would like to see people demonstrate the ability and the willingness to think logically about both anecdotal "evidence" and scientific results. There is a big different between something that hasn't been proven and something that has been disproved.
A lot of the topics that are worthy of debate are worthy because they don't have nice, neat, concise, answers that apply under all circumstances. So the "post a study or GTFO" attitude (again, devil's advocate... most people don't have this attitude) isn't always beneficial.1 -
diannethegeek wrote: »FWIW, I read to learn, not so I can prove a point on some message board. I don't bookmark studies, articles, etc, so I rarely have sources at the ready if my thoughts don't fit all nice and tidy with what others think.
That's really OK as long as you're not presenting your opinion as scientific fact. Most of the discussions on the message boards are informal - this is the debate forum so here you would be expected to back up what you say.
Isn't there also an expectation that, in a debate forum, people would be open minded to differing points? Don't forget, facts change over time (i.e. the world is no longer flat)... and nowhere is that more evident than in topics of health.
And just to be clear, I'm mostly playing devil's advocate here. I think the overwhelming majority of the MFP regulars enjoy the learning and the helping as much as anything else.
Isn't there a difference between being open to new ideas and backing up what you say? You're shifting the goal posts here in your attempt to play devil's advocate (the devil needs no advocate. There are plenty doing that work in every debate).
I don't know you. I don't know if you're well-studied or just starting out. I don't know if you read a study two years ago or twenty. I don't know if it was presented to you accurately or if your memory of it is correct or hazy. Taking your word for it halts the discussion because I can't look into it further to see what information I'm missing.
If you don't want to provide sources, that's fine. It's never going to become a hard rule of the site. But it does turn a good, learnable discussion into nothing more than he said/she said.
Hmmm....
I think you get at an interesting piece of all this when you question my background/knowledge.
If Sidesteel were to come into one of these debates and post something that didn't line up with what I thought I knew, I'd be much more apt to take it at face value, and I'd certainly give it much more thought/consideration than if someone with 15 posts and a join date of August 2016 made that same claim. The perceived trustworthiness of the source matters. I can't decide if that's a good thing or a bad thing, but it's certainly a thing.3 -
diannethegeek wrote: »FWIW, I read to learn, not so I can prove a point on some message board. I don't bookmark studies, articles, etc, so I rarely have sources at the ready if my thoughts don't fit all nice and tidy with what others think.
That's really OK as long as you're not presenting your opinion as scientific fact. Most of the discussions on the message boards are informal - this is the debate forum so here you would be expected to back up what you say.
Isn't there also an expectation that, in a debate forum, people would be open minded to differing points? Don't forget, facts change over time (i.e. the world is no longer flat)... and nowhere is that more evident than in topics of health.
And just to be clear, I'm mostly playing devil's advocate here. I think the overwhelming majority of the MFP regulars enjoy the learning and the helping as much as anything else.
Isn't there a difference between being open to new ideas and backing up what you say? You're shifting the goal posts here in your attempt to play devil's advocate (the devil needs no advocate. There are plenty doing that work in every debate).
I don't know you. I don't know if you're well-studied or just starting out. I don't know if you read a study two years ago or twenty. I don't know if it was presented to you accurately or if your memory of it is correct or hazy. Taking your word for it halts the discussion because I can't look into it further to see what information I'm missing.
If you don't want to provide sources, that's fine. It's never going to become a hard rule of the site. But it does turn a good, learnable discussion into nothing more than he said/she said.
Hmmm....
I think you get at an interesting piece of all this when you question my background/knowledge.
If Sidesteel were to come into one of these debates and post something that didn't line up with what I thought I knew, I'd be much more apt to take it at face value, and I'd certainly give it much more thought/consideration than if someone with 15 posts and a join date of August 2016 made that same claim. The perceived trustworthiness of the source matters. I can't decide if that's a good thing or a bad thing, but it's certainly a thing.
Oh absolutely! Most people are far more likely to accept without question a citation from a textbook and less likely to accept one from a popular diet book.0 -
Facts don't change.
The world was never flat.
We just didn't understand that until we had proof otherwise.
The older I get the less I know, honestly.
My least favorite "friend" is this super-annoying neighbor who you can't even have a casual, driveway discussion with without her pulling out her phone and googling nearly every opinion everyone has. I avoid her like the plague. There is a lot to be said for polite conversation and not having to try to be "right" at every turn.
*ets. You know what else doesn't change? My inability to post without editing for typos.7 -
I'm not campaigning for a hard rule, really. I wish for more rigor when throwing around "facts." Something that would make someone think about what they were saying when they type one of the magic phrases. Question what they believe and why they believe it. I got kicked off yesterday by someone posting that they "read a book yesterday" that said pear shaped people shouldn't do lower body exercises. I asked politely twice for the book. I'd rather talk about someone's source being questionable than call them silly.1
-
MelanieCN77 wrote: »There should be a posting rule, where if you say something like "research says" or "studies show" or "I read somewhere that" that you have to provide a link or at least a title and author reference to your source.
OP, a question just occurred to me - are you talking about discussions in all forums or the debate forum specifically?
We can't all have personal trainers and dietitians, that's why we are here, of course, for peer support. I think people should be encouraged to be responsible and thoughtful when they are doling out advice on diet and exercise in particular, regardless of the venue.1 -
MelanieCN77 wrote: »MelanieCN77 wrote: »There should be a posting rule, where if you say something like "research says" or "studies show" or "I read somewhere that" that you have to provide a link or at least a title and author reference to your source.
OP, a question just occurred to me - are you talking about discussions in all forums or the debate forum specifically?
We can't all have personal trainers and dietitians, that's why we are here, of course, for peer support. I think people should be encouraged to be responsible and thoughtful when they are doling out advice on diet and exercise in particular, regardless of the venue.
The problem (which is evident by reading through the forums) is that so many people are "educated" by the woo and derp they read in magazines and see on Dr. Oz, or on some crackpot junk scientist's website. They firmly believe it is "fact" and will argue the point to the death despite being shown scientific evidence to the contrary. They think they're being responsible and thoughtful, but all they're doing is vomiting garbage. Ask them to source their claims and they'll link to a newspaper article, a blog, a YouTube video or some other such dubious, poorly vetted "source".
There's no way to stop them, but their credibility (or complete lack thereof) becomes evident after a few posts.2 -
MelanieCN77 wrote: »MelanieCN77 wrote: »There should be a posting rule, where if you say something like "research says" or "studies show" or "I read somewhere that" that you have to provide a link or at least a title and author reference to your source.
OP, a question just occurred to me - are you talking about discussions in all forums or the debate forum specifically?
We can't all have personal trainers and dietitians, that's why we are here, of course, for peer support. I think people should be encouraged to be responsible and thoughtful when they are doling out advice on diet and exercise in particular, regardless of the venue.
The problem (which is evident by reading through the forums) is that so many people are "educated" by the woo and derp they read in magazines and see on Dr. Oz, or on some crackpot junk scientist's website. They firmly believe it is "fact" and will argue the point to the death despite being shown scientific evidence to the contrary. They think they're being responsible and thoughtful, but all they're doing is vomiting garbage. Ask them to source their claims and they'll link to a newspaper article, a blog, a YouTube video or some other such dubious, poorly vetted "source".
There's no way to stop them, but their credibility (or complete lack thereof) becomes evident after a few posts.
It's great when someone starts to realize how much they have been duped by the misinterpretations presented by media. Unfortunately, we also have those who insist on continuing to use these sources despite recognizing that they are insufficient at best and willfully misleading to increase readership at worse.1 -
diannethegeek wrote: »FWIW, I read to learn, not so I can prove a point on some message board. I don't bookmark studies, articles, etc, so I rarely have sources at the ready if my thoughts don't fit all nice and tidy with what others think.
That's really OK as long as you're not presenting your opinion as scientific fact. Most of the discussions on the message boards are informal - this is the debate forum so here you would be expected to back up what you say.
Isn't there also an expectation that, in a debate forum, people would be open minded to differing points? Don't forget, facts change over time (i.e. the world is no longer flat)... and nowhere is that more evident than in topics of health.
And just to be clear, I'm mostly playing devil's advocate here. I think the overwhelming majority of the MFP regulars enjoy the learning and the helping as much as anything else.
Isn't there a difference between being open to new ideas and backing up what you say? You're shifting the goal posts here in your attempt to play devil's advocate (the devil needs no advocate. There are plenty doing that work in every debate).
I don't know you. I don't know if you're well-studied or just starting out. I don't know if you read a study two years ago or twenty. I don't know if it was presented to you accurately or if your memory of it is correct or hazy. Taking your word for it halts the discussion because I can't look into it further to see what information I'm missing.
If you don't want to provide sources, that's fine. It's never going to become a hard rule of the site. But it does turn a good, learnable discussion into nothing more than he said/she said.
Hmmm....
I think you get at an interesting piece of all this when you question my background/knowledge.
If Sidesteel were to come into one of these debates and post something that didn't line up with what I thought I knew, I'd be much more apt to take it at face value, and I'd certainly give it much more thought/consideration than if someone with 15 posts and a join date of August 2016 made that same claim. The perceived trustworthiness of the source matters. I can't decide if that's a good thing or a bad thing, but it's certainly a thing.
There are three classical means of persuasion in a debate:pathos, ethos and logos. Posting high-quality studies and other objective appeals to rationality is logos (the Greek root for logic). Ethos is an appeal to character--there are many posters here that have built of a reputation for scientific excellence, and they might post "I can't remember the study right now, but..." and their statement is accepted more readily than the statement of some unknown, or someone who has posted a lot of derp in the past. Also, even if someone is a new poster, the content of their message makes a big difference--you know when you are dealing with an expert by the way they talk. As you note, this is not good or bad, it just IS. Finally, I saw an awesome example of pathos ("suffering") over the weekend-- @Aaron_K123 posted some extremely thoughtful comments (ethos) on the "GAH! My Jerk Husband Bought Chocolate!" thread, and a poster named Puppybear raked him over the freaking coals for what a mean meanie bad guy he was. Aaron! It was a bunch of touchy-feely nonsense, but it probably made Aaron feel horrible, and it likely framed him as a "bad" person in the eyes of anyone who wasn't familiar with his general kindness and the consistent excellence of the advice he gives. It was extremely well done pathos, but empty of ethos or logos. Basically, you want to have all three in your toolbox, both to use, and to deconstruct your debate opponent--logos is the most difficult to deconstruct, but sometimes that makes little difference in a society that has been taught to feel all the feelz and not to think critically.9 -
cmriverside wrote: »Facts don't change.
The world was never flat.
We just didn't understand that until we had proof otherwise.
The older I get the less I know, honestly.
My least favorite "friend" is this super-annoying neighbor who you can't even have a casual, driveway discussion with without her pulling out her phone and googling nearly every opinion everyone has. I avoid her like the plague. There is a lot to be said for polite conversation and not having to try to be "right" at every turn.
*ets. You know what else doesn't change? My inability to post without editing for typos.
Not only is the world not flat, people didn't believe it was flat nearly as long as people believe they did.5 -
stevencloser wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »Facts don't change.
The world was never flat.
We just didn't understand that until we had proof otherwise.
The older I get the less I know, honestly.
My least favorite "friend" is this super-annoying neighbor who you can't even have a casual, driveway discussion with without her pulling out her phone and googling nearly every opinion everyone has. I avoid her like the plague. There is a lot to be said for polite conversation and not having to try to be "right" at every turn.
*ets. You know what else doesn't change? My inability to post without editing for typos.
Not only is the world not flat, people didn't believe it was flat nearly as long as people believe they did.
Exactly.1 -
MelanieCN77 wrote: »There should be a posting rule, where if you say something like "research says" or "studies show" or "I read somewhere that" that you have to provide a link or at least a title and author reference to your source.
OP, a question just occurred to me - are you talking about discussions in all forums or the debate forum specifically?
Just about every thread in this forum becomes a debate.1 -
Good point.0
-
FWIW, I read to learn, not so I can prove a point on some message board. I don't bookmark studies, articles, etc, so I rarely have sources at the ready if my thoughts don't fit all nice and tidy with what others think.
That's really OK as long as you're not presenting your opinion as scientific fact. Most of the discussions on the message boards are informal - this is the debate forum so here you would be expected to back up what you say.
Isn't there also an expectation that, in a debate forum, people would be open minded to differing points? Don't forget, facts change over time (i.e. the world is no longer flat)... and nowhere is that more evident than in topics of health.
And just to be clear, I'm mostly playing devil's advocate here. I think the overwhelming majority of the MFP regulars enjoy the learning and the helping as much as anything else.
I actually think there's the opposite expectation in a debate forum. My expectation would be that I would have to work harder to prove my point, and that the people reading my thoughts will be more skeptical and more stringent about checking sources.
Also, as has been pointed out, facts don't change. Our understanding of the world does. Colloquially, science is true whether you believe in it or not.6 -
Sometimes it's useful to cite sources. Sometimes it's just redundant, or things anyone with a modicum of curiosity could obtain. Sometimes the sources are so academic that there's perhaps a handful of people who can even understand them, much less have the time and interest to bother checking them. Sometimes the sources are behind paywalls and therefore pretty much unhelpful to people without access to a good academic library ($35 / article is just ridiculous).
"Cite your sources" for every single thing anyone says here would be a hopeless miring of the conversation. It would also lead to a breakdown of communication between people with different levels of understanding.
And I say that even though I love citing studies that I've read (provided I didn't post from my cell phone, in which case all citations can go jump off a pier).3 -
As far as facts and the earth being flat goes... I don't know if it's semantics, a poor example, of if I'm just plain wrong, but isn't a fact something that can be proven beyond refute? Isn't that the definition of a fact? And as such, something being considered a fact is based on our ability to test/prove/disprove it, correct? So as our abilities to test ideas change with the increase of knowledge, advent of technology, etc etc, what is considered a fact can change, no?
Getting back to providing sources to justify a claim. Maybe it comes down to mindset. If you come into a debate looking for someone to prove your current beliefs on the topic wrong, then yes... sources will be an important part of all that. If you come into a debate looking to learn, then all you really need is a plausible argument. At least that's what I think. If someone makes a decent argument for their point, then I'll probably go research it on my own if I want to understand it with that degree of granularity.
And just to be clear... I'm not arguing against studies, sources, justifications. I'm just saying that the lack of one doesn't necessarily nullify the point being made. I'm arguing the "studies or GTFO" mentality that occasionally comes across from some people.1 -
As far as facts and the earth being flat goes... I don't know if it's semantics, a poor example, of if I'm just plain wrong, but isn't a fact something that can be proven beyond refute? Isn't that the definition of a fact? And as such, something being considered a fact is based on our ability to test/prove/disprove it, correct? So as our abilities to test ideas change with the increase of knowledge, advent of technology, etc etc, what is considered a fact can change, no?
Getting back to providing sources to justify a claim. Maybe it comes down to mindset. If you come into a debate looking for someone to prove your current beliefs on the topic wrong, then yes... sources will be an important part of all that. If you come into a debate looking to learn, then all you really need is a plausible argument. At least that's what I think. If someone makes a decent argument for their point, then I'll probably go research it on my own if I want to understand it with that degree of granularity.
And just to be clear... I'm not arguing against studies, sources, justifications. I'm just saying that the lack of one doesn't necessarily nullify the point being made. I'm arguing the "studies or GTFO" mentality that occasionally comes across from some people.
Maybe it is just an issue of semantics, but to me a fact is the truth. We may not know it, but that doesn't make it less factual. At any rate, you're right that that's not particularly relevant to the question at hand.
As to the second part I think it's a question of tone. If you come into a debate and say "it has always been my understanding that x" or "to me common sense would seem to imply y" then I think that's fine, as your wording indicates a desire to learn and an openness to the arguments and positions of others. If you come in and say "it's a fact that sugar causes cancer" then your tone implies you've already made up your mind, and in that case you're going to need some sources, and some pretty heavy hitting ones at that given the dramatic statement you've* made.
*"you" for the purposes of this thought exercise is only meant the proverbial sense. I know you've made no such claim.3 -
ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »As far as facts and the earth being flat goes... I don't know if it's semantics, a poor example, of if I'm just plain wrong, but isn't a fact something that can be proven beyond refute? Isn't that the definition of a fact? And as such, something being considered a fact is based on our ability to test/prove/disprove it, correct? So as our abilities to test ideas change with the increase of knowledge, advent of technology, etc etc, what is considered a fact can change, no?
Getting back to providing sources to justify a claim. Maybe it comes down to mindset. If you come into a debate looking for someone to prove your current beliefs on the topic wrong, then yes... sources will be an important part of all that. If you come into a debate looking to learn, then all you really need is a plausible argument. At least that's what I think. If someone makes a decent argument for their point, then I'll probably go research it on my own if I want to understand it with that degree of granularity.
And just to be clear... I'm not arguing against studies, sources, justifications. I'm just saying that the lack of one doesn't necessarily nullify the point being made. I'm arguing the "studies or GTFO" mentality that occasionally comes across from some people.
As to the second part I think it's a question of tone. If you come into a debate and say "it has always been my understanding that x" or "to me common sense would seem to imply y" then I think that's fine, as your wording indicates a desire to learn and an openness to the arguments and positions of others. If you come in and say "it's a fact that sugar causes cancer" then your tone implies you've already made up your mind, and in that case you're going to need some sources, and some pretty heavy hitting ones at that given the dramatic statement you've* made.
*"you" for the purposes of this thought exercise is only meant the proverbial sense. I know you've made no such claim.
That's fair... I'll take that. A statement made as absolute truth is much more likely to be met with "prove it" (and understandably so) than the same point made in a more conversational way.1 -
ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »As far as facts and the earth being flat goes... I don't know if it's semantics, a poor example, of if I'm just plain wrong, but isn't a fact something that can be proven beyond refute? Isn't that the definition of a fact? And as such, something being considered a fact is based on our ability to test/prove/disprove it, correct? So as our abilities to test ideas change with the increase of knowledge, advent of technology, etc etc, what is considered a fact can change, no?
Getting back to providing sources to justify a claim. Maybe it comes down to mindset. If you come into a debate looking for someone to prove your current beliefs on the topic wrong, then yes... sources will be an important part of all that. If you come into a debate looking to learn, then all you really need is a plausible argument. At least that's what I think. If someone makes a decent argument for their point, then I'll probably go research it on my own if I want to understand it with that degree of granularity.
And just to be clear... I'm not arguing against studies, sources, justifications. I'm just saying that the lack of one doesn't necessarily nullify the point being made. I'm arguing the "studies or GTFO" mentality that occasionally comes across from some people.
Maybe it is just an issue of semantics, but to me a fact is the truth. We may not know it, but that doesn't make it less factual. At any rate, you're right that that's not particularly relevant to the question at hand.
Agree with this. For example, if something happened in the past, we may have competing memories of it or narratives about it, and we of course have no way of 100% testing or determining what actually occurred, but there's still something factual that actually did occur, and the fact that people have different subjective impressions from it doesn't change that.
Similarly, at one time we did not have the capacity to prove or test whether the sun revolved around the earth or the earth around the sun. That the latter was true was still a fact.
I think it's helpful to realize that even if we don't know the facts, there are still facts, some things are true and some are not.
2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »As far as facts and the earth being flat goes... I don't know if it's semantics, a poor example, of if I'm just plain wrong, but isn't a fact something that can be proven beyond refute? Isn't that the definition of a fact? And as such, something being considered a fact is based on our ability to test/prove/disprove it, correct? So as our abilities to test ideas change with the increase of knowledge, advent of technology, etc etc, what is considered a fact can change, no?
Getting back to providing sources to justify a claim. Maybe it comes down to mindset. If you come into a debate looking for someone to prove your current beliefs on the topic wrong, then yes... sources will be an important part of all that. If you come into a debate looking to learn, then all you really need is a plausible argument. At least that's what I think. If someone makes a decent argument for their point, then I'll probably go research it on my own if I want to understand it with that degree of granularity.
And just to be clear... I'm not arguing against studies, sources, justifications. I'm just saying that the lack of one doesn't necessarily nullify the point being made. I'm arguing the "studies or GTFO" mentality that occasionally comes across from some people.
Maybe it is just an issue of semantics, but to me a fact is the truth. We may not know it, but that doesn't make it less factual. At any rate, you're right that that's not particularly relevant to the question at hand.
Agree with this. For example, if something happened in the past, we may have competing memories of it or narratives about it, and we of course have no way of 100% testing or determining what actually occurred, but there's still something factual that actually did occur, and the fact that people have different subjective impressions from it doesn't change that.
Similarly, at one time we did not have the capacity to prove or test whether the sun revolved around the earth or the earth around the sun. That the latter was true was still a fact.
I think it's helpful to realize that even if we don't know the facts, there are still facts, some things are true and some are not.
I don't disagree that absolute truth is absolute, regardless of what we can or can't prove, or whether or not we believe it to be true. But what we believe to be true, regardless of the actual truth of the matter, shapes our beliefs and our actions. And that is the part of all this that is relevant to MFP.
CICO is widely held as truth/fact regarding weight loss, and so for the vast majority of us, that is the basis on which we make decisions with weight loss/gain in mind. If 50 years from now CICO is shown to be only a correlating factor (not a cause), then the lack of absolute truth to CICO right now (in 2016) is irrelevant - it's still dictating what we do and don't do.
I guess my ultimate point is that while we know a whole heck of a lot about a heck of a lot of things... there is an awful lot that we don't know, too. And to lose sight of that can sometimes be an injustice to what might be a very good conversation.
Obviously, this is going off on a tangent from the original post, and I've probably bogged down this thread enough as it is.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »As far as facts and the earth being flat goes... I don't know if it's semantics, a poor example, of if I'm just plain wrong, but isn't a fact something that can be proven beyond refute? Isn't that the definition of a fact? And as such, something being considered a fact is based on our ability to test/prove/disprove it, correct? So as our abilities to test ideas change with the increase of knowledge, advent of technology, etc etc, what is considered a fact can change, no?
Getting back to providing sources to justify a claim. Maybe it comes down to mindset. If you come into a debate looking for someone to prove your current beliefs on the topic wrong, then yes... sources will be an important part of all that. If you come into a debate looking to learn, then all you really need is a plausible argument. At least that's what I think. If someone makes a decent argument for their point, then I'll probably go research it on my own if I want to understand it with that degree of granularity.
And just to be clear... I'm not arguing against studies, sources, justifications. I'm just saying that the lack of one doesn't necessarily nullify the point being made. I'm arguing the "studies or GTFO" mentality that occasionally comes across from some people.
Maybe it is just an issue of semantics, but to me a fact is the truth. We may not know it, but that doesn't make it less factual. At any rate, you're right that that's not particularly relevant to the question at hand.
Agree with this. For example, if something happened in the past, we may have competing memories of it or narratives about it, and we of course have no way of 100% testing or determining what actually occurred, but there's still something factual that actually did occur, and the fact that people have different subjective impressions from it doesn't change that.
Similarly, at one time we did not have the capacity to prove or test whether the sun revolved around the earth or the earth around the sun. That the latter was true was still a fact.
I think it's helpful to realize that even if we don't know the facts, there are still facts, some things are true and some are not.
I don't disagree that absolute truth is absolute, regardless of what we can or can't prove, or whether or not we believe it to be true. But what we believe to be true, regardless of the actual truth of the matter, shapes our beliefs and our actions.
No question, although I'm not really following how it's relevant.CICO is widely held as truth/fact regarding weight loss, and so for the vast majority of us, that is the basis on which we make decisions with weight loss/gain in mind. If 50 years from now CICO is shown to be only a correlating factor (not a cause), then the lack of absolute truth to CICO right now (in 2016) is irrelevant - it's still dictating what we do and don't do.
I think we know enough to know that CICO is how weight loss occurs (or weight gain or maintenance occurs) NOT just a correlation. On what basis is there any question about this? (Note, I'm not saying there aren't other things that affect CI and CO besides how many calories we eat or that the calories measured are perfect and track exactly what we absorb from the foods we eat.)I guess my ultimate point is that while we know a whole heck of a lot about a heck of a lot of things... there is an awful lot that we don't know, too. And to lose sight of that can sometimes be an injustice to what might be a very good conversation.
I'm not sure what you think is not being addressed in the conversation, although I mainly jumped in to talk about the meaning of "fact" which IMO is a separate issue (and one that interests me--I think there's a tendency today to take the difficulty of ascertaining and agreeing upon facts to mean that they don't exist or aren't important, and I find that troubling).0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »As far as facts and the earth being flat goes... I don't know if it's semantics, a poor example, of if I'm just plain wrong, but isn't a fact something that can be proven beyond refute? Isn't that the definition of a fact? And as such, something being considered a fact is based on our ability to test/prove/disprove it, correct? So as our abilities to test ideas change with the increase of knowledge, advent of technology, etc etc, what is considered a fact can change, no?
Getting back to providing sources to justify a claim. Maybe it comes down to mindset. If you come into a debate looking for someone to prove your current beliefs on the topic wrong, then yes... sources will be an important part of all that. If you come into a debate looking to learn, then all you really need is a plausible argument. At least that's what I think. If someone makes a decent argument for their point, then I'll probably go research it on my own if I want to understand it with that degree of granularity.
And just to be clear... I'm not arguing against studies, sources, justifications. I'm just saying that the lack of one doesn't necessarily nullify the point being made. I'm arguing the "studies or GTFO" mentality that occasionally comes across from some people.
Maybe it is just an issue of semantics, but to me a fact is the truth. We may not know it, but that doesn't make it less factual. At any rate, you're right that that's not particularly relevant to the question at hand.
Agree with this. For example, if something happened in the past, we may have competing memories of it or narratives about it, and we of course have no way of 100% testing or determining what actually occurred, but there's still something factual that actually did occur, and the fact that people have different subjective impressions from it doesn't change that.
Similarly, at one time we did not have the capacity to prove or test whether the sun revolved around the earth or the earth around the sun. That the latter was true was still a fact.
I think it's helpful to realize that even if we don't know the facts, there are still facts, some things are true and some are not.
I don't disagree that absolute truth is absolute, regardless of what we can or can't prove, or whether or not we believe it to be true. But what we believe to be true, regardless of the actual truth of the matter, shapes our beliefs and our actions. And that is the part of all this that is relevant to MFP.
CICO is widely held as truth/fact regarding weight loss, and so for the vast majority of us, that is the basis on which we make decisions with weight loss/gain in mind. If 50 years from now CICO is shown to be only a correlating factor (not a cause), then the lack of absolute truth to CICO right now (in 2016) is irrelevant - it's still dictating what we do and don't do.
I guess my ultimate point is that while we know a whole heck of a lot about a heck of a lot of things... there is an awful lot that we don't know, too. And to lose sight of that can sometimes be an injustice to what might be a very good conversation.
Obviously, this is going off on a tangent from the original post, and I've probably bogged down this thread enough as it is.
The bigger issue with your example, is people misinterpret/misrepresent what CICO is. What it's referencing is actually EE, which is the basis for weight strategies. It gets complicated when you have medical conditions that affect EE, which then drives people to suggest CICO is debatable (i.e., those with IR/PCOS can decrease metabolic rate if a diet is high in carbs).
There still is plenty of topics that are debatable (i.e., SFA - good, bad, agnostic). The bigger issue, as I see it, is people make assumptions or conclusions (especially media) based on one-liners or abstracts. What really should be of interest is the parameters of study and the conditions tested. There was a good debate on SFA not to long ago in this forum. The abstract alluded to SFA are safe and do not affect health. But when you look at the details, it was a population study and average intake of SFA was 15% (only 5% above what is recommended). So while so are yelling victory for SFA, it cannot be extrapolated at higher rates... which is not what others want to hear.0 -
I used the earth being flat as an example to illustrate a point. People jumped in and said that the earth being flat was never a fact. Regardless of whether or not it was true, the fact that it was perceived to be true impacted people's beliefs. The same holds true in other arenas, especially health and fitness. We believe certain things to be true based on a variety of factors. We also believe certain things to be untrue. As we as individuals learn, what we hold as true changes, even if the absolute truth of the matter doesn't. Similarly, as science evolves, and the ability to observe and test ideas changes, what the field holds as truth may change. Again, the absolute truth of a matter doesn't change, but our ability to perceive that truth can. As such, a person open to learning should, I think, should be willing to consider positions even if there is a lack of supporting data for that position.lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »As far as facts and the earth being flat goes... I don't know if it's semantics, a poor example, of if I'm just plain wrong, but isn't a fact something that can be proven beyond refute? Isn't that the definition of a fact? And as such, something being considered a fact is based on our ability to test/prove/disprove it, correct? So as our abilities to test ideas change with the increase of knowledge, advent of technology, etc etc, what is considered a fact can change, no?
Getting back to providing sources to justify a claim. Maybe it comes down to mindset. If you come into a debate looking for someone to prove your current beliefs on the topic wrong, then yes... sources will be an important part of all that. If you come into a debate looking to learn, then all you really need is a plausible argument. At least that's what I think. If someone makes a decent argument for their point, then I'll probably go research it on my own if I want to understand it with that degree of granularity.
And just to be clear... I'm not arguing against studies, sources, justifications. I'm just saying that the lack of one doesn't necessarily nullify the point being made. I'm arguing the "studies or GTFO" mentality that occasionally comes across from some people.
Maybe it is just an issue of semantics, but to me a fact is the truth. We may not know it, but that doesn't make it less factual. At any rate, you're right that that's not particularly relevant to the question at hand.
Agree with this. For example, if something happened in the past, we may have competing memories of it or narratives about it, and we of course have no way of 100% testing or determining what actually occurred, but there's still something factual that actually did occur, and the fact that people have different subjective impressions from it doesn't change that.
Similarly, at one time we did not have the capacity to prove or test whether the sun revolved around the earth or the earth around the sun. That the latter was true was still a fact.
I think it's helpful to realize that even if we don't know the facts, there are still facts, some things are true and some are not.
I don't disagree that absolute truth is absolute, regardless of what we can or can't prove, or whether or not we believe it to be true. But what we believe to be true, regardless of the actual truth of the matter, shapes our beliefs and our actions.
No question, although I'm not really following how it's relevant.
To be fair, some positions only warrant 5 second of consideration, some warrant 15 pages of discussion.
Currently there isn't. That doesn't mean that can't change at some point in the future. And again, I was using it as an example to make a point... not as a jumping off point to argue CICO.CICO is widely held as truth/fact regarding weight loss, and so for the vast majority of us, that is the basis on which we make decisions with weight loss/gain in mind. If 50 years from now CICO is shown to be only a correlating factor (not a cause), then the lack of absolute truth to CICO right now (in 2016) is irrelevant - it's still dictating what we do and don't do.
I think we know enough to know that CICO is how weight loss occurs (or weight gain or maintenance occurs) NOT just a correlation. On what basis is there any question about this? (Note, I'm not saying there aren't other things that affect CI and CO besides how many calories we eat or that the calories measured are perfect and track exactly what we absorb from the foods we eat.)
My original point when getting into this thread was that the lack of study or supporting evidence does not inherently make a point false. This truth conversation is an unexpected tangent from that.I guess my ultimate point is that while we know a whole heck of a lot about a heck of a lot of things... there is an awful lot that we don't know, too. And to lose sight of that can sometimes be an injustice to what might be a very good conversation.
I'm not sure what you think is not being addressed in the conversation, although I mainly jumped in to talk about the meaning of "fact" which IMO is a separate issue (and one that interests me--I think there's a tendency today to take the difficulty of ascertaining and agreeing upon facts to mean that they don't exist or aren't important, and I find that troubling).
I also think there's a bit of the last word syndrome setting in now, at least for me... so I'll let this all go unless someone wants to make a new point or take it in a different direction.1 -
I'm just here to feel superior to my peers.
6 -
This is a great premise and one where you see the true nature of people when their beliefs are challenged/threatened. It would put a quick end to many of the "but CICO doesn't work for me" threads.
For an issue like "Is the Earth flat?" - the discussion is simple as the parameters are set. For something personal like "Why am I not losing weight?" the discussion is impossible as the parameters are established by the reporter with no means of establishing accuracy or credibility and no ability to verify.
This also highlights the abysmal state of education, particularly science education.
One of the best pieces of advice I have ever received was "Question everything that you have not already proven to be true."1 -
If by review, you mean 'uses google to find the first result with a title that confirms their beliefs', then yes
5 -
If by review, you mean 'uses google to find the first result with a title that confirms their beliefs', then yes
You're my neighbor, aren't you?
Even though this is the "Debate" forum, honestly I think we take all this w a a a a a y too seriously.
ry and anvil, you'll remember HWSNBN and the insane thousands of pages we spent arguing with him over stuff. There were a couple people who made it their life mission to argue with him and that was just as nutty IMO. I mean he was so "out there" that no one (and by no one, I mean I didn't) really believed him after the 1,000th thread and yet it took up day after day, thread after thread.
No. I'm not over it.
FWP 0 -
cmriverside wrote: »
If by review, you mean 'uses google to find the first result with a title that confirms their beliefs', then yes
You're my neighbor, aren't you?
Even though this is the "Debate" forum, honestly I think we take all this w a a a a a y too seriously.
ry and anvil, you'll remember HWSNBN and the insane thousands of pages we spent arguing with him over stuff. There were a couple people who made it their life mission to argue with him and that was just as nutty IMO. I mean he was so "out there" that no one (and by no one, I mean I didn't) really believed him after the 1,000th thread and yet it took up day after day, thread after thread.
No. I'm not over it. FWP
Oh Lawd....STAHP! You might conjure him up again by mentioning it!1 -
cmriverside wrote: »
If by review, you mean 'uses google to find the first result with a title that confirms their beliefs', then yes
You're my neighbor, aren't you?
Even though this is the "Debate" forum, honestly I think we take all this w a a a a a y too seriously.
ry and anvil, you'll remember HWSNBN and the insane thousands of pages we spent arguing with him over stuff. There were a couple people who made it their life mission to argue with him and that was just as nutty IMO. I mean he was so "out there" that no one (and by no one, I mean I didn't) really believed him after the 1,000th thread and yet it took up day after day, thread after thread.
No. I'm not over it. FWP
Oh Lawd....STAHP! You might conjure him up again by mentioning it!
I'm a little worried since helloitsDan is back. Typing IPOARM may have been the nail in that coffin. I'm sure HWSNBN has his yahoosearch set to alert him.
1 -
1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions