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.
Is anyone confused?
Options
Replies
-
janejellyroll wrote: »FitFamilyGuy wrote: »A lot of feedback.
Personally... I can't speak for anyone but myself and I don't have a "we" to address you all. I was doing my best to address everything including when the comments were about or directed toward me. I am very sorry if some of you feel offended for whatever reason. The internet is a very interesting place. I know there are a lot of smart cookies here. Your board is great. I hope I have added value in some meaningful way. I am a huge supporter of evidence and science based reports. Clearly I don't simply "wing it". I don't think many people have long term success "winging it". I love science! I can't agree that science is without flaws or that any one person mentioned in previous posts has enough answers for everyone or can relate to everyone. I think the original post is valid. I may have underestimated how passionate people can get even when intentions are good. I can also say that it is more clear than ever where a lot of confusion comes from. Goodness. But then again these are just one persons opinion... haha! I hope everyone is having a wonderful day!
I don't think anyone here is arguing that science is without flaws. It's a human enterprise and we (collectively) make mistakes, have blind spots, are sometimes self-serving, etc. All human characteristics are sometimes reflected in science and all other human endeavors.
The question isn't "Are there flaws in science?" but "Are the flaws in science significant enough that we should abandon the scientific method as a way to help us understand the world?"
Good question and easy answer. Don't abandon the scientific method. Nothing is perfect.0 -
-
N=1 meaning a study of one person, the participant count :drinker:3 -
n=1 is shorthand for individual experience, i.e. sample size = 1. A scientific study would state the number of subjects, 50 participants would be a n=50 study.
Larger size studies are better because individual variables are more easily accounted for, but are more expensive and difficult to do effectively.3 -
N=1 meaning a study of one person, the participant count :drinker:
Ah, same formula/different variable. Thank you 0 -
FitFamilyGuy wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »FitFamilyGuy wrote: »A lot of feedback.
Personally... I can't speak for anyone but myself and I don't have a "we" to address you all. I was doing my best to address everything including when the comments were about or directed toward me. I am very sorry if some of you feel offended for whatever reason. The internet is a very interesting place. I know there are a lot of smart cookies here. Your board is great. I hope I have added value in some meaningful way. I am a huge supporter of evidence and science based reports. Clearly I don't simply "wing it". I don't think many people have long term success "winging it". I love science! I can't agree that science is without flaws or that any one person mentioned in previous posts has enough answers for everyone or can relate to everyone. I think the original post is valid. I may have underestimated how passionate people can get even when intentions are good. I can also say that it is more clear than ever where a lot of confusion comes from. Goodness. But then again these are just one persons opinion... haha! I hope everyone is having a wonderful day!
I don't think anyone here is arguing that science is without flaws. It's a human enterprise and we (collectively) make mistakes, have blind spots, are sometimes self-serving, etc. All human characteristics are sometimes reflected in science and all other human endeavors.
The question isn't "Are there flaws in science?" but "Are the flaws in science significant enough that we should abandon the scientific method as a way to help us understand the world?"
Good question and easy answer. Don't abandon the scientific method. Nothing is perfect.
So, in that context, what does it mean to say "I can't agree that science is without flaws"?
First, I don't think anyone is arguing that. Second, what behavior proceeds from your statement?0 -
N=1 meaning a study of one person, the participant count :drinker:
Ah, same formula/different variable. Thank you
And, to be fair, the N=1 is usually shorthand for it being the reported "feelings" of one person, or anecdotal data. When it is used it is often meant to highlight that the opinion is just one persons opinion that is not based on a real scientific study.8 -
Thank you - I was seeing it used and not quite getting it
n=1 is shorthand for individual experience, i.e. sample size = 1. A scientific study would state the number of subjects, 50 participants would be a n=50 study.
Larger size studies are better because individual variables are more easily accounted for, but are more expensive and difficult to do effectively.
1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »FitFamilyGuy wrote: »A lot of feedback.
Personally... I can't speak for anyone but myself and I don't have a "we" to address you all. I was doing my best to address everything including when the comments were about or directed toward me. I am very sorry if some of you feel offended for whatever reason. The internet is a very interesting place. I know there are a lot of smart cookies here. Your board is great. I hope I have added value in some meaningful way. I am a huge supporter of evidence and science based reports. Clearly I don't simply "wing it". I don't think many people have long term success "winging it". I love science! I can't agree that science is without flaws or that any one person mentioned in previous posts has enough answers for everyone or can relate to everyone. I think the original post is valid. I may have underestimated how passionate people can get even when intentions are good. I can also say that it is more clear than ever where a lot of confusion comes from. Goodness. But then again these are just one persons opinion... haha! I hope everyone is having a wonderful day!
I don't think anyone here is arguing that science is without flaws. It's a human enterprise and we (collectively) make mistakes, have blind spots, are sometimes self-serving, etc. All of human characteristics are sometimes reflected in science and all other human endeavors.
The question isn't "Are there flaws in science?" but "Are the flaws in science significant enough that we should abandon the scientific method as a way to help us understand the world?"
And furthermore, "Are the flaws in science more significant than the flaws in any individual's analyzing and reporting of their n=1 anecdotes?"
Not to be too controversial here, and as a big lover, supporter and beneficiary of science, and personal results and learning from others.... perhaps the answer isn't black and white but rather it is somewhere in between. 7 -
Ok that's the bit I was wondering about but didn't want to ask. Makes perfect sense now. Thank you.Tacklewasher wrote: »
N=1 meaning a study of one person, the participant count :drinker:
Ah, same formula/different variable. Thank you
And, to be fair, the N=1 is usually shorthand for it being the reported "feelings" of one person, or anecdotal data. When it is used it is often meant to highlight that the opinion is just one persons opinion that is not based on a real scientific study.
2 -
FitFamilyGuy wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »FitFamilyGuy wrote: »A lot of feedback.
Personally... I can't speak for anyone but myself and I don't have a "we" to address you all. I was doing my best to address everything including when the comments were about or directed toward me. I am very sorry if some of you feel offended for whatever reason. The internet is a very interesting place. I know there are a lot of smart cookies here. Your board is great. I hope I have added value in some meaningful way. I am a huge supporter of evidence and science based reports. Clearly I don't simply "wing it". I don't think many people have long term success "winging it". I love science! I can't agree that science is without flaws or that any one person mentioned in previous posts has enough answers for everyone or can relate to everyone. I think the original post is valid. I may have underestimated how passionate people can get even when intentions are good. I can also say that it is more clear than ever where a lot of confusion comes from. Goodness. But then again these are just one persons opinion... haha! I hope everyone is having a wonderful day!
I don't think anyone here is arguing that science is without flaws. It's a human enterprise and we (collectively) make mistakes, have blind spots, are sometimes self-serving, etc. All of human characteristics are sometimes reflected in science and all other human endeavors.
The question isn't "Are there flaws in science?" but "Are the flaws in science significant enough that we should abandon the scientific method as a way to help us understand the world?"
And furthermore, "Are the flaws in science more significant than the flaws in any individual's analyzing and reporting of their n=1 anecdotes?"
Not to be too controversial here, and as a big lover, supporter and beneficiary of science, and personal results and learning from others.... perhaps the answer isn't black and white but rather it is somewhere in between.
So your answer to the question would be "Maybe"? I'm not sure what "somewhere in between" means in this context.
It's a question that is compatible with an answer of "Yes" or "No." So if you're saying you aren't giving either of those answers, you're still saying that you think it is possible that the flaws in science are more significant than the flaws to be found in relying on anecdotes, aren't you?4 -
FitFamilyGuy wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »FitFamilyGuy wrote: »A lot of feedback.
Personally... I can't speak for anyone but myself and I don't have a "we" to address you all. I was doing my best to address everything including when the comments were about or directed toward me. I am very sorry if some of you feel offended for whatever reason. The internet is a very interesting place. I know there are a lot of smart cookies here. Your board is great. I hope I have added value in some meaningful way. I am a huge supporter of evidence and science based reports. Clearly I don't simply "wing it". I don't think many people have long term success "winging it". I love science! I can't agree that science is without flaws or that any one person mentioned in previous posts has enough answers for everyone or can relate to everyone. I think the original post is valid. I may have underestimated how passionate people can get even when intentions are good. I can also say that it is more clear than ever where a lot of confusion comes from. Goodness. But then again these are just one persons opinion... haha! I hope everyone is having a wonderful day!
I don't think anyone here is arguing that science is without flaws. It's a human enterprise and we (collectively) make mistakes, have blind spots, are sometimes self-serving, etc. All of human characteristics are sometimes reflected in science and all other human endeavors.
The question isn't "Are there flaws in science?" but "Are the flaws in science significant enough that we should abandon the scientific method as a way to help us understand the world?"
And furthermore, "Are the flaws in science more significant than the flaws in any individual's analyzing and reporting of their n=1 anecdotes?"
Not to be too controversial here, and as a big lover, supporter and beneficiary of science, and personal results and learning from others.... perhaps the answer isn't black and white but rather it is somewhere in between.
So...let’s say you have just been diagnosed with a serious, life altering disease.
Your doctor says “I talked to this guy at the cafeteria and he said he got better by eating elk vomit waffles every morning.”
Or...
You could take a medication that’s been studied for years in various settings and has had clinical trials that have had repeated results and the entire universe (except maybe elk vomit waffle guy) has found this to be the most effective treatment.
You propose that elk vomit waffle guy is the way to go?
How about if elk vomit waffle guy is also actually taking the same medication but didn’t mention it because “that stuff doesn’t work and it’s just big pharma”16 -
FitFamilyGuy wrote: »A lot of feedback.
Personally... I can't speak for anyone but myself and I don't have a "we" to address you all. I was doing my best to address everything including when the comments were about or directed toward me. I am very sorry if some of you feel offended for whatever reason. The internet is a very interesting place. I know there are a lot of smart cookies here. Your board is great. I hope I have added value in some meaningful way. I am a huge supporter of evidence and science based reports. Clearly I don't simply "wing it". I don't think many people have long term success "winging it". I love science! I can't agree that science is without flaws or that any one person mentioned in previous posts has enough answers for everyone or can relate to everyone. I think the original post is valid. I may have underestimated how passionate people can get even when intentions are good. I can also say that it is more clear than ever where a lot of confusion comes from. Goodness. But then again these are just one persons opinion... haha! I hope everyone is having a wonderful day!
So perhaps we all just don’t understand the true intent of the original post. This is second (maybe third or fourth) time you’ve said you stand behind it/it’s valid.
The original post asked a question.
Did you intend to phrase the original post as a statement or something that you could stand behind/consider valid? Or is something not included?
8 -
Duck_Puddle wrote: »
So...let’s say you have just been diagnosed with a serious, life altering disease.
Your doctor says “I talked to this guy at the cafeteria and he said he got better by eating elk vomit waffles every morning.”
Or...
You could take a medication that’s been studied for years in various settings and has had clinical trials that have had repeated results and the entire universe (except maybe elk vomit waffle guy) has found this to be the most effective treatment.
You propose that elk vomit waffle guy is the way to go?
How about if elk vomit waffle guy is also actually taking the same medication but didn’t mention it because “that stuff doesn’t work and it’s just big pharma”
And also taking into consideration that this isn't just a hypothetical. People do go for the elk vomit waffles (usually its weed) and then they die. The end point of this slippery slope is anti-vaxxers, a brand new measles epidemic and homeopaths treating leukemia in children.11 -
Duck_Puddle wrote: »
So...let’s say you have just been diagnosed with a serious, life altering disease.
Your doctor says “I talked to this guy at the cafeteria and he said he got better by eating elk vomit waffles every morning.”
Or...
You could take a medication that’s been studied for years in various settings and has had clinical trials that have had repeated results and the entire universe (except maybe elk vomit waffle guy) has found this to be the most effective treatment.
You propose that elk vomit waffle guy is the way to go?
How about if elk vomit waffle guy is also actually taking the same medication but didn’t mention it because “that stuff doesn’t work and it’s just big pharma”
And also taking into consideration that this isn't just a hypothetical. People do go for the elk vomit waffles (usually its weed) and then they die. The end point of this slippery slope is anti-vaxxers, a brand new measles epidemic and homeopaths treating leukemia in children.
Exactly. And anti-vaxxers sprung to mind as a good example of the “some dude getting results” vs science. But I was too scared to use that for fear of this thread having a nuclear meltdown.
4 -
I'm kind of wondering, if one wouldn't take science to be the ultimate system of empirical knowledge, how would one demonstrate a better method of discovering and demonstrating empirical truth?
I really don't see how it can begin to happen for these ideas of individual "experiments". I take knowledge to be have components of belief, truth, and justification or something like justification. One person doing something can certain state they did X, Y, Z as truth, and that there was a Result R, and all those things are true. I'm just not seeing anything like a justificatory path for X, Y, Z have a causal relation with R. With only one individual, there's nothing to tie-break over influences - all facts about the subject are equally relevant from what I can tell. X is I ate fewer calories, Y is I was born in 1963. Both facts are equally true - why is one preferential to another in determining what worked for the individual? I see no explanatory power.6 -
Well if the debate continues in a healthy way that is a good thing. I still can't address each point because it gets out of hand with some making it personal and then the reply to the personal comment gets taken out of context etc. etc.
I had to re-read the original post because it has gone so many darn directions. Haha! I doubt I can satisfactorily summarize my thoughts and there will probably be a lot to pick apart here but I'll give it a try.
I get that this message board and most people posting on this thread are all about CICO. I am too! I am on board with this 100%. However, there are a lot of scientific studies and a huge number of credible people that will support the argument of hormonal responses to food, insulin, ghrelin. Now we have one, very small example where scientific studies are confusing people. I certainly know which side you all will take on this example (me too) but that doesn't discredit the fact the confusion amongst others is there. This was just one tiny example.
OR
What about tests that involve "exercise" as a general term yet the "exercise" experience and background is very different? Arnold Schwarzenegger's form of exercise or resistance training will be very different that a group of senior ladies. Now in this case people can be very confused about what they should do because the study that applies to them doesn't really exist. We don't need to debate this example, but could it add confusion for some people?
OR
What about influence of a corporation or monopoly or an industry? Does this not exist in science? What if keeping "weight loss" a well known term over "fat loss" was more profitable for some companies or heck entire industries? This isn't possible? We don't need to debate this specific example either way but does it possibly exist and possibly result in confusion for people?
OR
What about studies that have waaaay too many variables that can not be controlled very well? This isn't a problem for creating poor results which may end up confusing people? We could go over a million examples but just understanding that this possibility exists is the key to understand that it can end up giving people bad information or confusing people.
OR
Is coffee good for your or bad for you? What about red wine? What does the science say? Hmm.... what does the most recent report say? Should we go with the last one or the last dozen that contradict each other? Again, this is just a example of science possibly resulting in confusing some people. Perhaps there are other ways to learn.
SO... these were a few examples off the top of my head that can add to the confusion about fitness. But as discussed nothing is perfect. The "we" in this thread will be quick to list off all of the reasons why real world results form individuals is a problem so I don't need to do that here. They exist. I get it. There are problems learning from one guys results. Understood. Not perfect. But then again, nothing is perfect. I love science. I benefit from science. I use science. Science is amazing. Please try to see if we have common ground here.
Now, forget about "fit guy". What about a bodybuilder? Can't we look at what a bodybuilder generally does, recognize that they are pretty darn good at building muscle and burning fat and learn from that? You don't have to want to be a bodybuilder to learn from the principles and apply some or all of them to replicate some results. You can also talk to one bodybuilder to find out what he does and then learn from that. You don't need a study and test result to learn how to make a fire. You can watch how someone else makes a fire and learn from them. Is science the only way to learn about fitness? Does science sometimes confuse people about fitness?
In my opinion the least confusing answer to someone wanting to get fit is probably a blend of the different ways of learning including science, learning what others do "fit guy", common sense, trial and error etc. etc. etc. I don't think it is black or white.
Again, I love and support science. The scientific method is important. Please... I get that this will be upsetting to some of you. Please just think about the overall message and not a small hypothetical that can be singled out and picked apart.
2 -
FitFamilyGuy wrote: »Well if the debate continues in a healthy way that is a good thing. I still can't address each point because it gets out of hand with some making it personal and then the reply to the personal comment gets taken out of context etc. etc.
I had to re-read the original post because it has gone so many darn directions. Haha! I doubt I can satisfactorily summarize my thoughts and there will probably be a lot to pick apart here but I'll give it a try.
I get that this message board and most people posting on this thread are all about CICO. I am too! I am on board with this 100%. However, there are a lot of scientific studies and a huge number of credible people that will support the argument of hormonal responses to food, insulin, ghrelin. Now we have one, very small example where scientific studies are confusing people. I certainly know which side you all will take on this example (me too) but that doesn't discredit the fact the confusion amongst others is there. This was just one tiny example.
OR
What about tests that involve "exercise" as a general term yet the "exercise" experience and background is very different? Arnold Schwarzenegger's form of exercise or resistance training will be very different that a group of senior ladies. Now in this case people can be very confused about what they should do because the study that applies to them doesn't really exist. We don't need to debate this example, but could it add confusion for some people?
OR
What about influence of a corporation or monopoly or an industry? Does this not exist in science? What if keeping "weight loss" a well known term over "fat loss" was more profitable for some companies or heck entire industries? This isn't possible? We don't need to debate this specific example either way but does it possibly exist and possibly result in confusion for people?
OR
What about studies that have waaaay too many variables that can not be controlled very well? This isn't a problem for creating poor results which may end up confusing people? We could go over a million examples but just understanding that this possibility exists is the key to understand that it can end up giving people bad information or confusing people.
OR
Is coffee good for your or bad for you? What about red wine? What does the science say? Hmm.... what does the most recent report say? Should we go with the last one or the last dozen that contradict each other? Again, this is just a example of science possibly resulting in confusing some people. Perhaps there are other ways to learn.
SO... these were a few examples off the top of my head that can add to the confusion about fitness. But as discussed nothing is perfect. The "we" in this thread will be quick to list off all of the reasons why real world results form individuals is a problem so I don't need to do that here. They exist. I get it. There are problems learning from one guys results. Understood. Not perfect. But then again, nothing is perfect. I love science. I benefit from science. I use science. Science is amazing. Please try to see if we have common ground here.
Now, forget about "fit guy". What about a bodybuilder? Can't we look at what a bodybuilder generally does, recognize that they are pretty darn good at building muscle and burning fat and learn from that? You don't have to want to be a bodybuilder to learn from the principles and apply some or all of them to replicate some results. You can also talk to one bodybuilder to find out what he does and then learn from that. You don't need a study and test result to learn how to make a fire. You can watch how someone else makes a fire and learn from them. Is science the only way to learn about fitness? Does science sometimes confuse people about fitness?
In my opinion the least confusing answer to someone wanting to get fit is probably a blend of the different ways of learning including science, learning what others do "fit guy", common sense, trial and error etc. etc. etc. I don't think it is black or white.
Again, I love and support science. The scientific method is important. Please... I get that this will be upsetting to some of you. Please just think about the overall message and not a small hypothetical that can be singled out and picked apart.
I think you're (inadvertently?) making an argument that we need to be more scientifically literate.
Nobody is arguing that we need to accept something just because it is a study. There are well-constructed studies that produce replicatable results and there are poorly constructed studies that nobody can reproduce.
In these cases, it isn't a case of science itself confusing people. It's that none of us are born with basic scientific literacy and we need to learn how to filter out quality information from all the misleading and confusing information.8 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »I'm kind of wondering, if one wouldn't take science to be the ultimate system of empirical knowledge, how would one demonstrate a better method of discovering and demonstrating empirical truth?
I really don't see how it can begin to happen for these ideas of individual "experiments". I take knowledge to be have components of belief, truth, and justification or something like justification. One person doing something can certain state they did X, Y, Z as truth, and that there was a Result R, and all those things are true. I'm just not seeing anything like a justificatory path for X, Y, Z have a causal relation with R. With only one individual, there's nothing to tie-break over influences - all facts about the subject are equally relevant from what I can tell. X is I ate fewer calories, Y is I was born in 1963. Both facts are equally true - why is one preferential to another in determining what worked for the individual? I see no explanatory power.
Both are equally true. My common sense tells me that one probably doesn't apply but the other probably does. The reason I would pay attention is because I felt like you demonstrated some things that made sense to me and I wanted to learn and find out for myself.2 -
@fitfamilyguy I'm really having trouble understanding your post or what your point is at this point. But I'll go back to my original post - being able to vet sources. "Science" isn't defined by one study, or the most recent study. It is constantly doubling back, taking one study which leads to several other studies, which lead to dozens of studies, continuing to drill down, pin down variables, correct inaccurate assumptions. THAT is the scientific method. The problem is the average consumer isn't educated enough about the scientific method, and so when their trainer shows them a study that "proves" that his diet or workout program is the best, they think they should believe it because "science". The best charlatans are the ones that can misuse science and confuse their marks.
I have talked to far too many bodybuilders/trainers who looked amazing and didn't know *kitten* about biology or science to assume that someone with a great physique would give good advice. Said that I should eat 1200 cals, or I had to IF to maximize fat loss, or I had to use little pink weights because I was a girl, or I had to use the fat burners that they could give me a discount on. Sorry.13
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 917 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions