Please Join My Angry Mob

Acg67

Solid post from Dr David Katz

Selectively seeking, finding, and/or citing those sources that affirm what we already believe and wish to be true is not scholarship. It does not qualify as research. It does not even meet standards for homework of any respectable pedigree. It is the academic analogue to *kitten*: self-gratification, devoid of meaning. It is the quintessentially trivial pursuit, signifying nothing.

Why do I care? I can assure you I have no interest in policing anybody’s *kitten*, mental or otherwise. But in this cyberspatial age, this particular brand of self-indulgence has been turned into a spectator sport, and I a member of its captive audience. Exactly this variety of gobbledygook gums up my inbox every day, and the only way I can avoid it is to abandon my email entirely. I draw the line there, so my inadvertent and unwelcome voyeurism goes on.

From my perspective, this vapid variety of pseudo-erudition is New-Age charlatanism. Charlatans abound today as they always have, they have just traded in their buggies for bandwidth. Some know they are charlatans, others have drunk so deeply of their own Kool-Aid, they truly believe it to be the magical elixir they contend. I don’t much care for either breed, but I do prefer the latter to the former; they, at least, are honest.

There have always been good charlatans, and bad; the good ones are the problem. Bad charlatans make up indefensible nonsense. They may manage 15 minutes of fame and fortune, but rarely more than that. Sunlight does its disinfecting work, and the charlatans with overtly indefensible claims wither and disappear.

Good charlatans are, and always have been, far more pertinacious. Good charlatans don’t make up nonsense- they tell the truth. Generally, the truly good ones tell nothing but the truth. They just very assiduously avoid telling anything like the whole truth- often because they don’t know it.

So the arguments they make not only seem erudite, but up to a point- actually are. But it’s like a trial that’s all defense and no prosecution, or vice versa. It’s a handpicked version of the truth, spared the test of challenge. For anyone doubting the need to hear both sides of a case before reaching a verdict, it’s time to re-watch 12 Angry Men.

These one-sided arguments populate my in-box every day. For every one making the case that X is the best food, nutrient, plan, program, or potion- there is another to say it is the worst. For every one contending that Y is our nemesis, another suggests it is our Messiah. And so it goes.

This sordid story could be about total fat, or carbohydrate, or protein; omega-6 fat, or saturated fat, or coconut oil; meat, or wheat, or corn, or all grains; fructose, or sugar, or gluten; glycemic load or aspartame; fish, or eggs, or dairy; salt or saccharin; calories or carnitine. So it’s about all of them in general, and none in particular. I have bigger fish to fry than any given fish, or oil; my point is generalizable.

Imagine if for many years we had operated under the prevailing delusion that formaldehyde was a perfectly good thing for people to eat. This was the old days, so there was no real science to it; but everybody ate formaldehyde routinely, and nobody thought much about it.

Then, along came some hot shot to point out that formaldehyde was bad for us. The notion caught on, and we decided to take the stuff out of our food. But for some reason (let’s not even get into this thicket!), we didn’t replace formaldehyde with fennel; we replaced it with mercury.

Now with a substantial daily per capita intake of mercury, suffice to say the public health does not improve. Over time, this observation catches on- leading to the growth of a “we were clearly wrong about formaldehyde!” movement. Studies are done showing the lack of benefit from taking formaldehyde out of the diet, and these are used to support arguments that formaldehyde was good for us all along.

But of course you see the problem. We are just picking poisons here. If we replace one way of eating badly with another and don’t show health gains, does it prove that the first way of eating badly wasn’t bad? No, it just shows that we have many flavors of poisons from which to choose.

The good news is we also have many variations on the theme of healthful eating from which to choose, too. But with so much New-Age *kitten* masquerading as mastery, picking poisons prevails- and public health pays the price.

Alas, the tawdry spectacle will undoubtedly go on. And most of us, one way or another, will be obligated to watch. But we can decide not to be passive viewers of spectator sport, but rather active participants in a trial. We can decide we are the jury, and the verdict rests with us. And we can decide that every time somebody tries to make us render a verdict based on whatever small piece of the whole truth they happen to be peddling, that all it makes us is- angry.

http://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20140227122944-23027997-please-join-my-angry-mob

Cranquistador

will you cook for us?

auddii

will you cook for us?

+1 I'd be all over that!

AllTehBeers

will you cook for us?

+1 I'd be all over that!

TL;DR but I'd be in for this

hoyalawya2003

I completely disagree: I much prefer the lying charlatans over the "drunk the Kool Aid" charlatans. I cannot abide willful stupidity in any form.

Otherwise he is spot on.

UsedToBeHusky

This guy uses big words.


Das sexy!

UsedToBeHusky

I completely disagree: I much prefer the lying charlatans over the "drunk the Kool Aid" charlatans. I cannot abide willful stupidity in any form.

There is a difference?

If you drunk the Kool Aid, then you basically believed what the lying charlatans said, and therefore, perpetuating lies.

Help me out with this...

firstsip

rml_16

TL; DR

But in for joining an angry mob.

SunofaBeach14

In for identifying charlatans with vigorous debate, pitchfork and torch at the ready . . .

Myhaloslipped

I know exactly what you mean. The paleo activists in particular have been driving me a bit nuts lately. Ok, do what you do, but nobody has to agree with you, and rambling on for pages and pages is so unnecessary, especially when you gloss over/dismiss the counterarguments! That is just one example, but I agree. Many of these arguments wouldn't last 2 seconds in a formal debate.

LiftAllThePizzas

Which type of charlatanism would, "I know better than the people who set the RDA," be?

BamaBreezeNSaltAire

In for identifying charlatans with vigorous debate, pitchfork and torch at the ready . . .

+ Bacon

vim_n_vigor

In...

I hear ACG was cooking?

Myhaloslipped

I know exactly what you mean. The paleo activists in particular have been driving me a bit nuts lately. Ok, do what you do, but nobody has to agree with you, and rambling on for pages and pages is so unnecessary, especially when you gloss over/dismiss the counterarguments! That is just one example, but I agree. Many of these arguments wouldn't last 2 seconds in a formal debate.

Not to bash paleo people in any sense, but there have just been many threads on this recently where people get way too out of control.

train_01

Agreed.

rml_16

I know exactly what you mean. The paleo activists in particular have been driving me a bit nuts lately. Ok, do what you do, but nobody has to agree with you, and rambling on for pages and pages is so unnecessary, especially when you gloss over/dismiss the counterarguments! That is just one example, but I agree. Many of these arguments wouldn't last 2 seconds in a formal debate.

Not to bash paleo people in any sense, but there have just been many threads on this recently where people get way too out of control.

But paleo prevents and cures ALL DISEASES!

Myhaloslipped

I know exactly what you mean. The paleo activists in particular have been driving me a bit nuts lately. Ok, do what you do, but nobody has to agree with you, and rambling on for pages and pages is so unnecessary, especially when you gloss over/dismiss the counterarguments! That is just one example, but I agree. Many of these arguments wouldn't last 2 seconds in a formal debate.

Not to bash paleo people in any sense, but there have just been many threads on this recently where people get way too out of control.

But paleo prevents and cures ALL DISEASES!

:laugh:

chubby_checkers

TattooedNici

Let's riot!

Ophidion

Wait you are telling me there are Charlatans, self-indulgence, academic *kitten*, self-gratification and well *gasp* derp on the internet!

Well I never! Next you will be implying that people are capable of lying and other such impossibilities.

*Rage quits internet and all human contact*

usernamekelly1

Although I'm not doubting the need to hear both sides of a case before reaching a verdict, I do still think it’s time to re-watch 12 Angry Men. Because it is awesome.

juliemouse83

tl;dr

But if someone is cooking? In!

quiksylver296

Quit reading at "pertinacious."

dward59

Although I'm not doubting the need to hear both sides of a case before reaching a verdict, I do still think it’s time to re-watch 12 Angry Men. Because it is awesome.

+1

whitebalance

In... Conditionally.
Do you have cookies?

sakuragreenlily

will you cook for us?

+1 I'd be all over that!

You don't want food cooked with so much anger... It's just not clean.

kethry70

In for the big words and pitchforks :P

marye2021

In for identifying charlatans with vigorous debate, pitchfork and torch at the ready . . .

+ Bacon

You had me at bacon...

Slacker16

Why do I care? I can assure you I have no interest in policing anybody’s *kitten*, mental or otherwise. But in this cyberspatial age, this particular brand of self-indulgence has been turned into a spectator sport, and I a member of its captive audience.

This guy watches me *kitten*?

Brian Griffin: Uhh, I don't think that's going to be a possibility, uhhh, I have plans, with Chris! Chris and I have plans this afternoon!
Chris Griffin: [Chris walks by] We do?
Brian Griffin: Yeah, yeah! We're doing that thing, we're doing what you usually do on a Thursday afternoon!
Chris Griffin: *kitten*?
Brian Griffin: That's it, that's what we're going to do together.
Chris Griffin: Well, maybe back to back, but I gotta tell you, I'm not 100% on this.

jofjltncb6

Interest piqued at pertinacious.