In defense of science, it is just a process. A true scientist never accepts something as a Truth. At best, science produces testable hypotheses and working models. Until somebody breaks or improves the model.

Studies just give us data points. They can be misused as propaganda. Or they can be properly used to form a testable hypothesis.

What you're calling a religion is not science. It's "expert consensus." Experts can be wrong. Consensus can be wrong. Good science loves finding out something is wrong.

Interesting article. When funding is on the line I can see there being a lot of pressure to engineer a study that shows the "right" results and that's why it's hard for people to trust science. Almost all studies pertaining to whether or not something is safe are funded by corporations with more than a passing interest in the result. Then of course for every result their is another study to counter it.

I have celiac and have to be gluten free but I have no problem with people who don't have it eating gluten free if it makes them feel better. When the guy who first "discovered" non-celiac gluten intolerance redid his original study and concluded that these people actual weren't intolerant I got so many links to articles about how everyone could eat gluten now, the study author admitted he was wrong...what no one actually read was that he found they were probably reacting to fructose so honestly they would have to cut out nearly all sources of gluten to be free of fructose. So the gluten free diet really did help them because it reduced fructose in their diet but of course that didn't make headlines. It was just a big "science says you are a big faker on a fad diet" free for all.

anglyn1 wrote: »

Interesting article. When funding is on the line I can see there being a lot of pressure to engineer a study that shows the "right" results and that's why it's hard for people to trust science.

Agree with this. Also - peer reviewed articles are the gold standard but editors cherry pick what they include to focus on "big" discoveries. A lot of good science never gets published or seen by anyone!

That was an awesome article. Thank you.

Dan the theory/belief is key to science/religion because in the end that is about all we have. The known science behind diets keeps changing.

I believe in science. I don't believe in ill informed media types who churn out articles that miss the entire point of the research they report upon. One must read the source document to find out what really was said. A month or two ago there were a series of articles based on sound bites that proclaimed that LC was not the answer for sustained weight loss. When I read the source document, the study had fewer than 20 participants and was conducted for fewer than 6 weeks. Studies like that prove nothing. They are ill designed and unsupportable.

One can believe in science AND religion. They do not cancel each other out.

wabmester wrote: »

People are interesting.

7 billion of us on one planet. We're all running different software, but the code is all in the same language. Just 4 nucleic acids.

Science will never give us simple rules that work for all 7 billion of us. The best we can hope for might be a way to read our programs and spit out a good diet for each of us.

And then something to scan our bacteria and update our diet based on our microbiome du jour.

And finally something that senses our environment and gives us real time dietary guidance based on that input.

I'm a believer.

wise words wab!

The word "theory" has been given a negative connotation. The word theory as used by laymen has a different meaning than it does when used by the scientific community.

This video, though a little middle school, illustrates the scientific definition of theory and its relationship to "laws". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqk3TKuGNBA#t=28
Can't tell I'm a homeschooler, huh?