It comes up time and again in low-carb vs low-fat arguments, but also in arguments about vaccines, or glyphosate Basically, the idea is that you can ignore science completely when you don't like the way it was generated
-
-
Show this thread
-
Let me explain Taubes repeatedly criticizes meta-analyses, saying that they are just a method of lumping together bad studies to prove your pre-ordained conclusion Now, that's wrong. Simply incorrect. It's true of very BAD MAs, but not the majority of studies done
Show this thread -
So the argument is that we can't trust a large portion of science - that conveniently provides strong evidence against the claims being made - because the generation method doesn't conform to the extremely specific elements that are required
Show this thread -
(If you're a fan of logical fallacies, this is usually called "moving the goalposts" because the person making the argument has arbitrarily changed what they'll accept as evidence to fit their own preconceived beliefs)
Show this thread -
But that's just not how evidence appraisal works Understanding and interpreting bias is a huge and complex part of science, but saying "this study wasn't done in [x] way therefore it's totally useless" is not evidence appraisal, it's nonsense
Show this thread -
Another example - Taubes criticizes work by a scientist because he was at one point paid by a private company I've written entire threads about why this perspective is factually inaccurate
Show this thread -
In brief: you can't throw out studies because they were done by people/businesses you don't like. To do so runs against the evidence and makes no sensehttps://twitter.com/GidMK/status/1103539010025119744 …
Show this thread -
It's important to take into account who generated the evidence - who ran/funded the study - because it may be a source of bias. But it also might not YOU CAN'T JUST THROW IT OUT THAT'S NOT HOW SCIENCE WORKS
Show this thread -
Taubes also repeatedly says (paraphrasing) "when a new study comes out that disagrees with my opinions I pick through it to find out why it's wrong" I think that's very revealing
Show this thread -
Science moves forward, ideally, using evidence. The evidence is generated and informs our theories accordingly That's not what Taubes is saying here at all
Show this thread -
If all you do when disconfirmatory evidence comes out - studies that directly contradict your viewpoint - is find a way to ignore them, THEN YOU ARE PROBABLY WRONG
Show this thread -
And you see this all the time in anti-vaccine arguments as well New massive study comes out that shows that vaccines don't cause autism? Well, it was done in Denmark and we all know the Danish are unethical just look at this other guy who once lived in Denmark (ACTUAL ARGUMENT)
Show this thread -
So there are dozens of studies that directly contradict Taubes' viewpoint. What of it? They're done by people once paid by industry, or are meta-analyses, or don't have the exact specifics of the one study whose evidence he will accept that conveniently supports his opinions
Show this thread -
Ultimately, it's very hard to argue against these viewpoints because the often it seems that the only evidence that's accepted is confirmatory Anything that isn't just gets discarded Which is not how science works at all. Fin.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.