“The evidence is weak” “I doubt .... based on people I talk to” This line of thought is monstrously prevalent on social media and it’s worrying...https://twitter.com/KetoCarnivore/status/1145696551068553216 …
-
-
Replying to @Dr__Guess
There's a huge difference between saying "I doubt the effect you presume is true, based on anecdote", and "I presume the effect is false, based on anecdote". Frankly, it's the lack of logical nuance that is the monstrosity here.
1 reply 1 retweet 35 likes -
Replying to @KetoCarnivore @Dr__Guess
Only in a semantic sense. If you're going to doubt things based on anecdote, I could equally promote their likelihood based on equivalent anecdotes myself I.e. I know lots of people who eat
F&V even on low-carb who are healthy, therefore this is probably effective1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @Dr__Guess
Come on. I said we shouldn't claim high "F&V" is ideal on a LCHF diet without having seen a fair comparison, and in a parenthetical added my clearly labeled as such suspected outcome, based on actual comparisons not properly controlled. Guess implies I am claiming an outcome! 1/
1 reply 0 retweets 9 likes -
In fact, I'm taking clear pains with the language of claims whereas Dr. Guess is speaking beyond the evidence. To try to flip that and deflect the point I was making is disingenuous and I'm surprised you took the bait. She had many choices in response to my initial criticism. 2/
2 replies 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @KetoCarnivore @Dr__Guess
Dunno, not sure you can cry foul when you are attacking someone for weak evidence if you then immediately use weak evidence to argue the opposite, parentheses notwithstanding
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @Dr__Guess
I very clearly stated my hypothesis in advance for posterity. It's considered good form in my circles to be transparent about biases and reasons for them, particularly before the results are in. Should I be wrong I can then respond appropriately.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
And I most certainly did not "argue for it" thereby! I don't see how I could have been more clear about my position with respect to that proposition, than by a parenthetical with the words "I doubt." Are we both speaking English?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @KetoCarnivore @Dr__Guess
I mean, it's a pretty clear poisoning of the well situation. You can't on one hand claim that there's insufficient evidence while on the other "highly doubt" that future evidence will demonstrate the outcome in question
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
For example, if I were to say that there's no strong evidence that crystals cause cancer (although based on many anecdotes I'm convinced that they do) you'd rightly point out that I was being a bit logically inconsistent with my evidential appraisal
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Or, to move a bit closer to the topic at hand, if I were to argue that there's currently no reason to believe that LCHF diets cause heart disease (although based on many stories I'd be shocked if they didn't), I suspect you'd agree that I was being a bit unfair
-
-
Replying to @GidMK @Dr__Guess
Haha. No. I actually think that's a perfectly fairly expressed distinction. Nothing at all unfair in admitting you have an as yet unproven prediction while emphasising you know it's not proven and that the stories aren't enough to do so.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @KetoCarnivore @Dr__Guess
I guess we will have to agree to disagree
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes - Show replies
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.