> To shit all over nutritionists because you don't understand the science
What makes you think A) that's my motivation or B) I don't understand the science? I'm not a nutritionist, but I'm well-versed in statistics and hypothesis testing, so I am at least equipped to make general observations about the predictive power of the field.
> or don't think the science is moving fast enough
When did I ever say anything to that effect? The hard biological sciences are moving extremely quickly, and soon nutrition will be subsumed into computational chemistry like the rest.
> Science is science.
And some fields of science have very low predictive power, like current nutrition. Do you really put psychology on the same ground as particle physics?
> We scoff at the shamans of last centuries, and in a few centuries from now we'll be scoffed at too.
This is pretty much exactly what I'm saying about nutritionists, but for some reason you appear to be mad at me about it.
What makes you think A) that's my motivation or B) I don't understand the science? I'm not a nutritionist, but I'm well-versed in statistics and hypothesis testing, so I am at least equipped to make general observations about the predictive power of the field.
> or don't think the science is moving fast enough
When did I ever say anything to that effect? The hard biological sciences are moving extremely quickly, and soon nutrition will be subsumed into computational chemistry like the rest.
> Science is science.
And some fields of science have very low predictive power, like current nutrition. Do you really put psychology on the same ground as particle physics?
> We scoff at the shamans of last centuries, and in a few centuries from now we'll be scoffed at too.
This is pretty much exactly what I'm saying about nutritionists, but for some reason you appear to be mad at me about it.