It's no wonder we're seeing more and more average people question, if not stand against, science. From their perspective, it just isn't reliable any longer.
It doesn't matter if we're talking about nutrition or climate change.
Negative. The problem with food is that there is a bullshit industry built around it that has nothing to do with science. It has everything to do with blaming, marketing, and agenda.
I forgot to add lies and bullshit.
All we have to do is look at advertisement. Today, we are starting to eat the healthy sugar again. A third of Americans are avoiding gluten, when only a small number are actually allergic to it. Remember how eating oatmeal was the great health food?
Then we need to talk to vegans, vegetarians, atkins and caveman people, the drink a shitload of water people, and all the other people who have decided that something something was going to make them live longer.
Time and time again average people have been told one thing based on scientific research, but then a short while later they're told that something totally contradictory to the first thing is now correct.
As far as food goes, precious little is science, and marketing and health shaming takes the lions share.
As far as science goes, bring up some of these completely contradictory science based sea changes, and we can discuss.
Science as a whole has a serious boy-who-cried-wolf problem. As scientists we need to be far more careful about the claims we're making, so that people continue to take us seriously.
And a whole lot of people are looking for an eternal truth, an unchanging universe. Religion is probably better for them, and they can reject any and all science, and that will probably satisfy their need.
We can't do what climate science did in the 1960s and 1970s, and predict imminent doom-and-gloom scenarios for the 1980s that don't come to pass, and haven't come to pass even 30 years after that.
A couple points on that. A lot of climate deniers like to bring up an article from the 1970's in time Magazine http://img.timeinc.net/time/ma... that they use as proof that scientists believed we were entering a new ice age. Scientists didn't - although I recall a really snowy winter in the Northeast. We've been treated to weird shit like this over the years, attributed to science, but actually designed to sell stuff to people. Imagine if the Cover of time had an article where the headline was "Scientists say we occasionally have a snowy and cold winter. Dramatic stuff indeed.
Now for ridiculous claims. Very few of the imminent climate doom claims have been put out by people who aren't paying attention, the equivalent of healthy food marketing.
But somehow that stuff gets translated to "In the 1970's all scientists first believe that we were in a new Ice age, then they all changed their minds and they all said we were going to be dead by the year 2000." Oddly enough, the same people often talk about the controversy in science, seamlessly shifting between the monolithic scientist meme, and the controversy as suits their argument.
An example not in the weather field is that many young earth creationists use the Piltdown man hoax to discredit all of science. The logic is Piltdown was a hoax, so the earth was created by the Abrahamic god in 4004 B.C.(E)
We can't say today that some food or substance is unhealthy and we should avoid eating it, but then a few years from now say it's healthy, and in fact we need to eat more of it.
If you ask a nutritionist, most will tell you that you need a balanced diet, one with sufficient protein and carb mix, and amounts of vitamins and minerals. Its remarkably boring. And while there have been some changes over the years, most of what you are objecting to is the marketing hype, designed to get you to buy their product, or avoid buying someone else's product.
I recall some conversations with nutritionists who lamented the demonization of eggs, because they were an inexpensive source of protein. And this was at a time when people were cautioned to avoid eggs, certainly no more than 2 a week, or to eat eggbeaters if they were weak willed.
Gluten and healthy sugar are no exception. Almost no one is allergic to gluten, and refined sugar as a healthy alternative to that 50:50 mix of fructose and glucose that is supposedly killing us is by no means settled science This is a fairly good cite of how actual scientists view the matter, not marketing droids https://blogs.scientificameric...
While we shouldn't be afraid to chance our conclusions as we do more research and continue to expand our knowledge, we also can't continue to make claims that fall apart so quickly. We need to be far more sure about the claims we make publicly.
You like the idea of gagging scientists? And good luck with trying to gag marketing droids.
I've heard your argument before. It usually speaks to the subset of people who do not handle change very well, like constancy, and need a blame target.
I'll note that your blame target is irresponsible scientists, and not the forces of marketing, who manage to twist some pretty weak stuff into sales, and the market which tend to operate negatively by claiming another's product is bad for people.