Re: Thermodynamics, again

That's not data, it's a good satire on the Feinman position
(among others). The problem is that you could equally well write a
good satire on the orthodox view.

Reply:
That is flat our incorrect. It is data. You may be confused because
the link I provided was a letter in response
to Feinman objection.

Here's a link to the full article under discussion.

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/79/5/899S#R48

The data for the study is reference #48.

What we have here is a situation in which experts disagree.

Reply:
NO. What we have here is a theory that not only lacks empirical
support but is (unamously) contradicted by
40 years worth strong data (metabolic ward studies not honor systems
free living reports).

I've posted an additional 7 oir 8 studies a zillion times already
including in this thread.
Could you or someone please comment on the data, before claiming I've
only provided conjectures that is somehow on par with the anything
( with human under controlled conditions) that Feinman has supplied.

If our lives weren't being threatened by diabetes and its associated
complications we could simply sit back and wait for the experts to
thrash it out. If like some of us here you'd really like to be able to
make an informed bet about which side is going to win this argument
then there's only one escape from the hard work of becoming informed,
which is to choose an expert you rather like and trust their opinion.

Reply:
In this case I'll choose the side thats got overwhelming evidence on
its side.
Its not a matter (to me) of picking the expert you like.

Also this issue has got noting to do with using a low carb diet to
control BG.


Of course Feinman's critics have some good points to make which
Feinman hasn't apparently been able to answer, just as Feinman has
some good points which his critics haven't apparently been able to
answer.

Once again its a matter of evidence, period!!
Feinman hypothesis is elegant, and theoretically consistent. It just
not supported by the evidence.
This happens all the time in science. What's big deal.

You can't decide this kind of scientific dispute by democratic
vote or paper counting, nor can you appeal to the data as Randy has
done, because it's the data and their interpreation which are in
dispute.

Your trying to complicate the issue when its simple.
If the macro-nutrient content had a bearing on weight loss
irrespective of calories it would show up in the controlled dietary
studies and this has NOT been the case. Its not rocket science.

What is important about the paper of Feinman & colleagues is that it
raises the status of the dispute. Before that paper the dispute was at
the stage of claiming there was something wrong with the usual model,
and making suggestions about how to repair its deficiencies. This
paper escalates the status of the dispute to the next level in
scientific disputes: it proposes a new explanatory model.

Feinman present a theory that can be tested. It has been tested (even
before the paper) and the theory is not supported.

In a past life I used to teach an introductory course on the history
of science with a specific focus on scientific revolutions or paradigm
changes such as this one in order to assist postgrad researchers to
operate effectively in highly controversial waters. I'd say that
generally speaking by the time a scientific dispute has got to this
stage there is little doubt that the old paradigm is doomed. The
question is whether the as yet simple and basic new model is good
enough, or can be improved enough, to supplant the old model, or
whether it will fail and we'll to have to wait for the next promising
challenger to turn up.

Utlimately paradigms are replaced when data cannot be adequetely
explained by the ruling theories.
Feinmans thesis is contradicted by the evidence. There is no reason to
consider it in its current form.

Here's my summary message: this dispute has now gone well past the
stage at which you can get anywhere by counting experts or papers on
either side.

Once again I'm not counting experts, I'm considering evidence period.


It's now a fully fledged paradigm (Kuhn) or assumptions
behind research programme (Lakatos) contest. It's Feinman's team's
paper proposing a non-equilibrium dynamics model which has raised its
status to that level.

My goodness Chris your raising this issue to something like the crisis
in early 20th century physics.
Its very simple, its not rocket science and can be easily understood
by an 8th grader.
Once again:
All the best evidence shows that macro-nutrient content does not
determine weight loss or gain when calories are controlled.

Randy



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Impeccable
    ... >>> sociobiology. ... > Typical anthropologists. ... believe it is consistent with all of the evidence. ... That's a dispute. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Sure indication of a scientific imposter
    ... manifesto. ... explanatory of *all* of the evidence. ... Nobody has been able to dispute it *scientifically*. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: What exactly is the nature of your dispute?
    ... explanation. ... Filler and Stanford have evidence (Stanford experience in ... I *don't* debate you because ... indisputable even when someone proposes a real dispute. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: What exactly is the nature of your dispute?
    ... explanation. ... Filler and Stanford have evidence (Stanford experience in ... I *don't* debate you because ... indisputable even when someone proposes a real dispute. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Conventional Evasiveness
    ... I wonder how many of the 9 specific direct questions that I put to Jim ... Why does is matter if you don't dispute it. ... interpretation of the evidence. ... So do you consider the change from Pan / Australopith LCA to A'pith to ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)