And maybe also let off the rhetoric of "government sponsored" science, which is actually most science in many places. Written for views/clicks obviously. So tiering.
// Master of Science in Public Health
> For a paper claiming to overturn decades of alcohol drinking recommendations, the statistical foundation is underdocumented and, to be mild, statistically strange.
Given that "decades of alcohol drinking recommendations" lacked any statistical basis to begin with, the scientific-rigor bar to clear is quite low IMHO.
Ad hominem arguments cut both ways.
The article is about the rigor of a paper on the harms of relatively small amounts of alcohol consumption. The comment is about the obvious harms from large amounts of alcohol consumption. The two things are barely related beyond, perhaps, the title of the article.
We can at the same time recognize the harms of alcohol, while also caring about whether there is a relatively safe dose with which to consume it.
As a parallel, we can look at substances as banal as finasteride or aspartame as examples of where we are actually quite concerned about the safety of the small dose, while recognizing the obvious dangers of consistent, large doses. In all three cases (ethanol, finasteride, and aspartame), the "benefits" of each drug are unrelated to health, but meaningful to most people. The main difference is that ethanol is much easier to consume at dangerous levels, likely because regulation is quite difficult, especially when you can make it at home relatively easily.
The question being argued is whether drinking a small amount of alcohol is detrimental to your health. This is a different matter altogether.
We, humans, have been drinking alcohol for millenia. I'm skeptical to the idea that a small amount, say, a glass of wine for lunch every day or so, can harm us, especially for active individuals. There has been a natural selection process for us to adapt.
I believe what Taleb is doing here is of great public value, and I commend him for that.
People that want to drink will find excuses to do so.
But, alcohol is something that has been present in our ancestral environment (e.g. fermented fruits). If anyone's telling me, our bodies didn't learn to at least tolerate small amounts of it without any major side effects, I'm going to be asking a lot of follow-up questions.
I think it's much easier to argue this case than, say, tobacco or "drugs", which are arguably more recent inventions, depending on your exact definition of drug.
It's cancerous.
The problem with highly addictive things is people do not stop at small quantities.
Lots of things we eat and drink and use would be illegal if invented now. Refined sugar, many herbs. Even rice can contain arsenic, as can some root vegetables. Maybe even electricity - something that is easily fatal, and can start fires?
So, I don't think this is providing "great public value", on the contrary I would suggest spending time with the research and treatment of the many individuals starting out thinking that "a glass of wine for lunch every day or so" can't "harm us".
With that said, I'm fully aware that excessive alcohol intake (i.e. alcoholism) has been destroying lives for millennia, too, but that's what life is, we can't turn it into this aseptic thing where every risk is accounted for.
From scientific point of view life leads to death in 100% of cases.
There are risks getting out of bed in the morning, but there are greater risks NOT getting out of bed in the morning.
Risk is apparently a very difficult subject.
But I’m curious nonetheless, can you give some examples of those risks? I keep seeing people mentioning them, but haven’t seen many well informed reasonings
Whether or not a drinker is an "active individual" may not affect the damage (or non-damage) alcohol does; there's no reason to assume that changes anything.
I like a drink here and there as much as the next guy, but I'm not going to pretend there's zero harm.
In absence of evidence, it’s a better default to think that it’s not harmful as explained by my arguments above. I’m not arguing selection pressure is a strong argument in favor of no harm, I’m arguing that it's a better argument in absence of strong evidence saying otherwise.
The linked document explains how there’s not such thing as strong evidence in habit of the small alcohol quantities are harmful hypothesis. Making papers and running studies is hard, they depend on small sample sizes and statistical analysis that more often than not is flawed.
The biggest thing I've noticed is just how much alcohol has stunted me. It's a tool for socializing, having fun, but along the way I never learned to deal with discomfort.
Now I go out often, alone, and sober, and I realize I never built up the skills. And they are skills really - how to be comfortable and confident in public, how to approach strangers, how to let loose and have fun. I'm anxious, I'm weird, I'm lost. Part of that is the chemo, sure, but the other part is me throwing away years of skill building in exchange for more fun right now. But now, I'm slowly building up the skills.
I realize maybe some people never build these skills. Maybe that's why people become recluses, or why they continue to drink. I also realize some people do have the skills. I've met many magic people; charismatic, kind, confident. They have the skills. Do they even need alcohol then?
Gotta love the phrase "drugs and alcohol," as if to imply alcohol isn't a drug or is some special exception.
Is it? Government science is usually very closely tied to politics, and that's so far from "science". I didn't see any real science in your post as well btw.
I'm happy to discuss definitions of science any day of the week! =)
https://data-explorer.oecd.org/vis?df[ds]=DisseminateFinalDM...