gyuserbti

I think they meant "commodity" in the general sense of "something you have to pay for" or "something subject to market pricing" as opposed to something always assumed.

Experiments have problems too. Let's say you successfuly blind people in a nutrition study (is this possible?). Randomized. How do you ensure they're following protocol? For how long? And who is adhering? How do you know you're manipulating what you think?

Experiments introduce control at the expense of generalizability, and some types of experiments more so than others.

Observational studies aren't perfect but they do have advantages, and in nutrition I wouldnt trust experiments more (maybe not less either to be fair).

We have plenty of experiments in animals for example and those arent much more interpretable, at least in nutrition.

Nothing is simple.

I have a lot of respect for Ioannadis but also find it reprehensible to talk about banning or otherwise forbidding large classes of research. Science only progresses when unfettered; prohibitions never help. If a study is flawed, address the flaws. More information might not help, but it never hurts. These flawed studies exist for a reason -- ideal studies are usually the stuff of fantasy.

I don't think the truth is always in the middle but it often is. Climate change is an interesting example; maybe too much to say via mobile but I'd argue that even though the evidence for climate change is pretty clear, climate scientists have underplayed their errors at times and the wide level of uncertainty involved. The recent retraction is a good example. I think this kind of attitude backfired, by making the blindspots that much more vulnerable. See, for example, recent discussions here about reforestation efforts using non-native monoculture, which could be seen as a similar dynamic to the experts-knows-best problem. I'm not saying reforestation is bad, only that it is another example of experts having biases going unnoticed.

Also, it could be argued that the climate change problem is really a socioeconomic one. I wouldn't say this has been neglected, but berating consumers and producers for what is more of a systemic problem isn't the most helpful thing.

Like a lot of things, the truth is in the middle, and for awhile the pendulum has swung in the direction of certified experts. The problem with this societal paradigm is that experts are often wrong, there's fads, and corruption. Responses to criticism that label the critics uninformed, unscientific, or defective (eg paranoid) are essentially ad hominem. A system like this will inevitably fail because the experts are shielded from responsibility, when if anything they should be expected to be able to tolerate greater criticism.

This problem cuts across many areas at the moment. Economics isn't the only thing.

I think this is a predictable response to a healthcare system characterized by rent seeking and monopoly. People want to exercise greater choice and feel their autonomy is threatened when they have little diversity of options but are financially responsible nevertheless.

To be clear, I'm not antivaccine, and personally make them a priority for myself and family (although I am opposed to mandatory vaccines). I just think that the antivaccine movement, along with things like the supplement industry and recent cannabis legalization efforts are almost inevitable when people are put in a system with few real options and a lot of control. There's pushback, skepticism, and exaggerated response.

Come to think about it, it's funny that we're mystified at all by people exerting a critical eye on something, and expect them to just go along. There has to be a better way.

It's bizarre to me to expect people to unquestionably accept vaccines when their generic drugs are being tainted or poisoned, and they can't afford anything else.

I've noticed turmeric is increasingly used as a natural colorant in the US. This makes me a bit worried about lead slipping through, with turmeric being used in that way.

The special thing about housing though is you have to pay monthly payments for housing. This is the reason why those monthly payments are privileged in consideration.

So the alternative is rent, which at the moment in many places is looking like a less appealing alternative.

The transfer of wealth in the housing market happens from one group to another regardless.

I agree with a lot of your sentiment and what you're saying, but I think the monthly payment focus isn't irrational.

I think the hold-out paradigm is woefully overrated in part for similar reasons. It's always seemed odd to me to emphasize hold out samples when you know their asymptotic performance in the form of fit statistics.

I'm always for examining replicability, but the current paradigm to me seems misguided and this articulates some of the reasons very well.

Surprised clipless pedals aren't included in the list of myths.

These sorts of myths exist in many sports; I am fascinated by them.

I've worked as a "nonacademic" professional as well after my degree but before my faculty position. There there was less time for research but any research was highly encouraged. I also ironically felt more freedom as a grad student and postdoc for similar reasons.

Also tenured professor who left. I don't think of myself as second rate but academics, at least in many fields of the US, is becoming full of bullshit-chasing fads. Universities see your role as to bring in money from the federal gov, which means constant pressure to join bandwagons even when you vehemently disagree. I never felt as little intellectual freedom as I did in my tenured position. Mix it with dysfunctional top-heavy administration and it's a toxic mix. It probably varies by institution too, but then you run into the bizarre stochastic kobuki of academic hiring in a Ponzi scheme environment with excess graduates.

The watermelon example is incorrect. That started as a posting on social media and shortly after there were corrections by botanists and agricultural experts. The watermelon in the painting is an example of a pathology that still occurs in modern watermelon.

It amazes me how the problems with our drug and medical regulation system never come up even when it's staring us in the face. This article is typical, framing it as a problem with pharm companies rather than with the regulatory system. Between stuff like this, the opioid crisis, and cannabis deregulation, it should be obvious how broken and monopolistic the system is (referring to the FDA, DEA, and medical licensure system).

Not understanding this. Why, for example, doesn't a clarinetist just play a C? I'm on mobile so I can't explain my question well, but: why isn't the transposed version just the default interpretation of the score? If clarinetists are playing bflat when the score says c, why not just play c? Is the implied point that the same 440 hz is interpreted differently because of quality, secondary frequencies etc?

Not really the same. People were complaining about Flash for years before Apple's decision, there were good alternatives, and the complaints were about Apple not supporting Flash when it could have. I hated Flash but also thought it was unacceptable for Apple to unnecessarily ban it.

Floppies I'm not sure what you're talking about... Optical drives are still supported externally, and one of the big issues with that was really the same issue as with wired headphones: lack of ports. It's not just removing a type of port, it's reducing the number of ports--although removing a centrally important type of port is problematic enough also.

Removal of wired headphone ports was a solution imposed in order to create the appearance of a problem. Bluetooth headphones don't provide as good of possible audio quality, and are more power hungry. With wired ports, if you wanted Bluetooth anyway for whatever reason (and there are many), you could have them.

Whenever a topic like this comes up, it reminds me of the Onion satire (maybe it was not the Onion) about the laptop with just one big button instead of a keyboard.

A better analogy than CDs or Flash in this regard might be tablets: for a time people talked about the end of the keyboard, etc. and how everyone would use tablets. Many of us thought this was absurd for heavy work, and our concerns proved true. Tablets still are useful in all sorts of ways in the same way Bluetooth will be but getting rid of a physical port for audio seems premature.