29
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Jun 2026
29 points (82.2% liked)
Casual Conversation
4220 readers
32 users here now
Share a story, ask a question, or start a conversation about (almost) anything you desire. Maybe you'll make some friends in the process.
RULES
- Be respectful: no harassment, hate speech, bigotry, and/or trolling.
- Encourage conversation in your OP. This means including all information that can initiate conversations when you can and also engaging in your thread when possible.
- Avoid controversial topics (e.g. politics or societal debates).
- Stay calm: Don’t post angry or to vent or complain. We are a place where everyone can forget about their everyday or not so everyday worries for a moment. Venting, complaining, or posting from a place of anger or resentment doesn't fit the atmosphere we try to foster at all. Feel free to post those on !goodoffmychest@lemmy.world
- Keep it clean and SFW
- No solicitation such as ads, promotional content, spam, surveys etc.
- No support questions. See !techsupport@lemmy.world
Casual conversation communities:
- !casualuk@feddit.uk
- !casualeurope@piefed.social
- !forumlibre@jlai.lu
- !batepapo@lemmy.eco.br
- !esp@lemm.ee
Related discussion-focused communities
- !actual_discussion@lemmy.ca
- !askmenover30@lemm.ee
- !dads@feddit.uk
- !letstalkaboutgames@feddit.uk
- !movies@piefed.social
- !television@piefed.social
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
That is a curious statement, science is a procedure that requires falsifiable and testable hypotheses.
Ok, so your appealing to consensus? But that is fine for personal beliefs, however, there is evidence supporting saturated fat for long term health.
Agreed, a observational study cannot establish cause and effect - by design.
Astronomy has testable falsifiable hypotheses. As does evolution. You build a model and see if new data you didn't train on fits the model. With plant based nutritional epidemology, people reject new data by leaning things like 'a lot of high quality epidemiology says' and ignoring that contradiction of the model.
These are not impossible things to test. We did it in the 1960s.
I fail to see how epidemiology is different from any other branches of science. Apart from all the successes I mentioned it has done a great deal in understanding infectious diseases.
With better data you can overthrow any theory or hypothesis. I don't think anyone thinks the consensus view cannot be changed or plant based results from epidemiology are unfalsifiable.
Great, it does come across that way some times.
falsifiable hypothesis and interventional experiments would be a good start.
thanks I am familiar enough with falsifiability and interventional studies to understand what you mean.
As I said I have carefully studied epidimiology and it's historical successes. And I have directly experienced how the branch is viewed in the communities of actual scientists. I trust their judgement more than some health influencers and guys on the internet obsessed with spreading carnivore diet.
I don't think we'll make much progress here. I'll go with carnivore diet bad.
I post the actual papers you know.... Let's take a single issue we discussed, saturated fat and cardiovascular outcomes - I've posted this paper, but here it is directly https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2020.05.077 Saturated Fats and Health: A Reassessment and Proposal for Food-Based Recommendations: JACC State-of-the-Art Review
How does your reading of consensus based epidemiology reconcile such analysis?
Totally fair, I'm not trying to recruit you!
Fair enough. You do seem well read. I'll check out that paper and some of the other things in your community sometime.