Yeah that’s what I meant.

(March 31, 2018 at 10:56 am)Succubus Wrote:

(March 31, 2018 at 7:57 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: Dietitian here.

‘What the Health’ is an unscientific, unobjective, cherry picked load of crap.  Documentaries like these are exactly the reason we need public trust in experts.  Many people are of the opinion that nutrition science is the one field where experts can’t be trusted, and anyone with an opinion and access to the internet can be an expert.  As an RD, it’s maddening.

One huge problem you have is that for every Dietitian there are a hundred nutritionists and Joe public have no idea that the two

(March 15, 2018 at 4:48 pm)vorlon13 Wrote:

are completely unrelated. Nutritionist is not a protected term, anyone can and do, call themselves a nutritionist and they answer to no one. It's pseudo-science at its worst, it's dangerous bullshit but the punters don't know this.

Absolutely.  Most states now have licensure for the RD title that legally prohibits non-RD’s from dispensing any recommendations that qualify as medical nutrition therapy, but it’s even a problem in those places for the reasons you mentioned.  Much of the general public simply doesn’t know that the term “nutritionist” is unregulated.  In my state of NY, there is no licensure, so it’s even harder to earn public trust.  Another big problem, at least to me, is the amount of money the AND accepts from the food industry.  It hurts our reputation, and makes it that much harder for practicing dietitians on the front line to earn the trust of consumers.

Quote:To what extent do you trust people who are considered to be experts?

Depends on who has anointed him an "expert."  Self-proclaimed experts are dismissed out of hand.

(March 31, 2018 at 11:17 am)Tiberius Wrote: My general rule:

Trust an expert if there’s a consensus among experts in his field, and if that field is considered overwhelmingly trustworthy by other relevant fields.

^ This pretty much.

I don't trust people on the fringe until they're accepted.

I mean, sure, people like Einstein will come along who are laughed at but they are eventually taken seriously.... and for every Einstein there's 10,000 nutjobs.

1. Is the 'expert' and expert in the area being discussed? I don't trust a mathematician to talk about business management without further evidence of expertise in that area.

2. Does the area being discussed have a way to gain and test knowledge? Can the expert actually know what is claimed? Does the subject area have means to learn about the subject and actually have knowledge? Theology, for example, fails here miserably.

3. Are the standards for the knowledge exacting? If you use p<.05 for your standard of relevance, then 1 in 20 results will be false positives. Using p<.0001 reduces that risk. Medical and psychological studies run into issues with this.

4. Is there a consensus in the subject area? How much debate has been done? How much evidence considered? And how many alternative views have been considered? Why were they dismissed?

5. Does the expert agree with the other experts in that field of study? if not, why not?

(April 1, 2018 at 11:07 am)polymath257 Wrote: 2. Does the area being discussed have a way to gain and test knowledge? Can the expert actually know what is claimed? Does the subject area have means to learn about the subject and actually have knowledge? Theology, for example, fails here miserably.

A theologian might be considered an expert of sorts. Just as an English major who has done a great deal of time studying James Joyce, might be able to expertly argue a thesis about Ulysses, a theologian might be considered to have expertise concerning religious texts. Claims about the universe are a different matter entirely, and in that regard, a theologian certainly fails miserably as an expert.

One could also say that theology is not an expertise worth having. I would disagree with that statement as well. Regardless of the truth or falsity of any religious view, religion is nonetheless culturally significant.

Quote: Does the area being discussed have a way to gain and test knowledge?

I often feel this way when scientists make important discoveries but then get all excited about it and make irrelevant philosophical claims that are non-sequiturs and have nothing to do with what they just discovered.

Experts can make fantastic discoveries but that doesn't always mean that their own commentary on the meaning of their discoveries is correct, if they then start talking about things that regard more than just the scientific facts.

(April 1, 2018 at 11:32 am)vulcanlogician Wrote:

(April 1, 2018 at 11:07 am)polymath257 Wrote: 2. Does the area being discussed have a way to gain and test knowledge? Can the expert actually know what is claimed? Does the subject area have means to learn about the subject and actually have knowledge? Theology, for example, fails here miserably.

A theologian might be considered an expert of sorts. Just as an English major who has done a great deal of time studying James Joyce, might be able to expertly argue a thesis about Ulysses, a theologian might be considered to have expertise concerning religious texts. Claims about the universe are a different matter entirely, and in that regard, a theologian certainly fails miserably as an expert.

One could also say that theology is not an expertise worth having. I would disagree with that statement as well. Regardless of the truth or falsity of any religious view, religion is nonetheless culturally significant.

And I can agree here. Theologians are certainly experts on historical arguments about deities and their properties, although usually from only one viewpoint.

An Expert is willing to state their opinion for money.

---

(March 31, 2018 at 5:58 am)paulpablo Wrote: I got thinking about this after watching a documentary called "What the health"

Previous to that I watch the Joe Rogan podcast and on his podcast he talks about people in the sugar industry hiding how much damage sugar does in your diet, he cites various sources, I watched what the health and it said the exact opposite.  Sugar is fine, the meat industry is blaming sugar when it is in fact meat that's to blame for things like diabetes and obesity.

Q:  What do nutritionists say?  Biochemists?  Biologists?  In science there are sources for many viewpoints, but the importance of the study, as well as the intent, or bias, should be able to be found in a few ways:  

Who uses that source to backup their own work?
What is the ranking of the importance of the publication that houses the source?  
What is the industry or source of funding?
What trends can you detect that might show bias?

X is an unknown quantity and spurt is dribble from your dick.