Don't read everything you believe...

[BearBones]

In perusing many of the discussions on this forum, it seems that a lot of people are working exactly backwards from the scientific method, developing a hypothesis (or just stating a firmly held belief), then finding evidence to support it (often from dubious sources).

I am reminded of the thread that you started last year, MT, about developing an argument for your oppositely held beliefs, and this seems more in keeping with the methodologies that delivered us from the dark ages (although I still insist that the earth IS flat).
http://gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/ht ... ic.php?t=0

[WiseOne]

I think I should print this out and post it on my wall!

The technique does indeed go all the way back to Plato's dialogues.  Either that, or what my dad used to say every time we'd say something starting with "Everybody knows...."

"Don't believe anything you hear and only half of what you see."

[Gumby]

Sorry, but isn't the first step of the scientific method to start with a question, form a hypothesis (perhaps from a firmly held belief), and then prove it with data, evidence, and tests? How is that backwards from the scientific method?

[align=center][/align]

If you're referring to our discussion on saturated fats... you ought to keep in mind that the hypothesis that blames saturated fats for heart disease was actually a hypothesis from the 1950s that has still never been proven (known as the "diet-heart hypothesis" and "lipid hypothesis"). All I did was ask the question if the original hypothesis is false (since it has yet to be proven).

According to the chart, above, if a hypothesis has never been proven, then it's just an unproven hypothesis that needs to be refined or re-imagined. Yet, you make someone sound "backwards" for forming a hypothesis that challenges it. There are plenty of doctors that have challenged the unproven diet heart hypothesis.

Following sheep does not make one a scientist.

[Tyler]

[Gosso]

In perusing many of the discussions on this forum, it seems that a lot of people are working exactly backwards from the scientific method, developing a hypothesis (or just stating a firmly held belief), then finding evidence to support it (often from dubious sources).

I am reminded of the thread that you started last year, MT, about developing an argument for your oppositely held beliefs, and this seems more in keeping with the methodologies that delivered us from the dark ages (although I still insist that the earth IS flat).
http://gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/ht ... ic.php?t=0

I'm assuming you're joking, but without any  :) , I'm not sure  :-\  

There are still people that believe that the Earth is flat.  And actually if I think about it, I personally have no proof that the Earth is round.  I have never left North America, so for all I know the world is playing one giant prank on me, a la The Truman Show.  

I'm on to you people...

[BearBones]

Sorry, but isn't the first step of the scientific method to start with a question, form a hypothesis (perhaps from a firmly held belief), and then prove it with data, evidence, and tests? How is that backwards from the scientific method?

If you're referring to our discussion on saturated fats... you ought to keep in mind that the hypothesis that blames saturated fats for heart disease was actually a hypothesis from the 1950s that has still never been proven (known as the "diet-heart hypothesis" and "lipid hypothesis"). All I did was ask the question if the original hypothesis is false (since it has yet to be proven).

The saturated fat discussion does indeed seem to be one of many in which people are finding data to support their hypotheses while firmly rejecting good arguments to the contrary. It is a helpful discussion only if you are willing to be open to that which challenges your hypothesis, and this is in keeping with the scientific method.

As for saturated fats, I have an opinion on the subject, but I haven't weighed in. Even with a scientific background, it would take me a day or two of hard work to comb through the literature on the subject. When and if I do so (and I'd like to, since it is an important topic), I would go to original well constructed scientific studies available from a PubMed search and reviews by experts on the subject in major peer-reviewed scientific journals. I would bypass magazine articles (e.g., Men's health), articles posted on the internet, and Youtube videos. In most cases, the latter are helpful for generating hypotheses but not for supporting them.

But my point is more general than the discussions on saturated fats, whole milk, and the like. It is equally important to challenges to the validity of the unadulterated Permanent Portfolio in 2012.

[6 Iron]

But my point is more general than the discussions on saturated fats, whole milk, and the like. It is equally important to challenges to the validity of the unadulterated Permanent Portfolio in 2012.

I am not sure what you are referring to in regard to the permport, but would love for you to flesh  out your concerns.

[Gumby]

As for saturated fats, I have an opinion on the subject, but I haven't weighed in. Even with a scientific background, it would take me a day or two of hard work to comb through the literature on the subject. When and if I do so (and I'd like to, since it is an important topic), I would go to original well constructed scientific studies available from a PubMed search and reviews by experts on the subject in major peer-reviewed scientific journals. I would bypass magazine articles (e.g., Men's health), articles posted on the internet, and Youtube videos. In most cases, the latter are helpful for generating hypotheses but not for supporting them.

It seems incredibly odd to me that you would intentionally avoid watching a YouTube lecture that deconstructs all of the major studies that support the diet-heart hypothesis and the lipid hypothesis, and points out their flaws.

[align=center][/align]

We all would welcome your input, but to denigrate a YouTube lecture before you've even watched it seems rather cavalier, in my opinion. PubMed and peer-reviewed scientific journals are obviously essential resources, but the video examines why those very resources failed to prove the diet-heart hypothesis and the lipid hypothesis in the first place.

The diet-heart hypothesis and the lipid hypothesis are just "hypotheses." It is the onus of researchers to prove those hypotheses correct. If after decades of research, scientists have been unable to determine a conclusive link between saturated fats, cholesterol, and heart disease — and when you find studies that have actually concluded the opposite — then those researchers need to start the scientific method over again and figure out another hypothesis. As the lecture shows us, that's not what happened. Instead, critics were silenced and data was tweaked to fit the desired models.

[Gosso]

Sorry, but isn't the first step of the scientific method to start with a question, form a hypothesis (perhaps from a firmly held belief), and then prove it with data, evidence, and tests? How is that backwards from the scientific method?

If you're referring to our discussion on saturated fats... you ought to keep in mind that the hypothesis that blames saturated fats for heart disease was actually a hypothesis from the 1950s that has still never been proven (known as the "diet-heart hypothesis" and "lipid hypothesis"). All I did was ask the question if the original hypothesis is false (since it has yet to be proven).

The saturated fat discussion does indeed seem to be one of many in which people are finding data to support their hypotheses while firmly rejecting good arguments to the contrary. It is a helpful discussion only if you are willing to be open to that which challenges your hypothesis, and this is in keeping with the scientific method.

As for saturated fats, I have an opinion on the subject, but I haven't weighed in. Even with a scientific background, it would take me a day or two of hard work to comb through the literature on the subject. When and if I do so (and I'd like to, since it is an important topic), I would go to original well constructed scientific studies available from a PubMed search and reviews by experts on the subject in major peer-reviewed scientific journals. I would bypass magazine articles (e.g., Men's health), articles posted on the internet, and Youtube videos. In most cases, the latter are helpful for generating hypotheses but not for supporting them.

But my point is more general than the discussions on saturated fats, whole milk, and the like. It is equally important to challenges to the validity of the unadulterated Permanent Portfolio in 2012.

Would it be easier if you started with these links:

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.ca/20 ... heart.html

Stephan did a nice job of bringing together the studies for and against the diet-heart hypothesis (although the post is a little dated).  He found 25 against, and 4 for it.  Is it possible that these 25 studies were funded by milk lobbyists or performed by incompetent/dishonest researchers?  Yes.

For the most part I greatly respect the scientific method, but it is not perfect.  The problem stems from the fact that it involves humans, which means it is not immune to biased thinking, ignoring facts that don't support the hypothesis, grant money greed, fear of losing your job if you don't keep your sponsors happy, fear of ridicule from the scientific community (ie don't rock the boat), etc.

Scientists and researchers are human as well, with all the same failings as us "normal" humans.  It really bothers me when someone points to a Pubmed article and treats it as Gospel.  Although I can be guilty of this as well...

[MachineGhost]

But my point is more general than the discussions on saturated fats, whole milk, and the like. It is equally important to challenges to the validity of the unadulterated Permanent Portfolio in 2012.

I used to be a member of a health-related discussion list that would reject all posts unless backed up by an authoritative scientific reference.  You could not post an opinion, speculation or even a hypothesis.  This got tiring very, very fast and naturally no one cares that much about the list other than the list owner, moderators or the few self-masturbatory regulars in the grand schemes of thing.  This forum is 1000x superior.  Debate is healthy and infuses new ideas and perspectives.  Facts can be boring and one dimensional.

The other issue is that we all don't really have the time to be scouring the Internet for references just to back up claims in posts we make.  I think most of us here are intelligent enough to know when someone is stating an opinion or emotive statement over contestable facts.  PubMed and Google is available to everyone.

MG

[BearBones]

I am not sure what you are referring to in regard to the permport, but would love for you to flesh  out your concerns.

Thanks. Already been done, actually. I have strong concerns about LTTs going forward, for instance, and many of the discussions on this forum have helped me keep a more open mind.

We all would welcome your input, but to denigrate a YouTube lecture before you've even watched it seems rather cavalier, in my opinion.

Did not denigrate any specific YouTube lecture. Watched the one that you are referencing and found it interesting. I am open to it being accurate, but I do not accept that it "deconstructs all of the major studies," and I certainly do not accept that this is the "last word" on lipids, at least until I look carefully at the other side of the argument myself (which I have not done yet).

Please do not look at this as a personal assault. If you find nothing true or helpful in my original comments, then disregard them.

[Gumby]

I certainly do not accept that this is the "last word" on lipids, at least until I look carefully at the other side of the argument myself (which I have not done yet).

Understood. If you wouldn't mind adding the following study to your reading list, and giving us your opinion when you've had a chance to read it, I think we'd all appreciate hearing your thoughts on it...

http://www.ajcn.org/content/early/2010/ ... 5.abstract

[MachineGhost]

I certainly do not accept that this is the "last word" on lipids, at least until I look carefully at the other side of the argument myself (which I have not done yet).

Understood. If you wouldn't mind adding the following study to your reading list, and giving us your opinion when you've had a chance to read it, I think we'd all appreciate hearing your thoughts on it...

http://www.ajcn.org/content/early/2010/ ... 5.abstract

I'm not taking another stand on this specific issue, but meta-analysis (data mining) is generally considered to be very low in terms of reliability for scientific proof.  Tons of intentionally and very bad meta-analysises denigrating many positive behavioral aspects (especially vitamins and dietary supplements) or whitewhasing negative outcomes of drugs have been published over the years to great fanfare in the mainstream media, because its a cheap and easy way for the research students or doctorates to "publish or perish" without doing any real scientific research.  Heck, in many cases, the stated conclusion by the authors is the exact opposite of what the data included in their very paper objectively shows!

MG

[BearBones]

Understood. If you wouldn't mind adding the following study to your reading list, and giving us your opinion when you've had a chance to read it, I think we'd all appreciate hearing your thoughts on it...
http://www.ajcn.org/content/early/2010/ ... 5.abstract

Sorry for the delay, Gumby. I will comment on this in the saturated fats discussion.

I will bring my original point back to a personal example, since I have done a poor job in showing that this is not unique to a specific person or a specific discussion on the forum. It is human nature.

For a good part of a year, much of what I read about the state of the economy came from ChrisMartenson.com. Martenson is a brilliant man and a compelling speaker. And what he was saying make total sense to me. We were clearly heading for apocalyptic economic collapse due to exponentially growing deficits combined with the phenomenon of peak oil.

I went on to post on the subject in this forum, naively thinking that most would agree, and those that did not would be enlightened. http://gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/ht ... ic.php?t=9  Ha! I was initially taken aback by those that disagreed with me or those that thought that CM was a hoax. But I eventually settled into the following realization: 1) I was not very open to opposing arguments, and 2) there are folks out there who know a hell of a lot more about economics than me (I don't have the time or interest to read a book on MMT!).

So, I now just hedge my bets on our economic future with the PP. And when I read Chris Martenson, I can now see that he interviews only those "experts" that share his opinions. He, like many of us (myself included), tends to "read only what he believes."

[MediumTex]

I went on to post on the subject in this forum, naively thinking that most would agree, and those that did not would be enlightened. http://gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/ht ... ic.php?t=9   Ha! I was initially taken aback by those that disagreed with me or those that thought that CM was a hoax. But I eventually settled into the following realization: 1) I was not very open to opposing arguments, and 2) there are folks out there who know a hell of a lot more about economics than me (I don't have the time or interest to read a book on MMT!).

I thought I would take a quick look at that thread.  When I got to the bottom of the first page I saw that it went on for 11 pages!

[Gumby]

Sorry for the delay, Gumby. I will comment on this in the saturated fats discussion.

Thanks so much.. I appreciate it.

He, like many of us (myself included), tends to "read only what he believes."

I agree that it is human nature to read only what one believes. Maybe it's just wishful thinking, but I think this forum tends to buck that trend a bit — constantly investigating "fringe" theories, all the time. When I first discovered the Permanent Portfolio, I honestly believed that financial gurus knew what they were talking about... I believed that debt was something didn't need to exist in our monetary system... I believed that taxes paid for our Federal government... I believed that stocks could only go up... I believed that gold was a barbarous relic... I believed that corporate debt was a better place to invest than Treasuries... I believed that saturated fat was evil.... I believed a lot of things that I'm not so sure about any longer.

None of these are things that I was willing to easily dismiss. I didn't want to believe that our monetary system requires debt. I didn't want to believe that gold is one of the best investments for wealth preservation — when part of a balanced portfolio. I didn't want to believe that Treasuries were a safer place to store one's wealth than corporate bonds. I didn't want to believe that my tax dollars were just being deleted into thin air for no other reason than to legitimize our currency. And I didn't want to believe that stocks could crash and obliterate one's wealth.

But, I tried to debunk these things and found myself understanding the other side of the coin in the process — and realizing that maybe, just maybe, me and everyone around me might be thinking about things the wrong way. This is not a huge stretch. Go back into any point in history and you'll find people believing things that we no longer believe. Who's to say that today's cherished beliefs are not tomorrow's myths? Nobody. None of us know the 100% truth about anything. All we can do is try to make sense of the world with the tools we have and listen to different points of view to make our own judgements. But, I suppose you are correct. Most people probably don't do this.

Now, if I told you that the study on saturated fats you looked at — which some might say debunks the diet-heart hypothesis — was actually funded by the National Dairy Council, you would look at it differently wouldn't you? (I believe it was, actually). So, all this does is lead me to be even more skeptical of studies. And a year ago, I would have only followed advice from major medical studies. Now I don't know what to believe anymore. I think I'm losing faith in everything.

[BearBones]

Now, if I told you that the study on saturated fats you looked at — which some might say debunks the diet-heart hypothesis — was actually funded by the National Dairy Council, you would look at it differently wouldn't you? (I believe it was, actually). So, all this does is lead me to be even more skeptical of studies. And a year ago, I would have only followed advice from major medical studies. Now I don't know what to believe anymore. I think I'm losing faith in everything.

Agree! In a world filled with conflicts of interest, it is difficult or impossible to sort things out, especially if you are not willing to spend days and days looking at the details. That's why I like the PP. It could be a "suboptimal" investment strategy, but it is not as bad a most, and it does not require special knowledge or tons of time.

And as for the diet thing, I guess I just do what seems common sense to me: everything in moderation and as close to what I think hominids were eating during the majority of our evolution: nuts, berries, tubers, leaves, and an occasional animal (all of it, including the fat). It could be a "suboptimal" diet, but it is not as bad as most, and it does not require any special knowledge of the latest dietary theories or fads.