I've been getting increasingly disillusioned with the state of discussions about the general nutrition web these days. Why? So many discussions get cluttered and/or dominated by a few types of purveyors of "scientific" information one should view with skepticism. This is by no means a complete list, and these types are not mutually exclusive.
1. The Unsubstantiator: There is a disturbingly large number of folks with MD after their names who fit this bill, but by all means not all of these. There are also many folks who post on a variety of boards and blogs who have their "schtick" so to speak but offer no substantiation for their often repetitive claims. The Unsubstantiators will write long tomes filled with technical information and factual claims in an authoritative tone. One problem. No references are given. I recognize that not everyone needs detailed, referenced as if it were a scientific paper, style information. At least not all the time. But when the message includes bold claims -- especially about things that are not "common knowledge" , or represent an alternative view -- these claims need to be substantiated. It is not enough to say "X is the cause of Y" because I say so and I have letters after my name, or years of experience with this.
Read more »
No comments:
Post a Comment