Nicely done, and I'm pleased that our article caught your attention.
Andy Norman came up with Reason's Fulcrum a few years back. I encountered it in his 2021 book 'Mental Immunity'. Myself and Ed Gibney showed how a moveable fulcrum gives us a working model for Bayes.
What an interesting piece combining principles from philosophy, physics and nutrition science! I've not come across "Reason's Fulcrum" before- thank you for explaining this fascinating concept! The figures really helped me understand the concept.
Are there any specific sciences/humanities that experience the same volatility that nutrition science does? Is it the case that once one delves into any subject deep enough, they will be exposed to the fluctuating views or is there something particularly unique to the field of nutrition science (disregarding the influence of the media/celebrities endorsing diets)? If nutrition science was treated like any other science or humanity (i.e. without some social media influencers hyping supplements/making unsubstantiated claims), is there anything specific to this field that makes it particularly susceptible to the fluctuations? Thank you!
Thanks. I had been meaning to write this article for some time, but only came across Reason's Fulrom myself last month.
Stuart Richie (https://www.sciencefictions.org/) claims that the nuance of nutrition science is only surparsed by psycology. But nutrition is defintely up there. This is because it's so complex and, well, everyone eats so everyone feels they have to have an opinion!
Nicely done, and I'm pleased that our article caught your attention.
Andy Norman came up with Reason's Fulcrum a few years back. I encountered it in his 2021 book 'Mental Immunity'. Myself and Ed Gibney showed how a moveable fulcrum gives us a working model for Bayes.
Cheers
Zafir
Hi Zafir. Thanks for your comment and clarifying this important point. I have edited the article with a footnote to reflect this.
What an interesting piece combining principles from philosophy, physics and nutrition science! I've not come across "Reason's Fulcrum" before- thank you for explaining this fascinating concept! The figures really helped me understand the concept.
Are there any specific sciences/humanities that experience the same volatility that nutrition science does? Is it the case that once one delves into any subject deep enough, they will be exposed to the fluctuating views or is there something particularly unique to the field of nutrition science (disregarding the influence of the media/celebrities endorsing diets)? If nutrition science was treated like any other science or humanity (i.e. without some social media influencers hyping supplements/making unsubstantiated claims), is there anything specific to this field that makes it particularly susceptible to the fluctuations? Thank you!
Thanks. I had been meaning to write this article for some time, but only came across Reason's Fulrom myself last month.
Stuart Richie (https://www.sciencefictions.org/) claims that the nuance of nutrition science is only surparsed by psycology. But nutrition is defintely up there. This is because it's so complex and, well, everyone eats so everyone feels they have to have an opinion!
Thank you for your thoughts!