Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • I never cease to be amazed at how quickly this forum swings between properties of cryogenically cooled proteins to women covered in cheese slices.

Topic: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World) (Read 177454 times) previous topic - next topic

BenTheBiased, VoxRat, DaveGodfrey, Dave Hawkins, JonF, Sea Star, superhoop, Pingu and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29125
Good Lord

  • Pingu
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29126
tell
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • Y.B
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29127
Lemme guess: squid ink?

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29128
Lemme guess: squid ink?
Cthulhu Ink!!
Are we there yet?

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29129
"It's simply misleading.  Had he MEASURED the proportion of native foods in the diet, and plotted those proportions against dental caries counts, that would have been quite interesting.  He could even have made a generalised statistical inference about it.  As it is, he just draw a line that he pulled out of his ass apparently.

So it's junk."

Are YOU misled?  No you're not. Not if you read the paragraph beginning at the end of p. 872 and continuing to 873. It's quite clear what Price is saying and it's quite clear that the straight line is not intended to be a plot of exact figures. And I'm sorry ... but you don't get to make the rules for how to speak English ... OR ... how to write science papers.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29130
What's "junk" is YOUR arrogant misleading commentary.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29131
How is it possible to be this dense, Dave? How can you not see what she is saying?
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29132
Are YOU misled?  No you're not. Not if you read the paragraph beginning at the end of p. 872 and continuing to 873. It's quite clear what Price is saying and it's quite clear that the straight line is not intended to be a plot of exact figures.
That's not the point.

The figure communicates there is generally a correlation between % "modern food" and caries.
We all get that.
But the fake straight line is just junk.
It's fictional.

There is no measure of % "modern food" - let alone some more meaningful measure, like amount of sugar, or starch, or anything at all.
Quote
And I'm sorry ... but you don't get to make the rules for  [... ] how to write science papers.
Actually - as part of the collective known as "peer review" - we do.   
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • Pingu
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29133
"It's simply misleading.  Had he MEASURED the proportion of native foods in the diet, and plotted those proportions against dental caries counts, that would have been quite interesting.  He could even have made a generalised statistical inference about it.  As it is, he just draw a line that he pulled out of his ass apparently.

So it's junk."

Are YOU misled?  No you're not.

It would be misleading if I HADN'T recognised it as junk.  Fortunately I did.


Not if you read the paragraph beginning at the end of p. 872 and continuing to 873. It's quite clear what Price is saying and it's quite clear that the straight line is not intended to be a plot of exact figures.

Of course it isn't.  That's how you can tell that it isn't.  But look at the caption: "Note its [rank ordering of the incidence of dental caries by group] reverse relationship to the decrease in the use of native foods".

What are we supposed to "note":  That he's drawn a line representing a decrease in the use of native foods?  Why should we "note" that?  It's just a line he's drawn on his figure! 

And I'm sorry ... but you don't get to make the rules for how to speak English ... OR ... how to write science papers.

But I do get to evaluate whether the papers (or the figures in them) tell us anything useful.  And that figure tells us nothing useful.  It doesn't show us the ACTUAL relationship between dental caries in a group and how much their use of native foods has declined.  It simply shows us what Price has already told us he thinks the relationship is.  And at no point does Price give us the data on which he bases that conclusion.

So, as I said, it's junk.

Neither the figure, nor the text, supports Price's conclusion.  The figure merely illustrates the conclusion. 

Which does not mean it wasn't true.  It may well have been true.  But the point of science is to base your conclusions on EVIDENCE and when you publish scientific papers you provide the EVIDENCE that supports your CONCLUSION.

Price does not do this in this paper.  At least not that I can see.  Can you?


I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29134
What's "junk" is YOUR arrogant misleading commentary.
Look, dipshit.
You ASKED for her commentary.
Pingu  please read the article entitled " NEGATIVE" by Weston Price found at this link and then please tell  me how on earth you can possibly think it's bad science because I think it is very good science.
And there is nothing "arrogant" or "misleading" about it.
  • Last Edit: December 10, 2017, 12:15:45 PM by VoxRat
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • borealis
  • Administrator
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29135
I wonder what the fluoride levels are in the drinking water in that miraculous Swiss valley in the Bernese Alps?

  • Pingu
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29136
What's "junk" is YOUR arrogant misleading commentary.

There is nothing arrogant about my commentary.  I read the paper to try to find out what conclusions Price was drawing from what data.  As with his book, he yet again fails to provide the data that support his conclusions.  Nor any form of hypothesis testing.  Being able to spot that omission has nothing to do with "arrogance".  I simply read the paper as I would any paper to see whether the conclusions were supported by data.

And found that the key data weren't even provided.

Oh, and you might note, Dave, that when I read the paper you erroneously linked to, I did so in good faith, knowing (or at least in the belief that) you had found it good science.  That was obviously a little odd as it wasn't an empirical paper.  I nonetheless evaluated and gave it a moderately positive review (at least of the empirical studies referenced). So you might notice that I do not simply reject as "junk" anything you think is "good science".  I evaluate it on its merits.  In this case, Merritt's.
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • Pingu
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29137
So Dave, tell us why you think it is "very good science".

What are the features or points in the paper that in your view make it "very good science"?
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29138
How is it possible to be this dense, Dave? How can you not see what she is saying?
I see EXACTLY what she's saying.

And it's arrogant misleading bullshit.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29139
So Dave, tell us why you think it is "very good science".

What are the features or points in the paper that in your view make it "very good science"?
Could it be that it tells him what he has already decided to believe?  :hmm:
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29140
How is it possible to be this dense, Dave? How can you not see what she is saying?
I see EXACTLY what she's saying.

And it's arrogant misleading bullshit.
But you can't articulate why it is you assert that it is "arrogant" or "misleading" or "bullshit".

"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29141
So Dave, tell us why you think it is "very good science".

What are the features or points in the paper that in your view make it "very good science"?
Lots of reasons ...

1) got out of his ivory tower and got his hands dirty trekking the globe collecting actual data
2) used controls
3) explained his hypothesis clearly - that it's not "cleanliness" or anything else ... it's NUTRITION that controls caries
4) figured out the exact mechanism of control ... calcium, phosphorus in the saliva etc
5) figured out the role of Vitamins A and D in helping the body use these minerals

On and on

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29142
How is it possible to be this dense, Dave? How can you not see what she is saying?
I see EXACTLY what she's saying.

And it's arrogant misleading bullshit.
But you can't articulate why it is you assert that it is "arrogant" or "misleading" or "bullshit".


I did.

See post 29129

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29143
I wonder what the fluoride levels are in the drinking water in that miraculous Swiss valley in the Bernese Alps?
Probably the same in LV as in St Moritz wouldn't you think?

  • Pingu
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29144
How is it possible to be this dense, Dave? How can you not see what she is saying?
I see EXACTLY what she's saying.

And it's arrogant misleading bullshit.

OK, so let's move on.  I will even retract my comment that it is misleading.  Perhaps nobody would be misled.  I certainly don't think that Price was trying to PRETEND that the line represented data.  However, given that it didn't, it makes the whole plot meaningless.  There's no point in "noting" the "reverse relationship" between real data and made-up data.  There's nothing to note. 

Tell us why YOU think the paper is "very good science".  Presumably you don't think that THAT part is very good science because obviously you agree that he doesn't actually present the evidence for his conclusion, just a figure representing what his conclusion is.
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29145
Price's hypothesis is simple ...

Town food causes bad teeth.

His paper gives ample support for this.

QED

If you can't see it you're blind.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29146
How is it possible to be this dense, Dave? How can you not see what she is saying?
I see EXACTLY what she's saying.

And it's arrogant misleading bullshit.
No it isn't,  therefore no you don't.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

  • Pingu
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29147
So Dave, tell us why you think it is "very good science".

What are the features or points in the paper that in your view make it "very good science"?
Lots of reasons ...

1) got out of his ivory tower and got his hands dirty trekking the globe collecting actual data

I sometimes wonder where you think any scientist gets her data.  But sure, he did a lot of travelling to get it.  Cool.  Doesn't make it "very good science" though.  You can do "very good science" sitting at the top of your ivory tower with a telescope, like Galileo.

2) used controls

Please show me the part where he used "controls" and how he used them.

3) explained his hypothesis clearly - that it's not "cleanliness" or anything else ... it's NUTRITION that controls caries

Yes, he explained his hypothesis.  Again, that doesn't make it good science. But it's good to know that his hypothesis was that NUTRITION controls caries, and not anything else.

4) figured out the exact mechanism of control ... calcium, phosphorus in the saliva etc

What evidence does he give to support his hypothesis that NUTRITION and ONLY nutrition controls dental caries? 

What evidence does he give to support this hypotheses that it does so by means of these minerals to control dental caries?

5) figured out the role of Vitamins A and D in helping the body use these minerals

What evidence does he give to support this hypotheses regarding the role of Vitamins A and D in helping the body use these minerals to control dental caries?


On and on

So where is the evidence to support his hypotheses, Dave?  Please give the page where he gives the data to support each his hypotheses:

  • That NUTRITION and ONLY NUTRITION controls dental caries
  • That NUTRITION controls dental caries by means of minerals in the saliva
  • That NUTRITION controls minerals in the saliva through the action of vitamins A and D.
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29148
How is it possible to be this dense, Dave? How can you not see what she is saying?
I see EXACTLY what she's saying.

And it's arrogant misleading bullshit.
But you can't articulate why it is you assert that it is "arrogant" or "misleading" or "bullshit".


I did.

See post 29129

Post 29129:
Quote
Are YOU misled?  No you're not. Not if you read the paragraph beginning at the end of p. 872 and continuing to 873. It's quite clear what Price is saying and it's quite clear that the straight line is not intended to be a plot of exact figures. And I'm sorry ... but you don't get to make the rules for how to speak English ... OR ... how to write science papers.
Nothing in that post articulates why you think Pingu's commentary - which, remember you asked for -  is "arrogant" or "misleading" or "bullshit".

:fail:
  • Last Edit: December 10, 2017, 12:50:27 PM by VoxRat
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • borealis
  • Administrator
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29149
How is it possible to be this dense, Dave? How can you not see what she is saying?
I see EXACTLY what she's saying.

And it's arrogant misleading bullshit.

No, it isn't. You just don't like where it is leading you.

This could be a pivotal moment for you, Dave. Understand what Pingu has said and you will have come along way towards understanding rigorous scientific procedures as opposed to someone's earnest, bias-tainted convictions.