Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Every once in a while, the reality of what it means to be participating in this thread sinks in and the mundanity of life smacks me in the face like a wet, herpes infected carp.

Topic: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World) (Read 145123 times) previous topic - next topic

JonF, uncool, Alfonso Bivouac (+ 1 Hidden) and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29100
Hey I found the post with the link to lots of Price's scientific papers:

Quote from: Pingu;2640590
Ah, here we go:

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/d/dencos?type=simple&rgn=full+text&q1=price&cite1=Price%2C+Weston+A&cite1restrict=author&cite2=&cite2restrict=author&Submit=Search

You owe me $40, Dave.
Pulling this forward ... but i think there is much much more at PPF ... for $40
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.

https://quod.lib.umich.edu/d/dencos/0527912.0076.001/947:546?cite1=Price%2C+Weston+A;cite1restrict=author;page=root;rgn=full+text;size=100;view=image;q1=price

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29101
As I keep saying, he missed the key connection between sugary starchy food and dental caries, i.e. the effect of sugar on saliva pH in the mouth.
Which, again, is shorthand for a more complicated process.
Including the fact that sugar promotes the growth of bacterial biofilm (dental plaque).
Particularly with Streptococcus mutans which specifically uses sucrose (not other sugars) to build the polysaccharide matrix of that biofilm. Then the role of sugar is amplified further by fueling those bacteria - now plastered right up against the enamel surface by that biofilm matrix - to produce highly local pH drops.

All of which I spell out because it seems the whole process has at times been [ahem] reduced to "sugar + bacteria --> acidic saliva --> caries.
"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 #29102
"The direct role of sugar in lowering pH to demineralisation levels does not seem to have occurred to him."

The fact that you think this shows that you have not even so much as bothered to read his book, so as far as I'm concerned you are a liar when you say that you've read Price.

You are completely and hilariously out to lunch when you say that this idea did not occur to price ... he performed experiments proving that the acid has no effect if the nutrition is adequate, particularly calcium and phosphorus and vitamins A&D.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29103
"The direct role of sugar in lowering pH to demineralisation levels does not seem to have occurred to him."

The fact that you think this shows that you have not even so much as bothered to read his book, so as far as I'm concerned you are a liar when you say that you've read Price.

You are completely and hilariously out to lunch when you say that this idea did not occur to price ... he performed experiments proving that the acid has no effect if the nutrition is adequate, particularly calcium and phosphorus and vitamins A&D.
Why do I get the feeling that you are wrong about this? Hmm. Davehastobewrongism? Or, once bitten, twice shy?
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

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29104
"I already addressed this, Dave.

"The thing you mentioned" was a "Price diet".  And your claim (not Price's claim incidentally) is that IF you eat a Price diet THEN EVEN IF you also eat sugary sticky snacks AND have a mouth full of acid-secreting bacteria you STILL won't get dental caries."

No you have not addressed it. Or else I missed it.

 you're right that price did not make that claim directly, but he performed experiments demonstrating it to be true.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29105
"I already addressed this, Dave.

"The thing you mentioned" was a "Price diet".  And your claim (not Price's claim incidentally) is that IF you eat a Price diet THEN EVEN IF you also eat sugary sticky snacks AND have a mouth full of acid-secreting bacteria you STILL won't get dental caries."

No you have not addressed it. Or else I missed it.

 you're right that price did not make that claim directly, but he performed experiments demonstrating it to be true.
Experiments do not demonstrate something to be true, they demonstrate it to not be falsified by the experiment.  All none some ... science only does all none in reverse.
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 #29106
Hey I found the post with the link to lots of Price's scientific papers:

Quote from: Pingu;2640590
Ah, here we go:

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/d/dencos?type=simple&rgn=full+text&q1=price&cite1=Price%2C+Weston+A&cite1restrict=author&cite2=&cite2restrict=author&Submit=Search

You owe me $40, Dave.
Pulling this forward ... but i think there is much much more at PPF ... for $40
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.

https://quod.lib.umich.edu/d/dencos/0527912.0076.001/947:546?cite1=Price%2C+Weston+A;cite1restrict=author;page=root;rgn=full+text;size=100;view=image;q1=price

Well, first of all, the article is not by Weston Price.  It's by someone called Arthur Merrit.

Second, it isn't a science paper at all.  It's a sort of review article.

It cites a few claims, without details, and a couple of studies that do have minimal details.  One is a group of investigators who claimed to have reduced the incidence of dental caries in Honolulu orphans by controlling their diet.  It gives no details about the children's diet before it was controlled, or what the intervention diet consisted of.  However we know that diet plays a very important role in dental caries; reducing refined sugar and refined flour, as recommended by Price is very effective - and one MECHANISM for its effect is that these are foods that tend to produce a precipitous drop in mouth pH immediately after eating, to a level at which demineralisation occurs.

The other was an actual controlled experiment, in which ultraviolet light was used to treat one group but not a control group.  We do not know whether the children were randomly assigned to groups, but if they were, this is a classic Randomised Control Trial (RCT).  However, no numbers are given, nor is there any estimate of variance, nor the results of any statistical test of the hypothesis.  We also don't know what this treatment consisted of, although it may well have been this:

https://www.nature.com/articles/bdjteam2014112.

We also don't know how long they were treated for, or whether the "eight times less tooth decay" meant a reduced increase in tooth decay, or a reduction in new lesions.

However, let's assume (big assumption) that the results were "statistically significant".  If the treatment was as the one in the picture (apparently sold for the purpose at the time) then it was applied directly to the mouth. Ultraviolet light is a bacteriocide.  Therefore one tentative conclusion one could draw IF we knew more about the results is that killing mouth bacteria reduced dental caries.  Which would be entirely consistent with the known fact that the acid that dissolves tooth enamel is excreted by bacteria, and that the fewer of those bacteria you have, the less acid will be produced and thus the smaller will be the drop in pH.

So to summarise:

  • The article is not by Price.
  • The article is not empirical science.
  • The empirical science reported is impossible to evaluate because not enough details of numbers and variables are given.
  • The diet intervention is entirely consistent with the hypothesis that the primary effect of cariogenic foods on dental caries is in the mouth, though it is also consistent with the nutritional hypothesis.
  • The ultraviolet intervention if anything supports the hypothesis that dental caries incidence is reduced if you can stop the bacteria excreting acid (either by not feeding them sugar or by killing them with ultraviolet).

  • Last Edit: December 10, 2017, 08:12:03 AM by Pingu
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • Pingu
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29107
"I already addressed this, Dave.

"The thing you mentioned" was a "Price diet".  And your claim (not Price's claim incidentally) is that IF you eat a Price diet THEN EVEN IF you also eat sugary sticky snacks AND have a mouth full of acid-secreting bacteria you STILL won't get dental caries."

No you have not addressed it. Or else I missed it.

Well I addressed it again, in that post.  You miss a lot.  Mostly because you appear only to read single sentences from people's posts.  While regularly accusing other people of not properly reading your own.



 you're right that price did not make that claim directly, but he performed experiments demonstrating it to be true.

No he did not.  At least, there are none in his book and I have not yet read one in any of the published papers that I have seen.
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29108
you're right that price did not make that claim directly, but he performed experiments demonstrating it to be true.
[citation needed]
"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 #29109
"I already addressed this, Dave.

"The thing you mentioned" was a "Price diet".  And your claim (not Price's claim incidentally) is that IF you eat a Price diet THEN EVEN IF you also eat sugary sticky snacks AND have a mouth full of acid-secreting bacteria you STILL won't get dental caries."

No you have not addressed it. Or else I missed it.

 you're right that price did not make that claim directly, but he performed experiments demonstrating it to be true.
Experiments do not demonstrate something to be true, they demonstrate it to not be falsified by the experiment.  All none some ... science only does all none in reverse.

That is true, unfortunately.  Although it's not quite as grim as that.  It is true that we mostly use null hypothesis testing, and the best that we can do when we get a result that allows us to "reject the null" is to consider it support for our actual hypothesis. But all we have actually done is reject the null - there may be many other alternative hypotheses that are true and which are different from the one we thought we were testing.

And rejecting the null is intrinsically idiotic anyway, because most nulls are almost certainly false (virtually any two-tailed null is false).  So we end up using the p value as a proxy for the observed effect size, and it's a really bad proxy because it depends on the size of our sample, and even then the observed effect size isn't really what we want - we want an estimate of the true effect size.  And our observed effect size is affected by a gazillion things not least the accuracy of our measurements.

And it doesn't even tell us what we want to know. What we want to know is: what is the probability that my hypothesis is true, given these data?  What we actually get is the probability of our data given that the null hypothesis is true.

But it's still better than TLAR.  I think we should start hypothesising minimum effect sizes: not: does eating sugar increase the risk of dental caries? where the null is that sugar has no effect on dental caries, but: does eating sugar increase the risk of dental caries by at least 3 times, as compared with not eating sugar?

And of course we can also ask: what factors reduce the risk posed by eating sugar by at least 10%?

That's actually what Dave is asking of course: Does a Price diet reduce the risk posed by eating sugar to zero?

But Price did not do an experiment that addressed that question.  He didn't even know that eating sugar increased the risk (by causing steep drops in pH after eating) in the first place - he thought it just displaced essential protective nutrients from the diet.

I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • Pingu
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29110
Hey I found the post with the link to lots of Price's scientific papers:

Quote from: Pingu;2640590
Ah, here we go:

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/d/dencos?type=simple&rgn=full+text&q1=price&cite1=Price%2C+Weston+A&cite1restrict=author&cite2=&cite2restrict=author&Submit=Search

You owe me $40, Dave.
Pulling this forward ... but i think there is much much more at PPF ... for $40
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.

https://quod.lib.umich.edu/d/dencos/0527912.0076.001/947:546?cite1=Price%2C+Weston+A;cite1restrict=author;page=root;rgn=full+text;size=100;view=image;q1=price

Well, first of all, the article is not by Weston Price.  It's by someone called Arthur Merrit.Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Your link led me to the following article.  I've now found the one by Price. Will read.
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29111
"I already addressed this, Dave.

"The thing you mentioned" was a "Price diet".  And your claim (not Price's claim incidentally) is that IF you eat a Price diet THEN EVEN IF you also eat sugary sticky snacks AND have a mouth full of acid-secreting bacteria you STILL won't get dental caries."

No you have not addressed it. Or else I missed it.

 you're right that price did not make that claim directly, but he performed experiments demonstrating it to be true.
Experiments do not demonstrate something to be true, they demonstrate it to not be falsified by the experiment.  All none some ... science only does all none in reverse.
Come to my house and i will do an experiment  demonstrating the following statement to be true...

"Testy will get wet if I spray him with my garden hose."

  • JonF
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29112
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Your link led me to the following article.  I've now found the one by Price. Will read.
Dave won't.
"I would never consider my evaluation of his work to be fair minded unless I had actually read his own words." - Dave Hawkins

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29113
 here's the proper link I think

https://quod.lib.umich.edu/d/dencos/0527912.0076.001/937:546?cite1=Price%2C+Weston+A;cite1restrict=author;page=root;rgn=full+text;size=100;view=image;q1=price

 that's weird that there are two papers entitled "negative". I guess the first link I gave was to their last page of prices.
  • Last Edit: December 10, 2017, 09:04:41 AM by Dave Hawkins

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29114
Come to my house and i will do an experiment  demonstrating the following statement to be true...

"Testy will get wet if I spray him with my garden hose."
We have all just witnessed an experiment demonstrating the following statement:

Afdave's Seventh Law:
 No matter how transparently pathetic or retarded any of Dave's claims may be they can always be followed by something even more pathetic and retarded.

"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 #29115
OK, so I'm going through the Price paper.

First of all, Figure 1 is junk.  It shows what are presumably measured values of dental caries occurrence in each of a number of Eskimo and Indian groups and ranks them along the horizontal axis.   As usual he counts "percentage of teeth with caries" which is a pretty dumb measure as what we want to know is what proportion of people had carious or missing teeth. But it's in line with his group-level approach in which he does not look at individuals just treats each group as though it were an individual with thousands of teeth and one diet.  But what he tries to do is then "show" that the "fall in native foods" has a "relationship" with increase in carious teeth.  He draws an absolutely straight descending line across his graph.  No data values are given.  This is not a scatter plot showing that the proportion of diet consisting of native foods covaries with the number of carious teeth. It's a cargo-cult plot, and I'm quite shocked.  It looks sciencey - it's got values to three sig figs for numbers of carious teeth.  It has no values at all for "Fall in Native Foods".

Which is not to say that there was not a relationship. There almost certainly was, and dental caries remains a huge problem in Inuit communities, probably as a direct result of various things western culture introduced, including a crap diet.  And probably that crap diet is largely to blame.  But that graph tells us none of these things.  It simply tells us what Price thought.

The figures on the next page (874) are equally crap.  Sure they have numbers, to 2 sig figs again, but no methodology is given.  The best Price can do is to say things like "these were mostly from children age seven to sixteen years of age".  He doesn't say how he measured them, what he measured, what the variance was - nothing.  He doesn't tell us how he sampled the diets - over what period. 

Here's a typical sentence: "For the OUter Hebrides when their native foods, which consisted chiefly of oats and sea foods, are displaced with the diet used by modern civilization, there is a reduction for 1.7 to 0.8 grams for calcium..."

wtf?

You just have to laugh at those sig figs. 

He has some excuse as the mathematics of epidemiological techniques was still relatively young (but he should surely have been aware of them), but that doesn't make the science any better.  We simply cannot infer anything from this kind of report.  As I keep saying, one major problem that runs throughout his work is that it's all done at the level of the group (even the number of carious teeth are pooled across the groups), making it impossible for either him, or us as his readers, to draw any sound conclusions as to what variables actually predict what at the level of the individual person.

He's a bit better when he actually does case studies because then he DOES look at information at the level of the individual.  And it's highly likely that when he applied his interventions the things he was measuring in the saliva did indeed change as a result.  They may even have improved the resistance of the teeth to acid attack (and also reduced the liability of the teeth to acid attack in the first place, because he made sure to cut down on refined sugar and starch).

But seriously Dave - if you think this is "very good science" - well, that just reinforces the case that you don't understand what science is as defined by the usual definition. There's no hypothesis testing here.  There are "experiments" in the sense that he was trying out various things and getting effects from what he was trying out.  So he was "experimenting" in the very broad sense of using his ideas about cause and effect to try and think of ways of producing the desired effect.  Good for him.  He may well have been successful, especially with people who were seriously ill and malnourished (some had tb).

But it tells us nothing about whether there is some diet that will protect teeth from dental caries no matter how much sugar you put in your mouth.

And it does nothing to change the fact that he did not even consider that the acid that he rightly recognised as the proximal cause of dental caries, and rightly recognised as being excreted by bacteria, was itself greatly affected by the food people put in their mouths.  He was so sure that bacteria were ubiquitous that he only considered dietary factors that might resist the effects of their acid secretions, not that the food in the diet itself might itself increase the secretions WHILE IN THE MOUTH.

We know that now.  But Price missed it.





  • Last Edit: December 10, 2017, 09:35:47 AM by Pingu
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • Pingu
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29116
here's the proper link I think

https://quod.lib.umich.edu/d/dencos/0527912.0076.001/937:546?cite1=Price%2C+Weston+A;cite1restrict=author;page=root;rgn=full+text;size=100;view=image;q1=price

 that's weird that there are two papers entitled "negative". I guess the first link I gave was to their last page of prices.

Yes, well.  I ended up reading both.   The Merritt paper was better.  Had more Merritt I guess :9w:
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29117
Come to my house and i will do an experiment  demonstrating the following statement to be true...

"Testy will get wet if I spray him with my garden hose."
We have all just witnessed an experiment demonstrating the following statement:

Afdave's Seventh Law:
 No matter how transparently pathetic or retarded any of Dave's claims may be they can always be followed by something even more pathetic and retarded.


well I'm glad that you agree that we can indeed demonstrate the truth of statements with experiments.

  • Pingu
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29118
I'm with Testy.  Science isn't actually about finding "truth".  It's about fitting models to reality. We can compare how well the models fit reality and we can choose the models with best fit.  But all our models are wrong.  They are all approximations. There are always data that the model doesn't quite fit.

Sometimes we even hold two contradictory models because each one fits a different range of data very well e.g. General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. 

However, some models fit the data so well that we can informally call them "facts" or "truth".  Like "if you are hosed by a water hose you will get wet".  But even that is an approximation.  When my son was small, he was convinced that only the surface of water in the swimming pool was "wet".  That it was dry below and dry above.  And there is an important sense in which he was right.  When you are under water you are not "wet".  Wetting is a surface phenomenon.

I'm just putting that out there because I think it's time people who care about the truth realised that truth is always beyond our reach. We cannot ever be totally right. We can only become incrementally less wrong. And that is the job of science.  And our models can be objectively compared for wrongness.

People think that when scientists talk about many models of reality they mean that there are many truths. That is not the case.  Nor does it mean that there is no such thing as truth. There is.  And we can objectively measure how close we are to it.  I am genuinely worried that people have lost faith in our ability to evaluate  how close a model is to reality.  We can. We are getting better and better at doing it. But it doesn't help when people lie.  Lying is deliberating choosing, or promoting, a model of reality that the person knows is a poorer fit to reality than some other model.  Getting things wrong isn't lying.  Admitting you got things wrong isn't lying.  Correcting errors isn't lying.  David Frum just said on CNN that media errors are evidence that can trust the media.  They are evidence that the journalists are trying to get at the truth objectively, and correcting their models aka stories when data emerge that don't fit the earlier model.  He compared astronomy with astrology.  Astronomers makes mistakes. That's why we can trust astronomers.  Astrologers never make mistakes.  That's why we can't trust astrologers.

And then there are liars.  It would be nice if in 2018 people would just stop lying. Or at least show that they care about being less wrong.

[/rant]
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29119
I'm just putting that out there because I think it's time people who care about the truth realised that truth is always beyond our reach.
So can it be true ...  that truth is always beyond our reach?  :hmm:
"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 #29120
I'm just putting that out there because I think it's time people who care about the truth realised that truth is always beyond our reach.
So can it be true ...  that truth is always beyond our reach?  :hmm:
Can it be true that all men are liars?

I just think that people use the excuse "look CNN made a mistake! Look the climate scientists were wrong!  Look, vaccines CAN cause epilepsy!" as an easy way to discredit the whole of those enterprises.  As David Frum said, it's the errors that tell people that the error-correcting process is working.  It's when people don't correct errors that we should be worried.

And I also think that people think that because there are multiple narratives claiming to be the truth, that the truth is something that is entirely subjective.  But models CAN be objectively compared for fit to reality.

And yeah, I'm worried.  I'm worried that the entire basis of knowledge is being undermined, and that admission of error is increasingly regarded as discrediting, when it is the opposite.  The incentives to lie are increasing.  And people's faith in being able to tell truth from falsehood objectively is eroding.  We are retreating into tribes instead of methodology.

The paradigm case is the word "disinterested".  Sure it's annoying that people misuse the word to mean "uninterested" - it's the fact that people seem to have no use for the original referent.  So the word lost its anchor and attached itself to another one.

aarrrhhggggh
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29121
"First of all, Figure 1 is junk."

You are like the lawyer defending the guy he knows is guilty with procedural objections.

It's not junk at all ... quite interesting in fact. And anyone with their brain engaged would know that the downward sloping straight line is merely a graphical way of saying "less native food ---> more dental caries"

Good grief.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29122
Yes, Dave.
We KNOW that that is what Figure 1 is supposed to communicate.
No one missed that.
But you seem not to have understood any of Pingu's criticisms of it.
"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 #29123
"First of all, Figure 1 is junk."

You are like the lawyer defending the guy he knows is guilty with procedural objections.

No.  I'm like a peer-reviewer evaluating the validity of a scientific paper.


It's not junk at all ... quite interesting in fact.

It's not at all interesting.  Made up facts are not interesting.  The diagonal line is meaningless and yet it is there to illustrate Price's point, that as Native Foods decrease, dental caries increases.  But only the dental caries values are real.  The Native Foods line is just a straight line.  There are no measurements of Native Foods decrease.

And anyone with their brain engaged would know that the downward sloping straight line is merely a graphical way of saying "less native food ---> more dental caries"

Good grief.

Yes, it's a graphical way of saying what he says in the text - that in groups with a lower proportion of native foods, dental caries was higher.  That's a conclusion.  But he doesn't provide the data that support that conclusion, either in that plot or in the text.  So why even provide the plot?

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.
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • Pingu
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29124
Yes, Dave.
We KNOW that that is what Figure 1 is supposed to communicate.
No one missed that.
But you seem not to have understood any of Pingu's criticisms of it.

That's because he still hasn't figured out the difference between a hypothesis and a conclusion.

Nor apparently did Price.

I have a Darwin-debased mind.