I asked my doctor about this. His response:
âWeight loss with chocolate cake is not a good thing to do. However, if you are going to eat carbohydrates that raise your sugars like oatmeal or brown rice or starchy vegetables like sweet potato, then you should do it in the morning or at lunch and then the following day exercise before you eat breakfast again and that will help to burn fat. The sugar from the cake would affect your mood in a negative way.â
This was really so disappointing to me.
But doctors, what do they know, right?
*starts baking*
I can has cheezcake?
I was so like, dude, you are no funsies.
29 posts were split to a new topic: Cheesecake - like cake, but with Cheese
Surely this story was just intended to relaunch Bill Cosbyâs career.
(Someone out there must know what Iâm referring to.)
Well, âscientific racismâ/ârace realismâ/ârace scienceâ ainât true:
Well, it is a kind of race science. In that itâs a race to the bottom.
Well this is disappointing:
Indeed. Every once in a while something like this crops up to destroy our faith in the idea of the dispassionate scientist, only interested in the search for truth.
OTOH, now I have heard of the Luwians, which I hadnât before. Only a couple of weeks ago, I first learned about the Late Bronze Age collapse, an astonishing 50-year period in which the civilizations of the Eastern Mediterranean were mostly destroyed.
Perhaps this is why alot of what I read about the Luwians didnât make sense.
On the other hand, my intuition is that if you were to compare numbers, the percentage of scientists who did wrong is far lower than most occupations. Itâs so rare that when it happens it gets a lot of coverage. But thatâs just my (biased) opinion.
But is it getting coverage because itâs rare, or is it getting coverage because it rarely gets called out?
Iâve mentioned it before, but my favourite example is Donna Harawayâs essay on the history of our understanding of primate social hierarchies, where the discovery of alpha females had to wait until there were enough women anthropologists in the field to notice â because the menâs previous assumptions on the ânaturalnessâ of patriarchies prevented them from even bothering to look.
The former, IMO. But I donât know how it varies by field, and by country. Certainly weâve become aware of more ethics violations in biology recently, for example, but I think itâs still a tiny proportion of the whole. And is neglecting part of science due to bias as bad as deliberately falsifying results?
I know this is not the same thing, but science does tend to self-correction, over the long haul, as more results come in. So effects of individual wrong-doing tend to right themselves, as your example shows. It takes a while sometimes, but the mere existence of embarrassing self-correction tends to enforce some self-restraint in those who might consider faking results, etc.
I agree, but itâs also very hard to detect, since only someone well-versed in the same field is likely to notice, and the (usually correct) assumption is that scientists behave honourably.
The issue of blinkered assumptions is not the same as that of deliberate cheating or falsification, though.
This is why itâs unfortunate that the top journals tend to shy away from articles that repeat experiments.