First is worst. Looking back over a few generations, standard nutritional advice informing doctors, institutions and the public have been poor. Not only inaccurate, but de facto pushing people down bad paths. Low fat & low cholesterol labels led to foods, with processed foods with high sugar & many additives. Cereal instead of a boiled egg.
Second is that many norms, like the food pyramid hanging in classrooms during the 80s & 90s were based on long forgotten, often arbitrary decisions. Self correction was fatally weak. Challenging norms had a higher burden for proof than the norm had faced. Proof is really hard, it turns out.
Third is that "what's a healthy diet?" was never answered better by science than book gurus or old cultural understandings of nutrition. That is, a practicable, science based understanding of nutrition wasn't achieved. Lots of things about nutrition have been learned but it doesn't really add up to a Big Theory.
I think the real issue here is "what to do when we bust." Science doesn't predictably produce answers to questions we think it should answer. We discover what we discover. But, what do you do when hospitals, health ministries and such need scientific guidelines? IDK is not an acceptable answer. I do know is not a scientific one. "Lets not do science " doesn't (didn't?) work either. The only choice left is between a lie and a delusion. Postmodernism is inevitable.
You are leaving out one of the biggest reasons "science" has failed us - big food industry has been heavily influencing politics, public opinion through PR campaigns, and even science by funding their own studies.
>Self correction was fatally weak. Challenging norms had a higher burden for proof than the norm had faced.
This is the biggest problem, in my opinion. People don't want to look foolish, so it's difficult to change. Doubly so if you made it part of your identity, as diet so often is. It's also why obstructing progress is much easier than creating the conditions for progress. If the status quo serves the powerful, it's going to be difficult to change, because they have more to lose by looking foolish.
In theory, sure. In practice, skepticism can be impractical. The guys printing the food pyramid postor needs science's guidelines. The hospital director wants to provide guidelines for the catering contract. Etc. IDK is fine, but they'll just ask the next guy until they get an answer. What do you mean science doesn't know what we should eat? Oh FredPret, you're such a contrarian. Don't be difficult.
The "food pyramid" people were emphatically not even slightly interested in "science's guidelines". They were marketers making propaganda to force on helpless kids.
First is worst. Looking back over a few generations, standard nutritional advice informing doctors, institutions and the public have been poor. Not only inaccurate, but de facto pushing people down bad paths. Low fat & low cholesterol labels led to foods, with processed foods with high sugar & many additives. Cereal instead of a boiled egg.
Second is that many norms, like the food pyramid hanging in classrooms during the 80s & 90s were based on long forgotten, often arbitrary decisions. Self correction was fatally weak. Challenging norms had a higher burden for proof than the norm had faced. Proof is really hard, it turns out.
Third is that "what's a healthy diet?" was never answered better by science than book gurus or old cultural understandings of nutrition. That is, a practicable, science based understanding of nutrition wasn't achieved. Lots of things about nutrition have been learned but it doesn't really add up to a Big Theory.
I think the real issue here is "what to do when we bust." Science doesn't predictably produce answers to questions we think it should answer. We discover what we discover. But, what do you do when hospitals, health ministries and such need scientific guidelines? IDK is not an acceptable answer. I do know is not a scientific one. "Lets not do science " doesn't (didn't?) work either. The only choice left is between a lie and a delusion. Postmodernism is inevitable.