• bss03@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    24 hours ago

    Maybe he’s got a finer point, but it actually just looks like an argument against categorization. It’s like saying I don’t trust math about “triangles” or “scalene triangles” or “rhombuses” when you find out about the special properties of the equilateral triangle or the square.

    The fact that there are differences between elements of a category does not eliminate the utility of the commonalities shared by elements of a category. It does limit that utility, yes.

    For example, just because you are getting plenty of protein, if you somehow completely avoid one of the amino acids that the human body uses but can’t synthesize, then eventually you will have some fairly specific health problems. That’s not strong evidence that it’s worth micromanaging your macronutrients by tracking your intake of all amino acids individually. (It might be; I haven’t seen it studies either way.)

    Maybe I’m missing some context, but I also get the “anti-science” vibe from the image.

    • blarghly@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      18 hours ago

      I think it’s a shit post about how he’s been reading into the science and it is just way more complicated than what most people talk about.