Joe Rogan, Gary Taubes, Stephan Guyenet - marathon podcast

conversationstarters
science
(Consensus is Politics) #21

As opposed to an “a”?

(Consensus is Politics) #22

That was a brutal 30 minutes. I admit, my constitution just isnt up to snuff.

What I got from watching maybe half of it…

This “StephoHn character was pulled from central casting. They needed an arrogant prick to tell a story. To pretend to be a scientist, who probably got his degree online, at the same website where a friend of mine became an Ordained Minister, :roll_eyes:

Stephohn seems to know how something works, begins to explain it, realizes he is countering his own point, so backs up a bit to throw in the “as we know the brain does this…” and back to his point how the brain makes this happen as opposed to it reacting to stimuli.

Taubes is absolutely correct in his observation that most scientists (or lay peeps, as Stephohn portrays) get tunnel vision when they look at cause and effect. Even appointing a causality to something that might otherwise be seen if they widened their view a little more. This is what happens when you have consensus is science. You get shitty science. Sure, it might look good on paper. You might even fool a bunch of people with it. Hell, you might even get paid for it, and change the way a Nation looks at its national diet! cough Keyes cough.

I cant say this enough. The science is NEVER settled, and CONSENSUS isnt science. Anyone who says otherwise is selling something. (Which is also the come back about anyone who says life isnt pain) :sunglasses: yes, i managed to squeeze in a Princess Bride quote, sort of.

Keto Vitae!

(charlie3) #23

The conversation should have been 2 scientists of equal stature, not one scientist and one journalist.

(Chris) #24

SG has some good podcast appearances where he is firmly “Its not sugar, its the brain, but yeah, its sugar triggering the brain and genetic expression”.

Ok, so can everyone just agree that Sugar and grains are trash? No nutritional value to be gained.

(Running from stupidity) #25

This is because he’s not good at what he does. Famous, but not good.

(charlie3) #26

Sometimes he does a good job. This time he picked a bad pairing that wasn’t going to work and he didn’t know how to make the best of it. Hopefully he learned some lessons.

(Bacon is a many-splendoured thing) #27

You mean, so that the journalist wouldn’t show up the scientist?

(Marianne) #28

I only made it half an hour. Nasty aggression makes me too anxious. No one is convincing the other side, doesn’t matter what is said. Kind of like politics.

(Chris) #29

He’s great at comedy podcasting, but sucks at moderating. Not enough practice.

(Running from stupidity) #30

He won’t. He’s been doing this long enough, and has enough followers, that he thinks he’s got it nailed. He confuses length with comprehensiveness, and shouting for interacting.

(John) #31

This is going to sound bad but taubes was the hardest to try and listen to. stephen was pretty arrogant but to some degree its probly because he also believes in what he is saying(Not trying to stick up for him) Gary just sounded slow and unsure of everything he was about to say. That being said neither one made a definitive case and that will hopefully get people digging a little deeper. As I always say “The answer is probably somewhere in the middle”

(Running from stupidity) #32

I said to someone yesterday (not having listened to this) that Gary isn’t a good public speaker, and then “debates” are a big jump up over that. Good writer, but that’s a very different skillset.

#33

Debating is a completely separate style of speech, where one basically seeks to “win” by either making the other side look too emotional or just by speaking with the most confidence, no matter whether what you’re saying makes any real sense at all or not.

Whether or not Taubes can debate well is irrelevant to whether what he is saying is true or not. But people love them some dramatic and heated debates, that’s Rogan’s modus operandi, so of course he’s going to pander to that. And people will decide whomever “wins” the debate must be the one who is right.

(Bacon is a many-splendoured thing) #34

Well scientific debate is supposed to operate by different rules. :sob: :cry:

#35

Anyone who expects truly scientific debates on Rogan’s show (who thinks conspiracies like the-Apollo-moonlanding-was-faked and 9/11 truthers deserve the time of day, and apparently never figured out that there’s no such thing as bad publicity for Alex Sandy-Hook-never-happened Jones) is fooling themselves.

#36

exactly, it felt like a political debate with a clueless reporter/journalist/moderator asking questions, but the type that makes you yell at the tv…horrible

(Chris) #37

People trashing joe are misguided. Who else in the world with an audience of that size is inviting discussions on nutrition of this order? The failure of this episode was on GT and SG, not Rogan.

(Running from stupidity) #38

If he can’t keep it going where it should be going, then it’s on him and his producer. He’s in charge, that’s how this sort of thing works.

#39

We are not trashing Rogan, but he wasn’t on top of the game during that episode, the entire episode was a mess.

(Chris) #40

you guys are whining about it because it didn’t go how you wanted it to go.