I agree. Very shallow "sources" and no qualifications to be speaking on a medical topic. There is a role for pop science to disseminate knowledge but this is pure speculation.
There's nothing wrong with speculation on HN. Speculation is intimate with curiosity, and curiosity, not correctness, is the guiding value of this site.
It may seem odd to demote correctness in that way, but it doesn't mean we value incorrectness. Correctness is good, just not at the top of the hierarchy. Curiosity (specifically, intellectual curiosity) is what we're optimizing for: <a href="https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=curiosity%20optimiz%20by:dang" rel="nofollow">https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor....
We value the freedom to meander curiously. Some paths turn out to be wrong [1], but that is how new things are learned, and it's a good way to spend time. People are allowed to be wrong on HN as part of figuring out what's true [2]. Truth is crucial, but one ought not to squeeze the throat of speculation so tightly that wrong things aren't allowed to be spoken, or fun to be had.
[1] not saying the OP is right or wrong - I have no idea - but the article looks like the fun kind of meandering that has a place here.
Edit: <a href="https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=meander" rel="nofollow">https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=meander - "from Greek Maiandros, name of a river in Caria noted for its winding course". Is there a better website than etymonline?
I can't judge if you are correct or not. It would be more convincing if you could name some of the problems. Since the article is "garbage", there should be lots of things wrong to choose from.
He's right, it's garbage and we should know enough (it's high-school level education) to reject it without an explanation. The fact that we don't is actually scary.
Evolution does not care about creating perfect bodies, that's not how it works. Aging and death are superpowers of an unique arrangement of matter, not bugs.
We know diabetes and other issues come from changes humans introduced in our diets, not faults in the evolutionary process.
The text draws from a weird mixture of religious influence (it's not explicit) that lowkey estabilished things should be perfectly designed (in science, mentioning "design" is an issue; fine but aged badly in science communication). It's just not the correct framing to be educational about how our bodies work, and sets up wrong expectations about what we know of nature.
dekhn · · focus · HN ↗
haskellandchill · · focus · HN ↗
dang · · focus · HN ↗
It may seem odd to demote correctness in that way, but it doesn't mean we value incorrectness. Correctness is good, just not at the top of the hierarchy. Curiosity (specifically, intellectual curiosity) is what we're optimizing for: <a href="https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=curiosity%20optimiz%20by:dang" rel="nofollow">https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor....
We value the freedom to meander curiously. Some paths turn out to be wrong [1], but that is how new things are learned, and it's a good way to spend time. People are allowed to be wrong on HN as part of figuring out what's true [2]. Truth is crucial, but one ought not to squeeze the throat of speculation so tightly that wrong things aren't allowed to be spoken, or fun to be had.
[1] not saying the OP is right or wrong - I have no idea - but the article looks like the fun kind of meandering that has a place here.
Edit: <a href="https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=meander" rel="nofollow">https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=meander - "from Greek Maiandros, name of a river in Caria noted for its winding course". Is there a better website than etymonline?
[2] <a href="https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20%22allowed%20to%20be%20wrong%22&sort=byDate&type=comment" rel="nofollow">https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
<a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11655206">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11655206
warumdarum · · focus · HN ↗
clove · · focus · HN ↗
rwmj · · focus · HN ↗
dekhn · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
gaigalas · · focus · HN ↗
Evolution does not care about creating perfect bodies, that's not how it works. Aging and death are superpowers of an unique arrangement of matter, not bugs.
We know diabetes and other issues come from changes humans introduced in our diets, not faults in the evolutionary process.
The text draws from a weird mixture of religious influence (it's not explicit) that lowkey estabilished things should be perfectly designed (in science, mentioning "design" is an issue; fine but aged badly in science communication). It's just not the correct framing to be educational about how our bodies work, and sets up wrong expectations about what we know of nature.
hobo123 · · focus · HN ↗
Now sure, others say that retinoids play a role here, but "we know" sounds a bit far fetched.
gaigalas · · focus · HN ↗
dang · · focus · HN ↗
<a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html">https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
dekhn · · focus · HN ↗