On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 4:40:04 PM UTC-5, tert in seattle wrote:
> Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> > On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 2:16:13 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
> >> On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 03:11:51 -0800 (PST), Cindy Hamilton
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 6:48:43 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> I now also keep reading that those fats are the healthiest. It's weird
> >> >> because for years they said olive oil didn't have a high enough smoke
> >> >> point for frying. But now it beats sunflower (and peanut?) oil
> >> >> healthwise. I hope they don't change the story again in 10 years.
> >> >
> >> >That's the nature of science. More data comes in, and previous
> >> >conclusions are revised. Otherwise phlogiston would be the current
> >> >thinking in chemistry.
> >> >
> >> >Plus, there's the effect of the popular press. Some scientist
> >> >publishes a dry paper that concludes "X may have a good effect
> >> >on health" and the press grabs it and says "X will make you
> >> >live forever!!!!!"
> >>
> >> In 1969 (or whenever it was), people put a man on the moon, but in
> >> 2017 they're still not sure which fat is healthiest. Strange
> >> priorities, innit?
> >
> > Certainly determining the healthiest fat will affect more
> > people than putting a man on the moon. Still, that was
> > about making the Russkies look bad, so it really falls
> > into the realm of "political" rather than "scientific".
> >
> > Cindy Hamilton
>
> Launching projectiles at heavenly bodies is engineering. Generalizing
> about diet based on a subset of unreliable data for 7 billion people
> with trillions of cells each is science.

Deciding to go to the moon and allocating government money for it
is politics.

Cindy Hamilton