It's peculiar that you cite Ioannidis's work as having "proven" your utterly defeatist position. Your point is that there's no way anything could be learned with nutrition studies, his point is that there's very much a correct way to learn things with nutrition studies and a method for evaluating the quality of such studies to make sure they're doing it right.
He doesn't advocate that we give up, crawl into the fetal position, and stop trying to understand the world any more than any of the other popular statistics skeptics do.
I maintain that there's a meaningful difference between "often wrong" and "almost all" wrong and "assume all claims are bogus" and "view claims skeptically." One approach is a license to intellectual laziness (defeatist) and the other requires effort but can reap benefits.
He doesn't advocate that we give up, crawl into the fetal position, and stop trying to understand the world any more than any of the other popular statistics skeptics do.
reply