Will this be a steelmanning? I don’t much care about the quality of Taubes’ arguments unless they’re the best arguments to be had, and I’m pretty sure they aren’t.
I agree, if only because Taubes’ arguments are probably more widely known by a large margin than the steelman arguments.
If your goal in reading these posts is to (possibly) come away with the best possible argument against the Taubes-esque position on nutrition, then a steelmanning is what you should desire.
If your goal in reading these posts is to help others understand why they should or shouldn’t listen to Taubes’ advice, than a critique of Taubes’ specific arguments will likely be helpful.
Of course, this probably depends on how close Taubes’ arguments are to a steelmanned version...
I’m mainly interested in Taubes because of what people cite him as supposedly showing, which requires dealing with his actual arguments. I will to an extent end up looking at actual evidence that supports the effectiveness of low-carb diets. I’m not sure how to steel an the wilder accusations Taubes makes against mainstream nutrition science, except maybe to frame it as a case of bad science communication, but… actually, come to think of it, I should probably talk about that.
Will this be a steelmanning? I don’t much care about the quality of Taubes’ arguments unless they’re the best arguments to be had, and I’m pretty sure they aren’t.
I definitely think it is interesting criticised as it is, without steelmanning.
I agree, if only because Taubes’ arguments are probably more widely known by a large margin than the steelman arguments.
If your goal in reading these posts is to (possibly) come away with the best possible argument against the Taubes-esque position on nutrition, then a steelmanning is what you should desire.
If your goal in reading these posts is to help others understand why they should or shouldn’t listen to Taubes’ advice, than a critique of Taubes’ specific arguments will likely be helpful.
Of course, this probably depends on how close Taubes’ arguments are to a steelmanned version...
Right, there are two interesting questions that steelmanning would obscure:
What faith should we have in an assertion from Taubes that we haven’t fully checked out?
Is this a learning moment for someone who has set great store by Taubes’s arguments?
I’m mainly interested in Taubes because of what people cite him as supposedly showing, which requires dealing with his actual arguments. I will to an extent end up looking at actual evidence that supports the effectiveness of low-carb diets. I’m not sure how to steel an the wilder accusations Taubes makes against mainstream nutrition science, except maybe to frame it as a case of bad science communication, but… actually, come to think of it, I should probably talk about that.