Sorry for the tangent from the hunting topic, but the philosophy of science is one of my interests and I'm enjoying the juicy bits this discussion is generating.
Its sort of similar to how most of us found raw paleo. Everything else mainstream did not work so we gradually started looking for answers elsewhere along the fringe and came up with a solution that made perfect brilliant sense and worked wonders for us. Yet almost nobody knows that raw paleo exists and almost no main stream doctors, nutritionists think we are all that sane.
Thanks for the explanation, that has the ring of truth. It's still fairly baffling to me, because I came to raw Paleo dieting via Boyd Eaton's theoretical model of Darwinian evolutionary dietary adaptation, which made instant sense to me in a "Eureka!" moment because of my past intensive study of biological evolution. To me the theory of evolution supports RPD and the mainstream scientists are not sufficiently taking evolution into account, rather than RPD leading me to abandon Darwinian evolution for unusual alternative views. Instead of persuading me to throw out all scientific models, RPD for me reinforces the generally-accepted model of biological evolution. So for me the problem is not so much with science as it is with the scientists.
I think we should be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
A similar sort of phenomenon I think happens when we look at the creation of our universe. There is no actual evidence that black holes, event horizons or dark matter exists. String theory is untestable. The large Hadron collider isn't working as well we thought. There is no complete unified theory of physics.
Humans tend to want simple, absolute solutions that answer questions for all time, which may be why dogmatic religions have great appeal. Science is not about final solutions and perfect answers--it never gets things completely right. It's more a series of conjectures and refutations, as Popper pointed out (although even that is viewed by many as oversimplified and there is still not agreement on what the scientific method is). The hope is that science will be a gradual improvement in imperfect knowledge, not a search for final truths. When scientists get some big things hugely wrong, such as diet, I see that as an opportunity for improvement in scientific rigor and an indication that we should look with a more skeptical eye at currently accepted models in other scientific fields, rather than as an opportunity to throw out all current scientific models and adopt a host of New-Agey-type views without thorough investigation. That doesn't mean I don't think the alternative views shouldn't be investigated and can't possibly be true, I just don't think we should make the same mistake of embracing these views with an uncritical eye, for this is part of what got many of us into trouble with diet in the first place--accepting the standard American diet or the standard views on "healthy" diet or the extreme views on raw veganism, etc. with little skeptical questioning of their assumptions. We shouldn't correct lack of critical inquiry of standard dogma in one area with uncritical acceptance of fringe views in other areas.
But physics is substantially different than diet in that general relativity is testable and makes remarkable predictions
This is what is remarkable about the Paleolithic model of nutrition with its mechanism of evolutionary biological adaptation. It's the first dietary model founded on a basic principle of biology rather than ad-hoc collection of hit-or-miss guesses and the first dietary model that enables us to make testable predictions.
But when there is so much controversy we look elsewhere and find others with different, possibly extreme views that claim to explain the universe much better than the current theories.
I would hope that the gross errors in the field of nutrition would make us more skeptical of these extreme views and all views in general, rather than less skeptical. In sum, lack of skepticism, critical thinking and scientific rigor should encourage us to be more skeptical, use more critical thinking, and apply science more rigorously, rather than the opposite.
...
Though quantum mechanics is in principle at least as disturbing and controversial as general relativity.
Indeed, Feynman even said, "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics," and it was too disturbing for Einstein to ever fully accept it.
The search for a unified theory of everything such as sting theory is most likely vain. This is at least the opinion of an increasing number of physicists. But this is by no means the end of physics, it just means that reductionism has reached its limits or that we definitely cannot hope to infer seriously most remarkable higher levels properties from elementary constituants. This view is contended for instance by Nobel Price of Physics winners Robert B. Laughlin or P.W. Anderson.
I tend to agree. I'm fairly ignorant in these matters, but seeking a single unified theory smacks a little bit too much to me of seeking a final, perfectly complete answer, which is more the realm of dogmatic religion (but not all religion) than skeptical science. If they do hit upon a grand unified theory, rather than answer every significant question in the field completely, I think that it will reveal a host of new questions, just as every scientific model before it has.
