The Crisis in Theoretical Physics and Dr Gundry?

[Bolt_Upright]

So I watched the Dr Gundry video Marc posted last night. I watched all 105 minutes: healthunlocked.com/cure-par....

I thought Dr Gundry did pretty good. He got a bit extreme near the end, but for 95 minutes I thought he really held his own.

What I saw on the video was Dr Gundry is a bit of an iconoclast (1. : a person who attacks settled beliefs or institutions. 2. : a person who destroys religious images or opposes their veneration.). He is an independent thinker with a, possibly, outsized confidence in his conclusions.

Dr Mike and Dr. Danielle Belardo, on the other hand, seem to be much more of team players. They believe in the established doctrine of best currently accepted medical practices. They believe that nothing is true until there is a peer reviewed double blind study. They are not iconoclasts.

So... I have a high school diploma and no medical training. However I did quite well in my career in process management for a top telecom company. I was an individual contributor. A minor iconoclast. I changed things. That said, take my opinion for what it is worth. I am frequently way way wrong.

What's the point Bolt!?

I watched this 9 minute long video this morning: RE: @acollierastro & The Crisis in Theoretical Physics youtube.com/watch?v=tDfEugj...(Not working as expected?)

I encourage people to watch the video. It is pretty interesting. The main point of the video is that Theoretical Physics has not advanced in the last 40 years. Apparently not advanced at all.

Here is an edited bit of the video description: Since the development of QCD in the 70s, there has been almost no significant contributions to theoretical physics which have been proved by experiments. This matches a shift in the way of doing physics, in which research is now done in groups rather than by individuals. Could this be the reason for the crisis in theoretical physics?

We show that almost all progress in the history of theoretical physics has been done by single-author papers, and not by groups of researchers. Of course, the single-authors shared their ideas with colleagues and were influenced by other researchers, but their contributions were individual pieces of work.

====================

So that is it. I'm not saying Gundry is right. It does make you think though. Think back to all the great jumps in medicine. I think most of them were probably made by iconoclasts.

In this, as in all things, I may be wrong.

[gaga1958]

I also thought Gundry thought more outside the box. I'm glad someone isn't waiting around for the slowwww wheels of the powers that be, to try things that are reasonable with good science behind it, even if not proven.

[park_bear]

It is one thing to diverge from generally accepted medical thought when there is good reason to do so. It is entirely another to do this because one is dedicated to being an iconoclast. Dr. Gundry seems to be of the latter persuasion.

For example, fruit sugar is problematic. This much is true. Dr. Gundry starts from this observation and takes it to the extreme conclusion - "Apples are terrible!". He ignores the fact that the sugar content of fruit is highly variable and depends upon ripeness and species of fruit. Selecting low sugar fruit is easy enough. In the case of apples the Granny Smith is much lower sugar than most others. Other low sugar fruit includes red raspberries, blood oranges, and kiwis, peaches and nectarines before they get soft and sugary.

Personally I do not trust any of his conclusions.

[Bolt_Upright in reply to park_bear]

Thanks PB, that apple conversation was an example of where I thought the nuance was lost. Dr Gundry says apples are terrible because most apples have been modified so they are large and full of fructose they are not healthy. He also believe fruit should only be eaten in season. He actually has videos explaining which apples are good to eat.

So... saying "apples are terrible" is not 100% accurate, but saying "apples are good" is even worse advice. You would be better off swearing off apples than you would be eating apples like most people eat apples.

Anyway, I am not saying Dr Gundry is correct. Or even if he is a good communicator. He certainly gets people's attention.

I had applesauce tonight. I thought applesauce with no sugar added was good for me. As it does not include the skin I am guessing it is one degree of separation from apple juice

[CuriousMe12]

Personally, I view Isaac Newton as the greatest scientists ever. "Although he had been undistinguished as a Cambridge student,[26] Newton's private studies at his home in Woolsthorpe over the next two years saw the development of his theories on calculus,[27] optics, and the law of gravitation.[28][29"

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isa...

[crewmanwhite]

I agree that most advances in health care and/or medicine are made by revolutionaries/iconoclasts who are prepared to put up with the attacks from the establishment.

However, very few make any money from their advances and none plagiarize.

Gundry, on the other hand, makes a lot of claims that are patently untrue, plagiarizes other work, and makes a lot of money from his "unique" supplements that seem to be the only way he feels the problems only he can identify can be corrected.

There are many Gundry-style gurus around making heaps of profit from vulnerable people.

If you want to find the truth and real advances in health, follow the absence of money.

[park_bear in reply to crewmanwhite]

typo: makes a lot of claims that are patently true,

[crewmanwhite in reply to park_bear]

thank you. Corrected

[pvw2]

Did they discuss astronomy?

[pdbuzzboard]

This was formulated by Max Planck:[1]

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it ...

An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning: another instance of the fact that the future lies with the youth.

— Max Planck, Scientific autobiography, 1950, p. 33, 97

[gomelgo]

I'm a big fan of iconoclasts ... not sure about Gundry though. But willing to take a look.