Study 1: "What to Eat", Specific Demographics, Primary Clinical Trial, Mechanistic/Physiological Outcome, Conclusion: High-Protein breakfast is superior for suppressing appetite and maintaining satiety, while a High-Fiber breakfast promotes better weight loss and a healthier gut microbiome,

Study 2: Whether to Eat, Broad Demographics, Systematic Review (meta analysis), Broad Clinical Outcomes, Conclusion: eating breakfast increases total daily energy intake compared to skipping it, and that skipping breakfast resulted in slightly greater weight loss.

Totally agree that MS deserves criticism as you correctly point out. However, criticism towards the script and similar is equally valid (and important).

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26315289

Points: 2

# Comments: 0

> I may find this article emotionally somewhat appealing but still don't think it's a useful view about philosophy. The first and foremost thing about philosophy laymen should realize is that the vast majority of philosophers do not consider philosophy a science.

I don't think the article was making a claim about philosophy being a science. On the contrary, it seemed make a pretty clear distinction between them and highlighted some perils of falsely mixing the two.

"Often implicit empiricist assumptions in epistemology, metaphysics and the philosophy of language are relied upon as if they were self-evident, and without awareness of the threat that those very assumptions pose to the author’s own reasoning. We can call this phenomenon scientistic pseudophilosophy."

"While pseudoscience can perhaps be counteracted by science education, the cure for pseudophilosophy is not science education but philosophical education."

> If you don't like a particular philosopher's work, you generally don't read and support it, and that's it. Calling the work pseudophilosophy will only enrage people who disagree and not help with anything.

The article wasn't about disagreeing with opposing philosophers' work, it as a critique of those non-philosophers who "fail to grasp the content of many of the philosophical claims and arguments that they criticize"

"There are two kinds of pseudophilosophy, one mostly harmless and the other insidious. The first variety is usually found in popular scientific contexts. This is where writers, typically with a background in the natural sciences, walk self-confidently into philosophical territory without realising it, and without conscientious attention to relevant philosophical distinctions and arguments.

The insidious kind of pseudophilosophy, which I will focus on here, is an academic enterprise, pursued primarily within the humanities and social sciences." (e.g. phenomenon obscurantist pseudophilosophy)

Yes they did.

(Stated right in the sixth paragraph.) I’m going to take a break, and a research fellowship, as a place to think about what’s next. It’s hard to think about your future when you’re fully in your present, and for the past seven years, I’ve been fully present for this movement. But as I look around, I see global challenges such as polarization, inequality, and climate change, as well as opportunities for generational renewal and optimism. As a Wikimedian, I lean toward optimism, and plan to head in that direction.

If I may, a couple things I are sorely missing for me:

- White point selector

- Incremental changes to sliders with keyboard and/or mousewheel

- Output settings (jpg name, size/quality, scrub EXIF, etc.)

Thanks for sharing.

I don't know, but I'm going to automatically berate YouToob's motives/competence, compare some other topics that I feel are less censored than cybersecurity (which is confusing since I haven't bothered to read YouTube's content policy), and preach about the importance of local backups!

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25519703

Points: 2

# Comments: 0