Why do people use “science” to discriminate people with eating disorders?

While on a ride home yesterday, I was listening to the radio which stated that “certain foods can change your appearance” and “the only way to keep yourself from aging or getting fat is to eat a “balanced diet (i.e. fruits, veggies, no sugar or carbs)”.

It made me feel sick and disgusted. As some of you may know already, I have ARFID (Avoidant Restrictive Food Intake Disorder) and I hate fruits and vegetables. Fruits because while I’m tolerant over the taste, the acid sinks into my teeth and my nerves, which gives me pain and makes me not want to eat anything for days. And veggies because I get sick eating them and it makes me want to vomit.

It disgusts me how the “balanced diet” agenda consists of a certain way of life instead of just simply accepting what others eat. It’s like they judge you for your appearance and your eating habits. And once you call them out on the bs, they’ll be like “I don’t sugarcoat the truth”. They’re obsessed with the term “sugarcoat”, yet will praise blunt honesty and use that to excuse their crappy behavior.

But that’s a topic for another time.

I can definitely see your point.

Scolding people is not only unwelcome but counterproductive in my opinion. And most unsolicited advice is usually unwelcome because most people, if they want advice, will ask for it.

There are, according to many philosophers, three kinds of truths. There are the absolute truths, such as those of mathematics for example. 2+2=4 is true in all places and at all times.

Then there are the truths of science which are based on probability and statistics: "If A happens, B will probably happen, given our limited knowledge."

These truths are not absolute and can sometimes be changed. These truths are not like the truths of mathematics. For example . . . a study of 40,000 people determined that those who smoked cigarettes for x number of years had a probability of y for getting lung cancer." That is different than saying that everyone who smokes cigarettes is going to die of lung cancer.

Science, then can advise people not to smoke based on studies involved with probability.

There can be exceptions in science. There are cases of people who reached the age of 100 years old who smoked two packs of cigarettes every day.

Probabilities can be high or low and can have numerical value. But probability is not certainty. It is certain, absolutely certain that in plain geometry every triangle has three sides and three angles. Mathematics leads to certain conclusions.

Sciences leads to various conclusions based on probability. So I am not of the opinion that science should proclaim its finding as though they had the certainty of mathematics.

And scolding seems counterproductive, and here's why I think so.

"Scold" is part of the family of words which includes the word "should." Scolding a person is "shoulding" a person.

Most "should" statements contain at least an implicit ultimatum. You "should" do x OR ELSE. Should statements make it seem like there are no alternatives. But often there are alternatives.

It would be like me saying: "You should travel by car." But there are alternatives: You can travel by bus, by taxi, by plane or train or perhaps by boat and so on.
Sometimes "must" also excludes alternatives. You "must" often omits the idea of somebody must but not necessarily you.

Then there is the level of individual truth. There is a body of science in zoology concerned with ants. This is the study of ants "in general".

But there is an additional level of truth. Here is a little ant by my tree. What is it like to be this ant? What is it like to think like this ant? How does it feel to be this ant? Mathematics cannot say. Science cannot say. This is the level of individual truth.

We human beings like to "should" each other and "scold" each other although we don't want to be scolded or shoulded ourselves.

Science is different than journalism. A scientific study will be very limited. Limitations can be size of the study, scope of the study, duration of the study, objectivity of the study, confounding factors, how the results of the study support or conflict with the results of another scientific study.

But journalists sometimes tend to ignore all this and make absolute pronouncements" "You must do this to be healthy and have a long life."

So I think it is important to separate the probability findings of science from the overstated and oversimplified generalizations that one sometimes hears on the news and mass media.

A final opinion I would like to make: Rules often have exceptions. One might make a rule like: "A person should exercise each day." What about a person who is totally paralyzed? "Must" he exercise each day?

Here the level of truth at the scientific level comes in contact with the personal level of truth.

The level of truth that makes statements that start with the words "all" or "every" can be easily contradicted. If I say "All swans are white" and then you show me a black swan, then your statement is disproven.

The level of truth that makes statement that start with the words "some" "many" "a few" are less easily contradicted. Many people who smoke will "probably" get lung cancer.

The level of truth of "I" "you" or "me" is unique. If I am totally paralyzed, I cannot follow the guidelines that apply to people in general.

Real medical practice consists partly in medical advice and partly in damage control.

A patient is a customer of the doctor who is paying for medical advice.

A doctor on reviewing medical tests might tell a patient that his consumption of alcohol is causing damage to their liver. He might advice the patient to quit drinking or limit drinking alcoholic beverages.

But if the patient continues to drink then the doctor does not simply abandon the patient. A good doctor will then do damage control. "Ok, you have serious liver damage, what can we do now to prolong your life and preserve your quality of life under the circumstances."

If things go completely downhill and a patient seems terminally ill, a good doctor will continue to do damage control. "Ok, these medicines may help alleviate the terrible pain you are experiencing."

A doctor makes judgements based on a patient's complete medical history and given the tools available to the doctor at that time.
Perhaps there is a cure down the road in 20 years. A doctor doesn't have that tool in their toolbox. They have the tools which exist at that time.

Many medical options involves pluses and minuses, risks and benefits. None are absolutely perfect.

"This medicine has been found to be relatively safe through testing and the consensus of medical practitioners.

It has x number of possible side effects. Some may be tolerable and some intolerable to certain patients. There may be tradeoffs. Such and such a medicine may not prolong life but may alleviate the pain of dying and might shorten life."

There are generally more checks and balances on doctors than on journalists who talk medicine.

A doctor is at the mercy of various medical boards. A doctor must follow standard medical practice or lose their license. There are patient advocates. There is an entire branch of law devoted to medical malpractice.

That is not to say that the profession is perfect at all, but I think it is more regulated than medical journalism.

I have heard, sadly, all kinds of crazy things said on the news about medicine and what people "should" and "must" do. Journalism often feeds on shock value. Bad news sells newspapers and newspaper sales promote advertising dollars. That was the old saying.

These are my opinions as of today. I am quite elderly and have made many mistakes in my life so anything I have written here or everything may be incorrect. But that it what I think today.

I am sorry again that you are at the mercy of smug medical journalists. I can definitely understand your feelings.