Hacker News Reader

Has anyone considered that every N years a scientific “discovery”in a given field invalidates a previous one?

Commonly in more theoretical sciences like nutritional science, psychology, and astrophysics?

In other words, is anything really truly reliable in these domains?

Nutritional science is in its own realm of unreliability, because it depends a lot on people self-reporting what they eat, over years and decades.

Things like continuous glucose monitors are starting to proliferate, so the measurements are going to get better and more reliable, but it will still take a lot of time to come with some good long term studies where the self-reporting factor is no longer critical.

This is precisely how science works…

Check out “Structure of Scientific Revolutions” by Thomas Kuhn when you get the chance.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com