And here's a reason science can die in complex societies: because people want to score points over engaging with it. On a surface level it's easy to say "suggestions are changing, therefore it's a scam." But it's also a highly-expected outcome of a field being actively researched! Working as intended = ammunition for those who want to play games instead.
That's not to say there is no fraud, or bad actors. It's just to say that your comment falls hideously short as a potential way of spotting bad acting, so far short that it looks intentionally misleading.
> But it's also a highly-expected outcome of a field being actively researched!
But that's the point. It isn't "research". It's meaningless busy work to justify a paycheck.
> It's just to say that your comment falls hideously short as a potential way of spotting bad acting, so far short that it looks intentionally misleading.
I disagree. The guy was offering his honest opinion. Your comment comes off as someone working in the industry selfishly trying to justify your existence.
It's expected for hypothesis that make up a field to converge over time towards something resembling "truth".
When hypothesis change wildly decade by decade (e.g. in nutrition research) without convergence, you can reason that the system isn't working as intended.
In the nutrition example, I think the lack of progress is due to inadequete data and tooling to tackle such a complex field, as well as the limitations imposed by ethical considerations.
Another issue is research bias due to funding from industry. I don't this should be as much of an issue since the efficacy of scientific methods should be mostly independent of funding source.
That's not to say there is no fraud, or bad actors. It's just to say that your comment falls hideously short as a potential way of spotting bad acting, so far short that it looks intentionally misleading.