Scott Alexander shares links to a debate between Gary Taubes and Stephan Guyenet about the health effects of sugar, praising the high-level discussion. Longer summary

This post discusses a debate about sugar's health effects, centered around Gary Taubes' work. Scott Alexander links to Stephan Guyenet's negative review of Taubes' book, then shares Taubes' counterargument. The debate involves multiple essays: Taubes' initial case against sugar on Cato Unbound, responses from Terence Kealy, Yoni Freedhoff, and Guyenet, and finally Taubes' rebuttal. Scott praises all participants for engaging in a high-level debate that has helped clarify his thinking on the topic. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander reviews Stephan Guyenet's critique of Gary Taubes' anti-sugar book, agreeing with Guyenet's multi-factorial view of obesity and disease causes, and retracting his previous support for Taubes. Longer summary

Scott Alexander reviews Stephan Guyenet's critique of Gary Taubes' new book 'The Case Against Sugar'. Guyenet argues against Taubes' claim that sugar is the principal cause of obesity and various noncommunicable diseases, instead supporting the view that these issues are multi-factorial. The review highlights several key points, including Taubes' selective use of evidence, his dismissal of calorie intake as a factor in obesity, and his one-sided portrayal of historical debates in nutrition science. Scott acknowledges Taubes' past contributions in debunking misconceptions about dietary fat, but now strongly criticizes Taubes' focus on sugar as the primary culprit in health issues. He apologizes for his previous praise of Taubes and no longer recommends him as a source of nutritional advice. Shorter summary

Scott explores the nature of scientific contrarianism, discussing how ideas spread through the scientific community and the challenges faced by both crackpots and legitimate contrarians. Longer summary

This post discusses the concept of contrarians and crackpots in science, exploring how ideas move through different levels of the scientific community. Scott examines cases like Gary Taubes and the serotonin theory of depression to illustrate how scientific consensus can differ at various levels. He proposes a pyramid model of scientific knowledge dissemination and discusses how contrarians might be skipping levels in this pyramid. The post then contrasts virtuous contrarians with crackpots, noting that the former often face indifference rather than opposition. Scott concludes by discussing paradigm shifts in science and how even correct contrarians often lose credit for their ideas. Shorter summary