You’ll notice that’s not an argument I’ve made. More of a straw man leveled in my general direction. What I’ve pointed out is that you need knowledge of the subject you’re working in. Expertise in something applicable. It doesn’t have to be the subject itself, but it needs to be pertinent. It also requires collaboration with those who have relevant expertise otherwise lacking. I don’t see much of either hear. Credentials, valid ones, are not just some stamp of devious elithood. It’s simply evidence that a person has put in the time to gain that relevant knowledge.
So let me ask you this. if lack of expertise isnt an impediment to science work. Would you allow some one who learned medicine through trial and error at home to operate on you? That’s not an attempt at characterizing anyone’s argument. It’s just a common rhetorical commonly used to get people thinking about what expertise means in this context and why it’s important. It’s also a great bar room convo starter. Much better than “who would win in a fight?”
In terms of whether it’s science. Predicated as a scientific problem you might phrase it like this: is it possible for a human being to derive all their nutrient requirements from a single complete source? Can we create such a complete source? And is it wise or healthy to do so long term?
There is scientific consensus on these subjects, derived from medical research and experience. And that consensus appears to be: maybe, no and no. it’s absolutely appropriate to challenge the consensus, one of the base functions of science in fact. But you need to be fully aware of the established research on the subject, carefully structure your experimentation and be absolutely open to where ever the data leads you. Including disproving Your own hypothesis or confirming the consensus.
What you have in Soylent is a company that has decided we can do that, And that it would not just be wise. But preferable. Then gone about attempting to create that product. Culling information only when it bolsters their end goal. They have an assumed end in mind, And are working to bring it about and confirm it. Regardless of what the state of knowledge is or where any data they collect leads them. Failure means the product needs to be adjusted. Not that the fundamental hypothesis is wrong. Or the consensus is correct.
That’s not science. It may use science. But it’s engineering. Totally appropriate in a engineering setting. But it’s impractical to under take such without firmly established science to work from. They’re coming at it backwards.
https://helix.northwestern.edu/blog/2013/12/what-difference-between-science-and-engineering
I’m also fully comfortable with comparing these guys to pseudo scientists. The same base misunderstanding of science is at the heart of so much if that. And that stuff isn’t just clutch your pearls dangerous. It’s actually dangerous and causing real harm right now. From diet woo that’s structurally remarkably similar to Soylent’s pitch driving people into eating disorders. Vaccine denial bringing measles and whooping cough outbreaks, alt med cancer treatments that kill people, And children dying when their parents go for supplements over medicine. I see much that’s similar here. The ivory tower and exclusionary elites. A lone genius who will up end everything. “Science” that seeks only to bolster a pre-determined outcome. That sort of science illiteracy is causing a lot if issues right now.
It’s not for nothing that most of the “scientists” who sign on to global warming and creationism are actually engineers.
Though to be fair so are many of our best science educators. Mythbysters and Bill Bye for example.
