But you would gather observations and you would try to fit them into a model and maybe even a coherent narrative that explains and has predictive power, what might be going on,

and we would call such a thing a theory. And so that scientific theorizing starts with the data

and works outward. This is the exact opposite. It starts with what these people literally call

theory, but the idea is that they have this theoretical explanation for how society works,

and then they go, if you will call it that,

which I don't think we should, but we'll say gather data, and then fit it to the existing

theory. It's the exact backwards way to go.

Yeah. Hello and welcome to another episode of Sigma Nutrition Radio.

You are very welcome.

I am your host, Danny Lennon, and we're episode 274 of the podcast today. You're very welcome whether you are a brand new listener or whether a long-time listener. Thank you for

tuning into the show. We've got something that's slightly a bit different in the fact that we're

not delving deep into nutritional science or health science

today, but something that I think is going to be of interest to many of you listening, given

how much time we spend talking about good quality science, what is science, the value of using

scientific thinking and the scientific method, evidence-based practice on all these

types of topics.

And we're going to really, I suppose, get into the broad area of what happens when that

scientific process doesn't work as it should, when scientific integrity is undermined

when we don't apply typical scientific rigor to a field that

should be. And so we're going to be talking about peer-reviewed literature that's being published

in specific areas, as we'll talk about later on, that isn't held to the same scientific rigor

that we should expect and therefore can lead to a lot of

...