Finding Truth in a Post-Truth World

Fat causes heart disease. This nutritional certainty dominated health advice for decades until emerging evidence suggested sugar is the real culprit. It’s incredulous that experts in the field provided incorrect guidance for so long.

In the 1950s, two scientists proposed competing theories. Ancel Keys claimed saturated fat causes heart disease. John Yudkin argued sugar poses the real threat. Keys happened to hold positions on influential health boards and directed research funds toward supporters. When Yudkin published evidence against sugar, Keys called it “a mountain of nonsense.” Siding with the loudest voice, the nutrition establishment marginalized Yudkin and his research.

This pattern went beyond personal rivalry. The sugar industry funded Harvard researchers to publish papers shifting blame toward fat. By 1980, when the US government issued its first official set of dietary guidelines, the fat hypothesis had achieved unquestionable truth status despite shaky evidence. Obesity and diabetes rates subsequently soared in countries that most enthusiastically adopted low fat diets. In the US, obesity levels skyrocketed from 15% in 1980 to 35% by 2000.

It is easy to see that academic consensus often reflects power dynamics more than evidence. This challenge extends beyond nutrition to climate science, economic policy, education methods, and medical treatments. We face information asymmetry in a digital landscape crowded with conflicting “expert” opinions and claims.

To cut through the noise, I have long held an internal post-truth navigation framework for evaluating information when expertise proves unreliable. Here’s my attempt at articulating said framework:

1. Historical Persistence Test: Solutions that worked across generations deserve serious consideration against recent innovations. Traditional foods nourished humans for millennia while new processed products lack evolutionary testing. If it wasn’t in vogue back then, it’s unlikely to be in vogue in the future.
2. Incentive Tracing: Identify who benefits financially from widespread belief in specific claims. The sugar industry funded research targeting fat just as pharmaceutical companies fund studies supporting medication use. When in doubt, see who stands to gain from a position.
3. Complexity Recognition: Solutions claiming simplicity for complex problems warrant skepticism. Health cannot reduce to single nutrients just as economic prosperity cannot reduce to single policies. There are no silver bullets, especially for complex problems.

This framework can be applied universally. Financial advisors promote complex investment products despite index funds outperforming managed accounts. Education theorists advocate new methods despite traditional approaches showing consistent results. Medical treatments cycle through popularity despite lifestyle interventions maintaining effectiveness.

The fat versus sugar controversy demonstrates how expertise fails when influenced by institutional power and commercial interests. Although John Yudkin received vindication, it was several decades too late. In our information-saturated world, credentials are no longer sacrosanct. We must think critically, and proceed towards the truth through empirical learning. This is the only fool proof way.