[gburt]

In a space as high-dimensional and full of incorrect intuitions as nutrition science, credentialism is perhaps a worthy signal.

[dang]

I don't disagree, but calling names is noise, not signal. "Woo" is certainly one of those names. We just don't notice it because most of us happen to agree. But the mechanism is just as harmful here as it is anywhere else. It closes thought rather than opening it.

[joshuapants]

If I were referring to a scammer, a con-artist, or a black-hat hacker would I be calling names or merely describing their professions?

[dang]

I don't know.

[log_n]

Blind belief in credentials is just as wrong in nutrition science as it is in tech. Check out this amazing paper re-inventing calculus: http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/17/2/152.abstract

The author has a doctorate from NYU and the article was published in a peer reviewed journal.

That's just a funny example, but there are tons of poorly researched peer reviewed papers which makes it exceedingly difficult for me to accept credentialis as being a useful signal. I find it's much better to have ideas stand on their own merit, rather than on the shoulders of those who are espousing them.