I think there are multiple differences but in my mind the biggest one is that his post mostly talks about the benefits that he gained himself. There are no promises about what it would do for you.
Now obviously if you're reading critically and you're naturally a bit suspicious of his motives then of course it seems heavily implied that the benefits he feels he's gotten are the ones that you'll get too once you also use Soylent.
There are two (maybe three) ways this can go:
1. He made it all up to launch a startup
2. Everything he says is true
3. He believes everything he says is true
In truth it's not as mutually exclusive as I've presented it. Many of the benefits might be true, he might believe some BS about others, and some of it might be outright fabrications.
I am not sure how you would do a double blind between a supposedly all-encompassing shake-meal and one that is not. Are you going to purposely malnourish people so that you can see they're malnourished? That's ethically dubious at best.
"Are you going to purposely malnourish people so that you can see they're malnourished? That's ethically dubious at best."
Yes, that's what Soylent is currently doing. No suprise the founder got bad news from his cardiologist with an earlier version. "Failing" with their product in this case actually means hurting the customers.
There's a difference between knowingly and willingly malnourishing people and doing so out of ignorance. In order to perform a double-blind you have to do the former. The people making Soylent might accidentally do the latter. Supposing the two are the same sets an impossibly high bar.
Furthermore since it's not a double-blind the people who choose to participate go in with the knowledge that it might not be done yet and that they face risks.
I don't really care about this one way or the other; I think Soylent is an interesting idea but I like eating a variety of food so I'm not participating. But I don't think that the people in charge of Soylent are a hair's breadth from war criminals either, ethically.
This is not about motives. This is about the method of science. There should be scientific evidence to believe such claims as Solyent's, especially since it is possible to do reliable experiments to test many of his claims.
Also, more specifically: he is a single data point. And hardly an objective one.
Comments
I think there are multiple differences but in my mind the biggest one is that his post mostly talks about the benefits that he gained himself. There are no promises about what it would do for you.
Now obviously if you're reading critically and you're naturally a bit suspicious of his motives then of course it seems heavily implied that the benefits he feels he's gotten are the ones that you'll get too once you also use Soylent.
There are two (maybe three) ways this can go:
1. He made it all up to launch a startup
2. Everything he says is true
3. He believes everything he says is true
In truth it's not as mutually exclusive as I've presented it. Many of the benefits might be true, he might believe some BS about others, and some of it might be outright fabrications.
I think another hugely contributing factor to the notion that he's not a snake-oil salesman is that the formula seems to be freely available and not patented: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_(food_substitute)
I am not sure how you would do a double blind between a supposedly all-encompassing shake-meal and one that is not. Are you going to purposely malnourish people so that you can see they're malnourished? That's ethically dubious at best.
"3" most likely.
"Are you going to purposely malnourish people so that you can see they're malnourished? That's ethically dubious at best."
Yes, that's what Soylent is currently doing. No suprise the founder got bad news from his cardiologist with an earlier version. "Failing" with their product in this case actually means hurting the customers.
There's a difference between knowingly and willingly malnourishing people and doing so out of ignorance. In order to perform a double-blind you have to do the former. The people making Soylent might accidentally do the latter. Supposing the two are the same sets an impossibly high bar.
Furthermore since it's not a double-blind the people who choose to participate go in with the knowledge that it might not be done yet and that they face risks.
I don't really care about this one way or the other; I think Soylent is an interesting idea but I like eating a variety of food so I'm not participating. But I don't think that the people in charge of Soylent are a hair's breadth from war criminals either, ethically.
This is not about motives. This is about the method of science. There should be scientific evidence to believe such claims as Solyent's, especially since it is possible to do reliable experiments to test many of his claims.
Also, more specifically: he is a single data point. And hardly an objective one.
You are hoping for something similar to all the scientific studies showing how optimal the fast food diets most people eat are?