Timeline for Does soaking dry beans before cooking prevent flatulence?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 16, 2020 at 11:23 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:33 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://cooking.stackexchange.com/ with https://cooking.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Feb 16, 2016 at 2:42 | answer | added | sam | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jan 10, 2016 at 18:09 | answer | added | Marc Luxen | timeline score: 0 | |
| Oct 13, 2015 at 1:59 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackCooking/status/653751845328920576 | ||
| Sep 17, 2015 at 7:12 | comment | added | banavalikar | We are not finding a definition of Scientific Consensus here :). Please answer the OP. | |
| Sep 16, 2015 at 18:29 | history | edited | jvriesem | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Changed the second paragraph for clarity.
|
| Sep 16, 2015 at 18:27 | comment | added | user36802 | Different or singular theories exist until proven as fact. ...jus' sayin' | |
| Sep 16, 2015 at 18:27 | comment | added | jvriesem | @rumtscho: When have scientists reached a consensus? That's hard to say. :-) I would expect a few of the following to be clues that scientists have agreed on a topic. 1) Their writing changes from "Others have proposed that [hypothesis]" or "It is thought that [hypothesis]" to "So-and-so has demonstrated that [hypothesis]" or "It is now well understood that [hypothesis]". 2) Authoritative institutions (e.g. the IPCC for climate change) occasionally issue summaries about a given topic which are intended to inform the general public of scientists' progress. | |
| Sep 16, 2015 at 18:24 | comment | added | rumtscho♦ | Well, hopefully this happens someday, although it is usually only about very big and clear-cut issues, at least in nutrition (classic theory of science tends to be based on physics, which is easier). Does it mean that you only see it as a consensus when nobody in the community defends the opposite theory? This is one of the common criteria, but we obviously don't have that here. | |
| Sep 16, 2015 at 18:22 | comment | added | logophobe | Given the number of sources you've provided yourself, I think the answer to your question about a scientific consensus is a simple "no". I'm not sure I get what you're asking either. Your own question states near the beginning that there appears to be little consensus. I doubt that there's been any more than a handful of peer-reviewed studies that have managed to account for all the possible factors on this topic. | |
| Sep 16, 2015 at 18:18 | comment | added | jvriesem | @rumtscho: The whole point of science is that the many different ideas about something converge to a single idea through observation and/or experimentation. Experimental or observational evidence supports or refutes certain ideas, narrowing the pool of ideas until usually only one idea remains, and this stands the test of time. | |
| Sep 16, 2015 at 17:31 | comment | added | rumtscho♦ | I don't understand what the question means. What is "a scientific consensus"? The whole point of science is that it consists of different theories. When would you say that a consensus exists? What does evidence for a consensus look like for you? | |
| Sep 16, 2015 at 1:41 | history | asked | jvriesem | CC BY-SA 3.0 |