Jonathan Ball > wrote in message hlink.net>...
> Samudra wrote:
>
> > jambalaya > wrote in message hlink.net>...
> >
> >>Larry Forti wrote:
> >>
> >>>http://ecologos.org/fft.htm
> >>
> >>Very nice, Larry. However, your approach to dismissing
> >>the findings which you understandably don't like is
> >>thoroughly unscientific. IN fact, it is ANTI-science,
> >>par excellence.
> >>
> >>A REAL scientist would have pointed out inconsistencies
> >>in Leonard's account. A real scientist, Larry -
> >>something you could never be - would keep his own
> >>emotions out of it. You can't.
> >
> >
> > Even though some parts are indeed loaded with emotion aswell as gloss
> > (I've never seen Larry write differently) Larry does makes some points
> > and shows inconsistencies in the article.
>
> Show ONE inconsistency Larry has pointed out.

The claims about quality of diet and brain growth, treating of foods
with fire improving "quality". I agree it increases stability (i.e.
being able to eat more foods otherwise uneatable), but not quality.
Evolution of nutritional needs.
And the comment on the animal foods contemporary hunter-gatherers eat.

Overall I think the comments can be improved to make the point
clearer.


>
> >
> > A real scientist would keep emotions out of it, yet when do we see
> > this happen in real life? When the journal Nature called for the
> > burning of Sheldrake's book?
>
> Because they considered it rubbish, not dangerous.
> Sheldrake is a biologist, with no credentials to be
> writing about physics.

Do you feel you need credentials to practice science?

I suspect lots of legitimate,
> dispassionate scientists also wanted to burn the racist
> biological rantings of the physicist William Shockley,
> too.

I find that sentence paradoxical.

I think it may be a poor choice of words for
> scientists, but it's written or said in order to
> express disgust, not fear of dangerous
> paradigm-shifting ideas.

Do you actually believe that?

>
> > Larry's present style suits him and the spirit he writes in well. It
> > would of course never do in formal scientific discussion.
>
> Larry Forti's "style", if you want to call it that,

I did not call it style meaning there was any worth in it, but as it
is part of who he is obviously.

is
> clear proof that he is a complete crank out on the
> fringe. The fact remains that he DOES NOT UNDERSTAND
> the science against which he rants and raves, and his
> ravings have NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS in them at all.
>
> Let me tell you a little story. When my goofy younger
> brother (who barely finished high school and never
> attended university, but who like Larry thinks he has
> everything figured out) was about 10 years old, my mom
> asked him some pretty mundane kind of typical mom's
> question; you know, something like "Did you clean up
> your room?" or "Have you finished your homework?" I
> don't recall what the substantive part of my brother's
> answer was, but I well recall that he prefaced it with
> "On the theological survey, ..." That is, he had heard
> some high-falutin' words, and he thought he sounded
> impressive using them. That's Larry Forti. He has
> picked up a smidgen of "science talk" - perhaps enough
> to fool some fellow diet-extremist crackpots - but no
> science.