Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|||
|
|||
critique of anthropologist's view on diet
|
|
|||
|
|||
UNSCIENTIFIC critique of anthropologist's view on diet
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
UNSCIENTIFIC critique of anthropologist's view on diet
"jambalaya" > wrote in message link.net... > > http://ecologos.org/fft.htm > However, your approach to dismissing > the findings which you understandably don't like is > thoroughly unscientific. IN fact, it is ANTI-science, > par excellence. If you'd like to point out and correct any errors of mine, please do so. However, just sniping from the sidelines with juvenile insults and saying nothing substantial is much easier. That you, noBalls? Laurie |
|
|||
|
|||
UNSCIENTIFIC critique of anthropologist's view on diet
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. 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? Larry's present style suits him and the spirit he writes in well. It would of course never do in formal scientific discussion. |
|
|||
|
|||
UNSCIENTIFIC critique of anthropologist's view on diet
Laurie wrote:
> "jambalaya" > wrote in message > link.net... > >>>http://ecologos.org/fft.htm >> >> However, your approach to dismissing >>the findings which you understandably don't like is >>thoroughly unscientific. IN fact, it is ANTI-science, >>par excellence. > > If you'd like to point out and correct any errors of mine, please do so. With pleasure, Larry. Leonard, the person holding a Ph.D. from an accredited university: We humans are strange primates. Polemicisit Larry Forti, the business world reject: True, and the fiction they create disguised as 'science' to support their own personal cultural conditioning and superstitions, which they refuse to examine logically, is even stranger. You have not refuted claims by REAL scientists - not the shabby fraud you are - concerning their findings about human origins and diet. Instead, you attempt to smear them with a lot of hot air about "cultural conditioning" and superstition. Show a *specific* scientific claim that you have *refuted*, Larry. Not a caricature of a claim that you dismiss with angry handwaving. You can't legitimately and honestly call their science "fiction", Larry, unless you are capable of refuting it, using the same techniques they use. We all know you can't. Leonard, real scientist: Anthropologists and biologists have long sought to understand how our lineage came to differ so profoundly from the primate norm in these ways, and over the years all manner of hypotheses aimed at explaining each of these oddities have been put forth. Polemicisit Larry Forti: Simple: culture. The other species are driven by instincts, thus can function only in harmony with Nature, not destroy it and themselves through misuse of intellect as humans do as a result of cultural conditioning. Some of the primates, such as the chimp, are starting to develop culture as shown by their limited flesh-eating. SUPPORT your contention that it is "merely" "culture", Larry. You haven't even attempted it, Ipse Dixit Larry; you have merely asserted it, and merely repeated your assertion when challenged. SUPPORT, Larry - that's what a *real* scientist does. You aren't a scientist in ANY WAY, Larry: you are an angry, dishonest polemicist who LIES and claims to understand science. You do not. Leonard, the real scientist: But a growing body of evidence indicates that these miscellaneous quirks of humanity in fact have a common thread: they are largely the result of natural selection acting to maximize dietary quality and foraging efficiency. Larry Forti, the angry LYING polemicist Natural selection made our species into the self- and omni-destructive plague that is currently destroying our planet? This is, indeed, a perverted view of evolution. "Quirks" of behavior are not the slightest bit related to evolution, which occurs in the physical body, only. "Quirks" of behavior exist only in the domain of culture/consciousness, which is totally independent from, and different than, genetic processes. Are you challenging the fact that we evolved, Larry? Are you challenging the contention that our ABILITY to develop culture is itself an evolutionary change? If so, what is the SCIENTIFIC basis for your challenge? We don't want to hear your angry, hyperbolically EMOTIONAL dismissal of it merely because you find it aesthetically displeasing, Larry. If you're going to pretend to be writing a scientific critique of the findings of science, YOU need to use scientific methodology and language, Larry. You haven't done it. I don't think you can. Leonard, the real scientist: Changes in food availability over time, it seems, strongly influenced our hominid ancestors. Thus, in an evolutionary sense, we are very much what we ate. Larry, the ignorant-of-biology polemicist: Here, the false and long-abandoned 18th Century Lamarckian view of evolution, that personal behavior in one generation influences the physical evolution of the species in the next, is invoked. You are flatly wrong: he is in NO WAY relying on Lamarckian evolution in reaching his conclusion. You simply don't know what you're reading. Leonard, the true scientist: Accordingly, what we eat is yet another way in which we differ from our primate kin. Larry Forti, the lying polemicist: Much to our own detriment, as epidemiology shows. No. You are UNQUALIFIED to discuss what epidemiology shows, Larry. You have ZERO training in epidemiology, and you have read no original epidemiological articles. That's more than enough, Larry. You are a FRAUD. You are INCOMPETENT in science, and you do not make any kind of a scientific rebuttal of the findings of real scientists. What you offer, instead, is an angry, dogmatic polemic. You ****ING FRAUD. |
|
|||
|
|||
critique of anthropologist's view on diet
"jambalaya" > wrote in message news > Leonard, the person holding a Ph.D. from an > accredited university: > We humans are strange primates. > Polemicisit Larry Forti, the business world reject: That's SO like you, noBalls, demonstrating that you have no education or intellectual integrity by leading off with a personal insult. It seems that that is your primary ability, doesn't it?? > True, and the fiction they create disguised as > 'science' to support their own personal cultural > conditioning and superstitions, which they refuse to > examine logically, is even stranger. > > You have not refuted claims by REAL scientists - The entire critique refuted the false claims made by the author, you have not only failed, but you have not ever attempted, to refute anything I have said. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the strange world of logical argument, but in order for you to refute any concept , you would have to prove error(s) in fact, or error(s) in the logic, I used to derive that concept. You have not done so, you have failed to even try to do so. > the shabby fraud you are Name-calling reduces your credibility to zero, noBalls; haven't you learned that YET?? It has been years of your same juvenile behavior, and you learn nothing. > ... with angry handwaving. Another characteristic of the terminal psychopath, the false claim that they can read "emotions", "feelings", or other affect from dots on a screen. > their science "fiction", Larry, unless you are capable > of refuting it, using the same techniques they use. I use facts and logic, you have not demonstrated ANY errors of mine in either fact or logic, because you are not able to do so. Again, I invite you to do so. > We all know you can't. Now, he can read the minds of everyone, where?? On the planet? In the Universe? Or, are you referring to all those voices in your head? > Polemicisit Larry Forti: Do you REALLY believe that juvenile name-calling enhances your credibility, self-respect, or the respect of the others who read this? > Simple: culture. The other species are driven by > instincts, thus can function only in harmony with > Nature, not destroy it and themselves through misuse > of intellect as humans do as a result of cultural > conditioning. Some of the primates, such as the > chimp, are starting to develop culture as shown by > their limited flesh-eating. > > SUPPORT your contention that it is "merely" "culture", First of all, I did NOT say: "merely", you are simply intentionally misquoting me and demonstrate boundless stupidity by enclosing "merely" in quotes. You are lying. There are two processes in the Universe: Nature and culture, that is axiomatic. Offer concincing proof that there are more, or different, than these two processes. > ... You aren't a scientist in ANY WAY, ... I have degrees in engineering and was exposed to the basic sciences, apparently much more intensely than you ever were, since you have failed to refute anything I have said with facts and logic. > you are an angry, dishonest polemicist ... Again with the mind-reading? IF you could really do this, then let's take the Amazing Randi $1,000,000 challenge for anyone who can, like you claim to, demonstrate a verifiable psychic ability. http://www.randi.org/research/index.html Otherwise, you should really stop lying about your magic powers. More name-calling: do you feel better about yourself when you insult others? Do you delude yourself into thinking you are stronger than the people you insult? Or that insults put you in control of something? Is that the only way you can feel better than everyone?? > who LIES and claims to understand > science. You do not. Yet, you have not even attempted to disprove anything I have said in an intellectually-honest manner, for you are totally incapable of doing so. > Larry Forti, the angry LYING polemicist More name-calling and false claims of telepathy. Don't you ever get tired of denigrating yourself like this, noBalls?? > Natural selection made our species into the self- > and omni-destructive plague that is currently > destroying our planet? This is, indeed, a perverted > view of evolution. "Quirks" of behavior are not > the slightest bit related to evolution, which occurs > in the physical body, only. "Quirks" of behavior > exist only in the domain of culture/consciousness, > which is totally independent from, and different > than, genetic processes. > > Are you challenging the fact that we evolved, ... It is clear that I am challenging the false claim by Leonard that global, human self-destructive behavior was a result of "evolution" or "natural selection acting to maximize dietary quality and foraging efficiency". Leonard offers no support for his claim. > Are you challenging the contention that our ABILITY to > develop culture is itself an evolutionary change? The concept, which you miss, or intentionally choose to miss, is simple: the self-destructive behavior manifest by only one species on the planet, ours, is a result of culture, not "evolution" at the genetic level as Leonard claims. Similarly, your obnoxious behavior is a result of YOUR cultural programming, and your mal-adaptive responses to it. Apparently, your parents forgot to teach your how to behave in a civilized society, and whatever "education" you would claim has failed to teach you how to carry on a polite, logical, academic discussion. Culture, and the ABILITY to develop culture, are quite different, so don't try to obfuscate the difference, or twist my words to suit yourself. > angry, hyperbolically EMOTIONAL ... More mind reading?? You are simply lying about this false ability. > I don't think you can. You have shown no ability to think. > Leonard, the real scientist: > Thus, in an evolutionary sense, we are very much what we ate. Lamarckian evolutionary theory was discarded a century ago. http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/Einmag_Abstr/AHeschl.html > the ignorant-of-biology polemicist: Do you see juvenile insults in the scientific texts YOU read? Why do you choose to embarrass and destroy yourself, like this? When did this self-destructive behavior happen in your childhood? Did your parents ever express any love to you? You seem to have missed out on developing the human qualities. Respect, intelligence, manners, ... > You are flatly wrong: he is in NO WAY relying on > Lamarckian evolution in reaching his conclusion. > Leonard, the real scientist: Changes in food availability over time, it seems, strongly influenced our hominid ancestors. Thus, in an evolutionary sense, we are very much what we ate. Leonard states that "in an evolutionary sense, we are very much what we ate", which is a clear assertion in the Lamarckian model that behavior (what we ate) influenced our being at the biological level (what we are). It has not. IF changing human diet from the natural, biologically-correct one for our species resulted in our "adapting" to that diet as he falsely claims, then we would have developed the physical tools, the biochemical tools, and the instincts to eat flesh over the millions of years of doing so, yet, clearly, we have developed NONE of these. In addition, the devastating health-destroying effects of eating animal products, clearly shown by current epidemiology, would not exist IF any "evolution" had occurred as a result of flesh-eating (what we ate). > You simply don't know what you're reading. Yet, you have failed to even try to refute anything I said. > Leonard, the true scientist: > Accordingly, what we eat is yet another way in which > we differ from our primate kin. > > Larry Forti, the lying polemicist: Does that really make you feel superior?? What a phychopath! > Much to our own detriment, as epidemiology shows. > No. You are UNQUALIFIED to discuss what epidemiology > shows, ... I am qualified to discuss anything. > and you have read no original epidemiological articles. Ah, yes, mind-reading again; how about that $1,000,000 challenge; all I'd ask is a 50% finder's fee. Come forth and demonstrate your magic powers, and let's both make some money, or try to be honest enough to stop making such idiotic claims. > You are a FRAUD. Hmmm...name calling gets you points, somehow?? > is an angry, dogmatic polemic. More mind-reading and insults, what debating team taught you this technique?? > You ****ING FRAUD. And to top it all off: vulgarity, the credibility and respect-builder. NoBalls, you will never grow up. Laurie |
|
|||
|
|||
critique of anthropologist's view on diet
"Samudra" > wrote in message om... > Even though some parts are indeed loaded with emotion ... As I have been a student of human consciousness for close to half a century, would you PLEASE tell me EXACTLY what methodology you use to "read" emotions from dots on a screen?? Do you use electronics? Or perhaps an ancient Tibetan meditation technique? The Ouija Board, perhaps? Spock's Mind Meld? Casting bones or entrails? Clearly, emotion does not translate into my writing, since I am happily amused when writing these critiques; I am amused at how inadequate the "educational system" is to produce quacks like Leonard. > It would of course never do in formal scientific discussion. There is no "formal" scientific discussion; Leonard's article was not presented as such, it is loaded with his personal superstitions and cultural beliefs that are presented as fact with absolutely no support. Laurie |
|
|||
|
|||
critique of anthropologist's view on diet
Laurie wrote:
> "jambalaya" > wrote in message > news > > >> Leonard, the person holding a Ph.D. from an >> accredited university: >> We humans are strange primates. >> Polemicisit Larry Forti, the business world reject: > > That's SO like you, noBalls, demonstrating that you have no education or > intellectual integrity by leading off with a personal insult. You ARE a failure/reject from the business world, Larry, and Leonard DOES hold a Ph.D. The two facts are highly relevant: he is an expert in the field, you are not; he is accomplished, you are bitter as a result of being a miserable failure. > > >> True, and the fiction they create disguised as >> 'science' to support their own personal cultural >> conditioning and superstitions, which they refuse to >> examine logically, is even stranger. >> >>You have not refuted claims by REAL scientists - > > The entire critique refuted the false claims made by the author Your "critique" (haw haw) refuted nothing, Larry. It was a pure rant on your part, a foul-minded angry polemic, not a refutation. > Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the strange world of logical argument I am intimately familiar with it, Larry, and I can tell that you have no exposure to it whatever. > but in order for you to refute any concept, There is nothing you wrote to refute, Larry. > you would have to prove > error(s) in fact, or error(s) in the logic, I used to derive that concept. YOU DIDN'T USE ANY LOGIC, Larry. >>their science "fiction", Larry, unless you are capable >>of refuting it, using the same techniques they use. > > I use facts and logic You used nothing of the kind, Larry. Now you are LYING. There wasn't a single fact contained in your entire shrill rant. >> Polemicisit Larry Forti: > > Do you REALLY believe that juvenile name-calling enhances your > credibility, self-respect, or the respect of the others who read this? Shut up and address the issue, Larry: You made an assertion about "culture", and you failed to support it. You didn't even try. You KNOW you can't, and WE know you can't. > > >> Simple: culture. The other species are driven by >> instincts, thus can function only in harmony with >> Nature, not destroy it and themselves through misuse >> of intellect as humans do as a result of cultural >> conditioning. Some of the primates, such as the >> chimp, are starting to develop culture as shown by >> their limited flesh-eating. >> >>SUPPORT your contention that it is "merely" "culture", > > First of all, I did NOT say: "merely", Implied by "simple". Get to work, Larry, you gutless punk. You're trying to dodge (and failing even at that.) > There are two processes in the Universe: Nature and culture, that is > axiomatic. No. Don't make me laugh, you science-IGNORANT bozo. You are not an authority in ANYTHING that would make your declaration of something being "axiomatic" taken as truth. Shut up. > Offer concincing proof that there are more, or different, than > these two processes. More proof that you're a science- and logic-IGNORANT fool, Larry. It is not my job to prove that your fatuous, arrogant claim is wrong; it is YOUR job to prove that it is right. Get busy. NOW, Larry. If you're not even going to attempt to defend your empty claim that the universe reduces *axiomatically* to two "processes" of nature and culture, then the claim will be withdrawn. Understand, Larry? The burden of support is on you. > > >>... You aren't a scientist in ANY WAY, ... > > I have degrees in engineering and was exposed to the basic sciences, Oh, that's cute. You FAILED as an engineer, and your exposure to "basic sciences" is over 40 years old. You have NEVER worked a day in your life as a scientist. You fumble the most elementary assignments, specifically supporting assertions that you make. No real scientist would do that. No real scientist would angrily refer to "meatarians". You're a FRAUD, Larry. > apparently much more intensely than you ever were, since you have failed to > refute anything I have said with facts and logic. You didn't write anything to refute, Larry. I can't refute venom; that's all you wrote. > > >> you are an angry, dishonest polemicist ... > > Again with the mind-reading? No. > > >>who LIES and claims to understand >>science. You do not. > > Yet, you have not even attempted to disprove anything I have said Larry: YOU DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING in the form of a refutable proposition. This ALSO proves you aren't a scientist, Larry: science is done in terms that allow its conclusions to be challenged and refuted. NOTHING you wrote is in that form. > > >> Larry Forti, the angry LYING polemicist > > More name-calling and false claims of telepathy. No. > >> Natural selection made our species into the self- >> and omni-destructive plague that is currently >> destroying our planet? This is, indeed, a perverted >> view of evolution. "Quirks" of behavior are not >> the slightest bit related to evolution, which occurs >> in the physical body, only. "Quirks" of behavior >> exist only in the domain of culture/consciousness, >> which is totally independent from, and different >> than, genetic processes. >> >>Are you challenging the fact that we evolved, ... > > It is clear that I am challenging the false claim There's more proof that you are not a scientist, Larry. First, you ASSUMED, purely for ideological/polemical reasons, that the claim by Leonard was false. A real scientist doesn't do that. A real scientist tests the claim, then accepts or rejects the claim. And then: > by Leonard that > global, human self-destructive behavior You are fighting against a strawman, lying Larry. Leonard made no such claim about "global, self-destructive behavior"; that's YOUR false characterization. Don't you see it, Larry? You didn't do science; you did politics. > was a result of "evolution" or > "natural selection acting to maximize dietary quality and foraging > efficiency". > Leonard offers no support for his claim. Leonard certainly doesn't offer support for what you FALSELY called his claim, you sleazy liar. He was under no obligation to offer support for your mischaracterization of his claim. > > >>Are you challenging the contention that our ABILITY to >>develop culture is itself an evolutionary change? > > The concept, which you miss, or intentionally choose to miss, is simple: > the self-destructive behavior manifest by only one species on the planet, > ours, is a result of culture, not "evolution" at the genetic level as > Leonard claims. You're still lying about what Leonard's claim ACTUALLY is. You're tearing into a strawman, Larry. > > >>angry, hyperbolically EMOTIONAL ... > > More mind reading?? No. > > >> I don't think you can. > > You have shown no ability to think. Yes, I certainly have shown it, Larry. I have to confess that I don't need to think MUCH in order to point out your errors, and the fact that you do NOT practice science. > > >> Leonard, the real scientist: >>Thus, in an evolutionary sense, we are very much what we ate. > > Lamarckian evolutionary theory was discarded a century ago. Leonard is not working in Lamarckian evolutionary theory, as anyone who read Leonard's actual article, rather than your hatchet-job misrepresentation of it, can plainly see. > > >> the ignorant-of-biology polemicist: > > [snip] > > >>You are flatly wrong: he is in NO WAY relying on >>Lamarckian evolution in reaching his conclusion. >>Leonard, the real scientist: > > Changes in food availability over time, it seems, > strongly influenced our hominid ancestors. Thus, in > an evolutionary sense, we are very much what we ate. > > Leonard states that "in an evolutionary sense, we are very much what we > ate", which is a clear assertion in the Lamarckian model that behavior (what > we ate) influenced our being at the biological level (what we are). No, it is not an assertion "in the Lamarckian model" at all; your claim is false. "What we ate" is not behavior, AFTER it was done. You are getting grotesquely confused about time. Change in food availability is a *classic* Darwinian exogenous environmental change. It is perfectly reasonable that humans ***as a species*** responded in evolutionary terms to the change in their environment. Lamarckian evolution would assert that *individual* humans changed in response, and that is NOT what Leonard is asserting. You are LYING about Leonard's claim. You are creating a strawman. > It has not. You have misrepresented Leonard's claim, either deliberately, in which case you are a willful liar, or unintentionally, in which case you simply didn't understand what he wrote. By the way, Larry, what he wrote was for the LAY press, so if you couldn't understand him there, you have no hope of understanding something written for academic journals. > IF changing human diet from the natural, biologically-correct one There you go again, Larry. "Natural, biologically-correct" is not scientific terminology. It is, rather, your PROJECTION of your spiritual and aesthetic values using a shabby veneer of science words. I am not fooled, and I intend to assist others in not being fooled. > for our species resulted in our "adapting" to that diet as he falsely claims, No. As YOU claim, without a shred of support, to be false, and which you have FALSELY characterized as a Lamarckian conclusion by Leonard, when it clearly is not. > then we would have developed the physical tools, Prove it. That's an unsupported assertion. There is more than one way to skin a cat, lying Larry; I don't need to have claws and fangs of my own, and your assertion that I "would have developed" these physical tools is an UNSUPPORTED allegation. > the biochemical tools, We did. The human gut can digest meat quite well. > and > the instincts to eat flesh over the millions of years of doing so, yet, > clearly, we have developed NONE of these. That conclusion is simply untrue, and the process by which you arrived at it is thoroughly unscientific. Your conclusion doesn't follow from any logical statements; you are arguing by mere assertion. > In addition, the devastating > health-destroying effects of eating animal products, More unsupported assertion. That's all you do. > clearly shown by current epidemiology, Nope. You are INCOMPETENT to discuss epidemiology, Larry. You have ZERO training in it, and all you've done is cherry-pick some results from which you then extrapolate a conclusion that the researchers themselves never reached. > would not exist IF any "evolution" had occurred as a > result of flesh-eating (what we ate). > > >>You simply don't know what you're reading. > > Yet, you have failed to even try to refute anything I said. You didn't write any science. I can't refute your rant, Larry, and it's specious of you to demand that I do so. > > >> Leonard, the true scientist: >> Accordingly, what we eat is yet another way in which >> we differ from our primate kin. >> >> Larry Forti, the lying polemicist: > > Does that really make you feel superior?? What a phychopath! > > >> Much to our own detriment, as epidemiology shows. >>No. You are UNQUALIFIED to discuss what epidemiology >>shows, ... > > I am qualified to discuss anything. You are unqualified to discuss epidemiology, Larry. You have ZERO training in epidemiology. > > >>and you have read no original epidemiological articles. > > Ah, yes, mind-reading again; No. > >>You are a FRAUD. > > Hmmm...name calling gets you points, somehow?? You are a FRAUD, Larry. > > >> is an angry, dogmatic polemic. > > More mind-reading and insults, No. > > >>You ****ING FRAUD. |
|
|||
|
|||
critique of anthropologist's view on diet
"jambalaya" > wrote in message ink.net... The same old, tired juvenile insults and no rational attenpt to disprove anything I said, just like Jon-a-thug noBalls has been doing for YEARS. Back in the Jon-a-thug Memorial Killfile for you... Laurie |
|
|||
|
|||
critique of anthropologist's view on diet
Laurie wrote:
> "jambalaya" > wrote in message > ink.net... > The same old, tired juvenile insults No. Yet another instance of cutting Larry Forti a new asshole. |
|
|||
|
|||
critique of anthropologist's view on diet
Laurie wrote:
> "jambalaya" > wrote in message > ink.net... > The same old, tired juvenile insults and no rational attenpt to disprove > anything I said, just like Jon-a-thug noBalls has been doing for YEARS. Bad whiff off. You took an ass-kicking, and now you're running away. |
|
|||
|
|||
critique of anthropologist's view on diet
"David Harrison" > wrote in message hlink.net... > Laurie wrote: > > > "jambalaya" > wrote in message > > ink.net... > > The same old, tired juvenile insults and no rational attenpt to disprove > > anything I said, just like Jon-a-thug noBalls has been doing for YEARS. > > You took an ass-kicking, and now you're running away. David, YOU may consider lies, personal insults, intentional distortions of other's posts, evasion, and vulgarity to be legitimate techniques in polite academic discussion, but that only reveals your own lack of intellectual development and integrity. Laurie |
|
|||
|
|||
UNSCIENTIFIC critique of anthropologist's view on diet
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. > > 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. I suspect lots of legitimate, dispassionate scientists also wanted to burn the racist biological rantings of the physicist William Shockley, too. 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. > 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, 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. |
|
|||
|
|||
critique of anthropologist's view on diet
Laurie wrote:
> "David Harrison" > wrote in message > hlink.net... > >>Laurie wrote: >> >> >>>"jambalaya" > wrote in message thlink.net... >>> The same old, tired juvenile insults and no rational attenpt to > > disprove > >>>anything I said, just like Jon-a-thug noBalls has been doing for YEARS. >> >> You took an ass-kicking, and now you're running away. > > David, YOU may consider lies, personal insults, intentional distortions > of other's posts, evasion, and vulgarity to be legitimate techniques in > polite academic discussion, but that only reveals your own lack of > intellectual development and integrity. You took an ass-kicking, Larry. You did not "refute" a single thing in William Leonard's article. I don't know if your misrepresentations of what Leonard wrote were deliberate, or simply based on your slovenly reading and ignorance of real science, but you clearly did not understand what he wrote, EXCEPT that it points to a conclusion completely opposite your hysterical dietary extremism. You were called on your slovenly, ANTI-scientific rantings, and you did a ****-poor job of defending yourself - that is, you took an ass-kicking. |
|
|||
|
|||
critique of anthropologist's view on diet
Laurie wrote:
> http://ecologos.org/fft.htm From the very beginning of Larry Forti's ANTI-scientific rant: WILLIAM R. LEONARD is a professor of anthropology at Northwestern University. He was born in Jamestown, N.Y., and received his Ph.D. in biological anthropology at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor in 1987. The author of more than 80 research articles on nutrition and energetics among contemporary and prehistoric populations, Leonard has studied indigenous agricultural groups in Ecuador, Bolivia and Peru and traditional herding populations in central and southern Siberia. Perhaps Larry Forti will deign to entertain us by telling us where HE obtained HIS Ph.D. in biological anthropology (snicker), and how many peer-reviewed articles in nutrition and energetics HE has had published (guffaw). Somehow...I think we'll be waiting a looooooooong time. |
|
|||
|
|||
critique of anthropologist's view on diet
"David Harrison" > wrote in message hlink.net... > You did not "refute" a > single thing in William Leonard's article. David, I have challenged your unsupported claims for YEARS, and you have NEVER presented anything to back them up, yet you persist in posting false concepts that you know you can not support. That is simply dishonest. Again, I challenge you to refute anything I have ever said with facts and logic. You will not even attempt to do so, because you do not have the intellectual ability to enter into a rational discussion, as you have just demonstrated. Laurie |
|
|||
|
|||
critique of anthropologist's view on diet
Laurie wrote:
> "David Harrison" > wrote in message > hlink.net... > > >> You did not "refute" a >>single thing in William Leonard's article. > > David, I have challenged your unsupported claims for YEARS, and you have > NEVER presented anything to back them up, yet you persist in posting false > concepts that you know you can not support. That is simply dishonest. > Again, I challenge you to refute anything I have ever said with facts > and logic. All you have *ever* offered is irrational, overly emotional opinion. Opinion cannot be refuted, and it is unethical and illegitimate of you to demand that I do so. > You will not even attempt to do so, because ....because one can't refute an opinion. Try laying out some FACTS and a (possibly) coherent THEORY, and then someone might try to refute something you've said. Once again: you did not "refute" anything in Leonard's article. |
|
|||
|
|||
critique of anthropologist's view on diet
"Laurie" > wrote in message >...
> "Samudra" > wrote in message > om... > > > Even though some parts are indeed loaded with emotion ... > As I have been a student of human consciousness for close to half a > century, would you PLEASE tell me EXACTLY what methodology you use to "read" > emotions from dots on a screen?? > Do you use electronics? Or perhaps an ancient Tibetan meditation > technique? The Ouija Board, perhaps? Spock's Mind Meld? Casting bones or > entrails? > Clearly, emotion does not translate into my writing, since I am happily > amused when writing these critiques; I am amused at how inadequate the > "educational system" is to produce quacks like Leonard. I do not claim to read your emotional state at the time of writing, only the emotion the style of the text conveys to me. There is a musician called Richard James a.k.a Aphex Twin. He wrote a piece called "Come to Daddy" which has been described as "aggresive", "freaky" and "insane" among other things. The video made for it by Chris Cunningham has even been banned in some countries I believe. Yet in an interview he has said he was smiling when he wrote it. > > > It would of course never do in formal scientific discussion. > There is no "formal" scientific discussion; Leonard's article was not > presented as such, it is loaded with his personal superstitions and cultural > beliefs that are presented as fact with absolutely no support. > > Laurie Formal scientific discussion in the proper channels. I was not calling the present means of presenting the material of either you or Leonard that way. |
|
|||
|
|||
UNSCIENTIFIC critique of anthropologist's view on diet
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
UNSCIENTIFIC critique of anthropologist's view on diet
(K D B) wrote in message . com>...
> (Samudra) wrote in message . com>... > > 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. > > Such as? > > > > A real scientist would keep emotions out of it, yet when do we see > > this happen in real life? > > All the time where any real academic discussion takes place.. Why > did you ask such a stupid question? Of course. It was merely a matter of speech to introduce the next sentence. You can twist it how you will. > > > > > When the journal Nature called for the > > burning of Sheldrake's book? > > Do you think one example supports the claim implied by your first > question? I'm merely showing scientists do not always fit that ideal. Even a journal such as Nature deviates from it. > > > > > Larry's present style suits him and the spirit he writes in well. It > > would of course never do in formal scientific discussion. > > > Then lying Larry should stop pretending to have any scientific > background and admit he is an intellectual and scientific zero and a > total fraud as well as a gender-confused buffoon. > > Kevin |
|
|||
|
|||
UNSCIENTIFIC critique of anthropologist's view on diet
Samudra wrote:
> 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. What are you talking about?! If heat (fire) turns something that provides no nutrition when raw into something that provides a great deal of nutrition when cooked, then it has increased the "quality" of that item IMMEASURABLY! Note that the illiterate polemicist Larry is falsely implying that Leonard falls for Lamarckian evolution by suggesting that Leonard is talking about brain growth in *individuals* who encounter a richer diet. Leonard is doing nothing of the kind; he is talking about Darwnian evolution of larger brains as a *species* response to the better diet. Larry has not pointed out an inconsistency; you are wrong to think this was one. > Evolution of nutritional needs. Nope. What's the inconsistency? In DETAIL, pal; you can't simply mutter the phrase "evolution of nutritional needs" as if repeating the phrase itself illustrates any inconsistency. Here's the sum total of the comments in Larry's hysterical screed: William Leonard: Since then, however, understanding of the evolution of human nutritional needs has advanced considerably-- ANTI-science Larry Forti: Is there any evidence that any other species demonstrated any "evolution of nutritional needs"? Do we see the diet of any other species changing over time? In what possible way has Larry illustrated any inconsistency? He has asked a couple of questions to which he assumes there is a negative answer, but which depend on an *equivocation* on the word "evolution". Leonard is not suggesting that, once the species homo sapiens evolved, there was further genetic "evolution" resulting in a change in our nutritional needs. Larry took Leonard's comment out of context - what a surprise! - and chopped it up in order to get in, not his (Forti's) scientific observations, but his *digs*. Here's what Leonard said, unchopped: Scientific interest in the evolution of human nutritional requirements has a long history. But relevant investigations started gaining momentum after 1985, when S. Boyd Eaton and Melvin J. Konner of Emory University published a seminal paper in the New England Journal of Medicine entitled "Paleolithic Nutrition." They argued that the prevalence in modern societies of many chronic diseases--obesity, hypertension, coronary heart disease and diabetes, among them--is the consequence of a mismatch between modern dietary patterns and the type of diet that our species evolved to eat as prehistoric hunter-gatherers. Since then, however, understanding of the evolution of human nutritional needs has advanced considerably-- thanks in large part to new comparative analyses of traditionally living human populations and other primates--and a more nuanced picture has emerged. We now know that humans have evolved not to subsist on a single, Paleolithic diet but to be flexible eaters, an insight that has important implications for the current debate over what people today should eat in order to be healthy. Leonard is not suggesting our nutritional needs have evolved, after we emerged as humans; he is saying *as* we evolved into a species, there was a corresponding evolution of our nutritional needs, and that those needs are better understood, now, as a result of comparing the diets of modern "civilized" (industrial and post-industrial) humans with those of "traditionally living" human societies, *and* with primates. There is no inconsistency, and you are wrong to think Larry has identified one. > And the comment on the animal foods contemporary hunter-gatherers eat. Same thing. There is no inconsistency. The "glaring error" is Larry's. He fundamentally doesn't understand how biological adaptation takes place. > > Overall I think the comments can be improved to make the point > clearer. They can't be improved; they are fundamentally wrong. > > > >>>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? Yes and no. I can adopt a thoroughly scientific approach in trying to open a clogged drain in my bathroom, or to isolate a flaw in my house's electrical wiring (I did the latter and correctly located a bad circuit that a professional electrician had missed in an earlier housecall; I *still* got charged for both housecalls, though.) HOWEVER - this comment shouldn't even really be necessary - one almost assuredly will do bad science if one attempts to venture outside one's field of expertise, without first mastering the fundamentals of the new field. This mastering of the fundamentals is best accomplished by acquiring proper credentials in the field. Linus Pauling spewed a lot of nonsense about vitamin C, because he didn't know his ass from his face about biology, and also because he strayed from the scientific method and committed the ex post fallacy right and left. > >>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. You are trying to be purer than Caesar's wife. > >>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? Yes. Ethno-biologists were not concerned that Shockley, for example, was going to make any basic shift in the science of investigating human intelligence. What they feared is that his ravings would give political and social support to violent racists. > > >>>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. Who he is is an angry, science-ignorant polemecist. > >>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. No comment? This story perfectly illustrates what Larry Forti is all about. |
|
|||
|
|||
critique of anthropologist's view on diet
"Samudra" > wrote in message om... > "Laurie" > wrote in message >... > > "Samudra" > wrote in message > > om... > > Sam> > > Even though some parts are indeed loaded with emotion ... Sam> I do not claim to read your emotional state at the time of > writing, only the emotion the style of the text conveys to me. Once again, you have claimed that "text conveys" emotion, yet the fact is that it did NOT convey any of MY emotions. Consider the obvious: that you are projecting "emotions" from your own subconscious onto my emotion-free writing. Dots on a screen, or words on a page, can not transmit specific emotions; people can, however, project just about anything they want onto the external world. If, OTOH, you can produce any credible research supporting your theory, I'd appreciate it. Laurie |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
plz critique this menu | General Cooking | |||
plz critique this menu | General Cooking | |||
Critique of Owsley's zero carb diet | Vegan | |||
Gumbo Joes: the critique | General Cooking | |||
critique of "veganism" in a nutshell | Vegan |