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 Search this Thread Display Modes
  #81 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article .net>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> homo felcher Ron wrote:
> > In article .net>,
> > Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>homo felcher Ron wrote:
> >>
> >>>In article . net>,
> >>> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>homo felcher Ron wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>I'm such a bigot to think that doctors or researchers are human and
> >>>>>capable of errors, logical fallacies, confirmation bias and finding
> >>>>>evidence to support cultural practices.
> >>>>
> >>>>You are NOT QUALIFIED to detect any of that, homo
> >>>>felcher Ron. You have no expertise. You're just
> >>>>ranting and displaying your ignorance and bigotry.
> >>
> >>NOT QUALIFIED, homo felcher Ron. You weren't rejecting
> >>the findings out of professional expertise, or out of
> >>any health sense of skepticism. You were rejecting
> >>entirely out of your bigoted bias.

>
> You admit to talking out your ass. Good.
>
>
> >>>>>>but you summarily
> >>>>>>reject a research finding. That's ignorance par
> >>>>>>excellence.
> >>>>
> >>>>There you go.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Given you are already demonstrating obsessional behaviour and stalking
> >>>tendencies, providing anymore personal information about myself
> >>
> >>There is nothing more to provide, homo felcher. You
> >>have no qualifications that would lead you to reject a
> >>scientific consensus. ALL you have is your bigoted
> >>ignorance and bias.

> >
> >
> > A for

>
> You admit you're a liar, homo felcher Ron.


Once again we return to your unhealthy interest in personal information
of me versus the subject matter that was being discussed.
  #82 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ron wrote:

> In article .net>,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>homo felcher Ron wrote:
>>
>>>In article .net>,
>>> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>homo felcher Ron wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article . net>,
>>>>>Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>homo felcher Ron wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I'm such a bigot to think that doctors or researchers are human and
>>>>>>>capable of errors, logical fallacies, confirmation bias and finding
>>>>>>>evidence to support cultural practices.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You are NOT QUALIFIED to detect any of that, homo
>>>>>>felcher Ron. You have no expertise. You're just
>>>>>>ranting and displaying your ignorance and bigotry.
>>>>
>>>>NOT QUALIFIED, homo felcher Ron. You weren't rejecting
>>>>the findings out of professional expertise, or out of
>>>>any health sense of skepticism. You were rejecting
>>>>entirely out of your bigoted bias.

>>
>>You admit to talking out your ass. Good.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>but you summarily
>>>>>>>>reject a research finding. That's ignorance par
>>>>>>>>excellence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>There you go.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Given you are already demonstrating obsessional behaviour and stalking
>>>>>tendencies, providing anymore personal information about myself
>>>>
>>>>There is nothing more to provide, homo felcher. You
>>>>have no qualifications that would lead you to reject a
>>>>scientific consensus. ALL you have is your bigoted
>>>>ignorance and bias.
>>>
>>>
>>>A for

>>
>>You admit you're a liar, homo felcher Ron.

>
>
> Once again we return


to your inability to support you assertions; to your
lack of qualification to be rejecting a scientific
consensus for any reason other than your sheer
bloodymindedness.
  #83 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ron wrote:

>
>>You admit you're a liar, homo felcher Ron.

>
>
> Once again we return to your unhealthy interest in personal information
> of me versus the subject matter that was being discussed.


The subject matter being discussed IS your utter lack
of expertise as a basis for your rejection of a solid
scientific consensus. That's the subject, homo felcher
Ron. It has been for quite some time.
  #84 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Oz" > wrote in message
...
> Dutch > writes
>
>>>Someone or other
>>> Do be specific for us. What was the "failures by scientists" who
>>> followed the scientific method in reviewing thalidomide before its sale
>>> to the public?

>>
>>They should have tested it on pregnant mice.

>
> They were not permitted a license to do this under british vivisection
> laws at the time. Apparently there was no indication of a potential
> problem and the product had been shown to be very safe in standard
> animal tests and the label couterindicated use in pregnent women so the
> license was rejected.


Pity


  #85 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >, "Dutch" >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Ron" > wrote
>> >>
>> >> > In article >, "Dutch"
>> >> > >
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> "Ron" > wrote
>> >> >> > I've seen no evidence that you apply critical thinking to the
>> >> >> > subject
>> >> >> > matter. The preponderance of evidence is that "this is what I
>> >> >> > believe"
>> >> >> > now let's see what I can google up to confirm that belief.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Confirm or dispel. You just described the scientific method.
>> >> >
>> >> > Which is precisely thinking that lead to, oh, say, thalidomide and
>> >> > current drug recalls, as examples.
>> >>
>> >> Bad results are not the fault of the scientific method, they are
>> >> caused
>> >> by
>> >> failures by scientists.
>> >
>> > Do be specific for us. What was the "failures by scientists" who
>> > followed the scientific method in reviewing thalidomide before its sale
>> > to the public?

>>
>> They should have tested it on pregnant mice.

>
> Why? the evidence suggests that the human trials on children already
> revealed problems with thalidomide with the animals.


Rephrase please.

Further, several
> who disagreed with the consensus of the experts were ignored.


Several *what*, other experts, non-experts, journalists, passers-by?

> IOW,
> evidence already existed of significant problems without even needing to
> test the drug on pregnant mice.


If testing showed serious problems then the drug should not have been
released.

>> > Failures by scientists would seem to support my position that "experts"
>> > and researchs are flawed like any other human beings.

>>
>> Of course they are, nobody is denying that.

>
> Without critical thinking, how do you determine which experts may make
> errors and which don't?


When did I advocate abandoning critical thinking?

> I'm noticing that you haven't addressed the issue of Type I and II
> errors with respect to the experts, science and the scientific method.


What about it?




  #86 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:


> The consensus is that aluminum is related to senility and Alzheimer's.


According to whom? According to NIEHS this link has not been established.

"Epidemiological studies attempting to link AD with exposures in drinking
water have been inconclusive and contradictory. Thus, the significance of
increased aluminum intake with regard to onset of AD has not been
determined."
http://www.niehs.nih.gov/external/faq/aluminum.htm

> Further, it is the US that statistically has higher rates of these two
> issues than Japan. The Japanese scientists concur from the Alzheimer's
> research on the likely causes for the illness and senility. The general
> diet of the Hawaiian Island is closer to mainland USA than mainland
> Japan.
>
> On what rational basis would you argue that one should look at soy
> products to explain senility and Alzheimer's in this population which
> already is experienced in higher levels in that nation?


On what rational basis would one *not* look at soy products, or any other
factor for that matter?

> Further, what historical factors related to Hawaii and Japan might
> foster a bias against a Japanese lifestyle by those who are identified
> as Japanese and living in this island chain? I find it odd that a study
> designed to determine the effects of soy or brain aging would be limited
> to males and Japanese males in this geopolitical area.


It seems highly reasonable to me to use a study group that shares many
attributes, that way differences in lifestyle and other factors can be more
easily be isolated. If you used some mainland people, females, or people
with other basic differences, then differences in diet would form less
conclusive evidence.

> Based on the post
> that was made to the usenet group this week, I further take issue with
> the methodology of what is labeled as a long term study that relies on
> interpretations of spouses not empirical evidence.


I didn't read that. Maybe it *is* a weakness in those findings.

> I find it further interest that there are also studies that indicate soy
> is a means avoid Alzheimer's. Further, there do seem to be studies that
> women who eat soy have lower rates of Alzheimer's.


Maybe soy effects men and women differently.

> Given these are the "experts" can you offer some rational explanation
> for pursuing brain again/alzheimer's and a) soy, b) to the exclusion of
> women and c) within this specific population.


See above.

> To further my own confirmation bias, I can see some evidence that this
> is consistent with my position that western researchers want to find
> evidence to support a western diet -- and lo and behold their
> conclusions did just that.


Maybe some of them do, depending on who pays them. I would add that
vegetarian advocates are quick to point out weaknesses in the methodolgy of
this particular research. Here is an example
http://www.vnv.org.au/Nutrition/SoyFoods.htm. So obviously more confirmation
bias at work there.


  #87 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "Ron" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "Ron" > wrote
> >> >>
> >> >> > In article >, "Dutch"
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> "Ron" > wrote
> >> >> >> > I've seen no evidence that you apply critical thinking to the
> >> >> >> > subject
> >> >> >> > matter. The preponderance of evidence is that "this is what I
> >> >> >> > believe"
> >> >> >> > now let's see what I can google up to confirm that belief.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Confirm or dispel. You just described the scientific method.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Which is precisely thinking that lead to, oh, say, thalidomide and
> >> >> > current drug recalls, as examples.
> >> >>
> >> >> Bad results are not the fault of the scientific method, they are
> >> >> caused
> >> >> by
> >> >> failures by scientists.
> >> >
> >> > Do be specific for us. What was the "failures by scientists" who
> >> > followed the scientific method in reviewing thalidomide before its sale
> >> > to the public?
> >>
> >> They should have tested it on pregnant mice.

> >
> > Why? the evidence suggests that the human trials on children already
> > revealed problems with thalidomide with the animals.

>
> Rephrase please.


Ooops. The evidence suggested that there were problems with the human
trials for human children even before the drug was released for the
market. ONE of the difficulties was that only a few scientists were in
disagreement. IOW, the consensus of the medical community was that this
was a good drug. Further, those conducting the research fell prey to
type I and II errors when exploring their hypotheses.

> Further, several
> > who disagreed with the consensus of the experts were ignored.

>
> Several *what*, other experts, non-experts, journalists, passers-by?


The public record show 3 degreed individuals at least in the same
profession had concerns with the drug and the rationale. However, as
confirmation bias allows for people saw what they wanted to see.

> > IOW,
> > evidence already existed of significant problems without even needing to
> > test the drug on pregnant mice.

>
> If testing showed serious problems then the drug should not have been
> released.


But they followed the consensus with respect to the drug.

> >> > Failures by scientists would seem to support my position that "experts"
> >> > and researchs are flawed like any other human beings.
> >>
> >> Of course they are, nobody is denying that.

> >
> > Without critical thinking, how do you determine which experts may make
> > errors and which don't?

>
> When did I advocate abandoning critical thinking?


What critical thinking have you applied to what you have labeled
"conventional wisdom". Repeating information that one is exposed to is
not a demonstration of critical thinking.

> > I'm noticing that you haven't addressed the issue of Type I and II
> > errors with respect to the experts, science and the scientific method.

>
> What about it?


Let's see how this affects your stated position on these issues.
  #88 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >, "Dutch" >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Ron" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > In article >, "Dutch"
>> >> > >
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> "Ron" > wrote
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > In article >, "Dutch"
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> "Ron" > wrote
>> >> >> >> > I've seen no evidence that you apply critical thinking to the
>> >> >> >> > subject
>> >> >> >> > matter. The preponderance of evidence is that "this is what I
>> >> >> >> > believe"
>> >> >> >> > now let's see what I can google up to confirm that belief.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Confirm or dispel. You just described the scientific method.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Which is precisely thinking that lead to, oh, say, thalidomide
>> >> >> > and
>> >> >> > current drug recalls, as examples.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Bad results are not the fault of the scientific method, they are
>> >> >> caused
>> >> >> by
>> >> >> failures by scientists.
>> >> >
>> >> > Do be specific for us. What was the "failures by scientists" who
>> >> > followed the scientific method in reviewing thalidomide before its
>> >> > sale
>> >> > to the public?
>> >>
>> >> They should have tested it on pregnant mice.
>> >
>> > Why? the evidence suggests that the human trials on children already
>> > revealed problems with thalidomide with the animals.

>>
>> Rephrase please.

>
> Ooops. The evidence suggested that there were problems with the human
> trials for human children even before the drug was released for the
> market. ONE of the difficulties was that only a few scientists were in
> disagreement. IOW, the consensus of the medical community was that this
> was a good drug. Further, those conducting the research fell prey to
> type I and II errors when exploring their hypotheses.
>
>> Further, several
>> > who disagreed with the consensus of the experts were ignored.

>>
>> Several *what*, other experts, non-experts, journalists, passers-by?

>
> The public record show 3 degreed individuals at least in the same
> profession


So it wasn't the presence of "experts" that was the primary problem, you
agree that experts are superior to laymen for doing research..

had concerns with the drug and the rationale. However, as
> confirmation bias allows for people saw what they wanted to see.


So are you suggesting that the minority opinion should overrule the
majority? That would seem to make things worse, even if would have netted
the right result here. Hindsight is so crystal clear.


>> > IOW,
>> > evidence already existed of significant problems without even needing
>> > to
>> > test the drug on pregnant mice.

>>
>> If testing showed serious problems then the drug should not have been
>> released.

>
> But they followed the consensus with respect to the drug.


And they were wrong. Does that mean the method was flawed or that science
makes mistakes sometimes?

>
>> >> > Failures by scientists would seem to support my position that
>> >> > "experts"
>> >> > and researchs are flawed like any other human beings.
>> >>
>> >> Of course they are, nobody is denying that.
>> >
>> > Without critical thinking, how do you determine which experts may make
>> > errors and which don't?

>>
>> When did I advocate abandoning critical thinking?

>
> What critical thinking have you applied to what you have labeled
> "conventional wisdom". Repeating information that one is exposed to is
> not a demonstration of critical thinking.


It is if one agrees that the information makes sense, or if one finds the
source reputable. Nobody has the time to reexamine every study on every
topic.

>> > I'm noticing that you haven't addressed the issue of Type I and II
>> > errors with respect to the experts, science and the scientific method.

>>
>> What about it?

>
> Let's see how this affects your stated position on these issues.


They came up with the wrong conclusion in this case, it happens, they're
human.


  #89 (permalink)   Report Post  
Jim Webster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"pearl" > wrote in message
> > hey, do your own homework

>
> Your statement "UK now probably does higher proportion of
> autopsies than anywhere else in the world," is based on what?


radio interview on radio 4 BBC

Jim Webster


  #90 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "Ron" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "Ron" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> > In article >, "Dutch"
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> "Ron" > wrote
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > In article >, "Dutch"
> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> "Ron" > wrote
> >> >> >> >> > I've seen no evidence that you apply critical thinking to the
> >> >> >> >> > subject
> >> >> >> >> > matter. The preponderance of evidence is that "this is what I
> >> >> >> >> > believe"
> >> >> >> >> > now let's see what I can google up to confirm that belief.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Confirm or dispel. You just described the scientific method.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Which is precisely thinking that lead to, oh, say, thalidomide
> >> >> >> > and
> >> >> >> > current drug recalls, as examples.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Bad results are not the fault of the scientific method, they are
> >> >> >> caused
> >> >> >> by
> >> >> >> failures by scientists.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Do be specific for us. What was the "failures by scientists" who
> >> >> > followed the scientific method in reviewing thalidomide before its
> >> >> > sale
> >> >> > to the public?
> >> >>
> >> >> They should have tested it on pregnant mice.
> >> >
> >> > Why? the evidence suggests that the human trials on children already
> >> > revealed problems with thalidomide with the animals.
> >>
> >> Rephrase please.

> >
> > Ooops. The evidence suggested that there were problems with the human
> > trials for human children even before the drug was released for the
> > market. ONE of the difficulties was that only a few scientists were in
> > disagreement. IOW, the consensus of the medical community was that this
> > was a good drug. Further, those conducting the research fell prey to
> > type I and II errors when exploring their hypotheses.
> >
> >> Further, several
> >> > who disagreed with the consensus of the experts were ignored.
> >>
> >> Several *what*, other experts, non-experts, journalists, passers-by?

> >
> > The public record show 3 degreed individuals at least in the same
> > profession

>
> So it wasn't the presence of "experts" that was the primary problem, you
> agree that experts are superior to laymen for doing research..


I made no such claim. I merely note that "expertise" is an interesting
concept that confuses experience with an ability to think critically.
And it was the experts who were the problem.

> had concerns with the drug and the rationale. However, as
> > confirmation bias allows for people saw what they wanted to see.

>
> So are you suggesting that the minority opinion should overrule the
> majority? That would seem to make things worse, even if would have netted
> the right result here. Hindsight is so crystal clear.


We disagree. A logical fallacy of a false dilemma. It is possible to
incorporate a minority and majority perspective together and look for
others options rather than stating an either/or proposition.

> >> > IOW,
> >> > evidence already existed of significant problems without even needing
> >> > to
> >> > test the drug on pregnant mice.
> >>
> >> If testing showed serious problems then the drug should not have been
> >> released.

> >
> > But they followed the consensus with respect to the drug.

>
> And they were wrong. Does that mean the method was flawed or that science
> makes mistakes sometimes?


A false dilemma of either/or. I'm suggesting that science is valuable as
is expertise and experience in fields. I'm suggesting that because
errors can be made by these people, within the scientific field that
critical thinking needs to be apply even when one is deemed an expert or
even when research appears to conform to scientific standards. I'm
suggesting that because confirmation bias is a human reality that those
conducting research and those utilizing could be better served by
exercising critical thinking.

> >> >> > Failures by scientists would seem to support my position that
> >> >> > "experts"
> >> >> > and researchs are flawed like any other human beings.
> >> >>
> >> >> Of course they are, nobody is denying that.
> >> >
> >> > Without critical thinking, how do you determine which experts may make
> >> > errors and which don't?
> >>
> >> When did I advocate abandoning critical thinking?

> >
> > What critical thinking have you applied to what you have labeled
> > "conventional wisdom". Repeating information that one is exposed to is
> > not a demonstration of critical thinking.

>
> It is if one agrees that the information makes sense, or if one finds the
> source reputable. Nobody has the time to reexamine every study on every
> topic.


Either/or. So then it because a question of choice of what any of us
choose to believe. what you describe as "makes sense" is often the
result of the information feels good for us, so we tend to agree with
it. The case of information that is anti-vegan would be an example.
Believing that which does not conform to our thinking or motivations on
this subject is likely to be ignored and disbelieved in favour of that
which allows us to feel...smart, intelligent, superior, normal, etc.

> >> > I'm noticing that you haven't addressed the issue of Type I and II
> >> > errors with respect to the experts, science and the scientific method.
> >>
> >> What about it?

> >
> > Let's see how this affects your stated position on these issues.

>
> They came up with the wrong conclusion in this case, it happens, they're
> human.


All scientific research is conducted by humans AFAIK. All reasearchers
are human. It then seems reasonable to me to review any research with a
grain of salt before accepting it as "truth" Until I can or do review
the results, it is merely information.


  #91 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:

>
> > The consensus is that aluminum is related to senility and Alzheimer's.

>
> According to whom? According to NIEHS this link has not been established.
>
> "Epidemiological studies attempting to link AD with exposures in drinking
> water have been inconclusive and contradictory. Thus, the significance of
> increased aluminum intake with regard to onset of AD has not been
> determined."
> http://www.niehs.nih.gov/external/faq/aluminum.htm
>
> > Further, it is the US that statistically has higher rates of these two
> > issues than Japan. The Japanese scientists concur from the Alzheimer's
> > research on the likely causes for the illness and senility. The general
> > diet of the Hawaiian Island is closer to mainland USA than mainland
> > Japan.
> >
> > On what rational basis would you argue that one should look at soy
> > products to explain senility and Alzheimer's in this population which
> > already is experienced in higher levels in that nation?

>
> On what rational basis would one *not* look at soy products, or any other
> factor for that matter?
>
> > Further, what historical factors related to Hawaii and Japan might
> > foster a bias against a Japanese lifestyle by those who are identified
> > as Japanese and living in this island chain? I find it odd that a study
> > designed to determine the effects of soy or brain aging would be limited
> > to males and Japanese males in this geopolitical area.

>
> It seems highly reasonable to me to use a study group that shares many
> attributes, that way differences in lifestyle and other factors can be more
> easily be isolated. If you used some mainland people, females, or people
> with other basic differences, then differences in diet would form less
> conclusive evidence.
>
> > Based on the post
> > that was made to the usenet group this week, I further take issue with
> > the methodology of what is labeled as a long term study that relies on
> > interpretations of spouses not empirical evidence.

>
> I didn't read that. Maybe it *is* a weakness in those findings.
>
> > I find it further interest that there are also studies that indicate soy
> > is a means avoid Alzheimer's. Further, there do seem to be studies that
> > women who eat soy have lower rates of Alzheimer's.

>
> Maybe soy effects men and women differently.
>
> > Given these are the "experts" can you offer some rational explanation
> > for pursuing brain again/alzheimer's and a) soy, b) to the exclusion of
> > women and c) within this specific population.

>
> See above.
>
> > To further my own confirmation bias, I can see some evidence that this
> > is consistent with my position that western researchers want to find
> > evidence to support a western diet -- and lo and behold their
> > conclusions did just that.

>
> Maybe some of them do, depending on who pays them. I would add that
> vegetarian advocates are quick to point out weaknesses in the methodolgy of
> this particular research. Here is an example
> http://www.vnv.org.au/Nutrition/SoyFoods.htm. So obviously more confirmation
> bias at work there.


The net result of this conversation is that is a lot of information the
contradicts. To accept any information on the brain aging and senility
is then a choice.

Oddly, each of the results confirming or negating the opinions is done
by "experts".
  #92 (permalink)   Report Post  
Gordon Couger
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Oz wrote:
> Jim Webster > writes
>
>>Invoke the precautionary principle. I suggest that we keep on feeding soya
>>to animals as part of an animal testing programme to see if it is actually
>>safe for humans to eat

>
>
> Soya in pig rations (at least) has a phantom 'extra growth effect' not
> related to its nutritional value. Cynics might point out that this
> matches the phytoestrogen levels quite well.
>

A diet, made up mainly of soybean also called poverty pea over
here, corn, rice, or many other single sources of of food will
cause disease with out some verity, Corn and legumes alone case
pelegra a serious problem in the USA less 100 years ago. Cattle
and other ruminates are better adapted to eat feeds like this
than people.

In cattle and hog alfalfa hay is another magic ingredient that
has more efficient that be accounted for. I seems any ration can
be improved by adding good alfalfa hay for an equal percentage
or the fiber, and ruminants is supplies. I have eaten alfalfa
cooked as greens by very smooth seller of pots and pans and it
is not bad cooked a greens but you don't see it the human diet
at all.

I am surprised that soybean meal has paradoxical effect on
humans and hogs. I wonder how many other such effect there are
between hogs, rats and humans because almost all human
nutritional studies are done on rats or hogs. Only Dr. Joesph
Mengla preformed double blind experiments on humans and tested
at death of the subjects to get the results and that was not
done with an impartial section of subjects and were not conduct
in realistic environments so only the ones on hypothermia were
of any use. They didn't pay for much the cost of the experiment
like you can do buy doing the research on hogs.


Gordon Couger
Stillwater, OK
www.TakeThisOUTcouger.com/gcouger
  #93 (permalink)   Report Post  
Gordon Couger
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ron wrote:
> In article t>,
> Larry Caldwell > wrote:


>>
>>>Is that a rebuttal?

>>
>>I still can't figure out what your point is. Are you claiming that soy
>>products are NOT safe as a part of a balanced diet, or are you
>>advocating an unbalanced diet of only soy products?

>
>
> That is understandable when my comments are deleted. The rationale of
> the Hawaiian study is in question. I'm saying that I take research with
> a grain of salt. I tend to disagree with the frequent use of the term
> "balanced diet".


I tend to agree with you all human studies are seriously flawed
compared to the same kind of study done in rats or pigs because
you can't control all the variables all their lives and kill
them and and study their organs and then feed the meat to other
animals to see if it has an effect on them.

In the case of humans you must Bay's statical methods to try to
tame the uncontrollable variables and to get any results that
you can have any confidence in. As an ag undergraduate had I
done a study using the state of the art methods that are used on
humans I would not only have flunked the project but the teacher
would discussed the flaws of using methods like that where you
better tool for the better part of a lecture and made me help
him do it to have any hope of passing the course. Had I done
that and anyone in the department I worked for found out I be
sure that though it was 40 years ago at the Christmas party some
one would give me a gag gift and drag the whole thing out again.

If you know anything about statistics using Bay's method it
perfectly OK to compare apples to oranges or any thing else
including personal experience and with that personal bias in the
results. While in things like work with humans it is necessity
it is also difficult to use and get an unflawed answer.


Gordon Couger
Stillwater, OK
www.TakeThisOUTcouger.com/gcouge
  #94 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Ron" > wrote
> "Dutch" > wrote:


>> > Ooops. The evidence suggested that there were problems with the human
>> > trials for human children even before the drug was released for the
>> > market. ONE of the difficulties was that only a few scientists were in
>> > disagreement. IOW, the consensus of the medical community was that this
>> > was a good drug. Further, those conducting the research fell prey to
>> > type I and II errors when exploring their hypotheses.
>> >
>> >> Further, several
>> >> > who disagreed with the consensus of the experts were ignored.
>> >>
>> >> Several *what*, other experts, non-experts, journalists, passers-by?
>> >
>> > The public record show 3 degreed individuals at least in the same
>> > profession

>>
>> So it wasn't the presence of "experts" that was the primary problem, you
>> agree that experts are superior to laymen for doing research..

>
> I made no such claim. I merely note that "expertise" is an interesting
> concept that confuses experience with an ability to think critically.


Is there overwhelming evidence that the dissenting group were were any
better critical thinkers than the consensus group? They happened to have
been right in this one case, but that is hardly overwhelming.

> And it was the experts who were the problem.


Everyone involved were experts, maybe som kind of outside influence would
help in research, not expert of the subject matter but specializing in
eliminating bias.

>> had concerns with the drug and the rationale. However, as
>> > confirmation bias allows for people saw what they wanted to see.

>>
>> So are you suggesting that the minority opinion should overrule the
>> majority? That would seem to make things worse, even if would have netted
>> the right result here. Hindsight is so crystal clear.

>
> We disagree. A logical fallacy of a false dilemma. It is possible to
> incorporate a minority and majority perspective together and look for
> others options rather than stating an either/or proposition.


I am certain that for some part of the process, all participants'
perspectives *were* being considered collectively. It was in their final
conclusions that they disagreed.

>> >> > IOW,
>> >> > evidence already existed of significant problems without even
>> >> > needing
>> >> > to
>> >> > test the drug on pregnant mice.
>> >>
>> >> If testing showed serious problems then the drug should not have been
>> >> released.
>> >
>> > But they followed the consensus with respect to the drug.

>>
>> And they were wrong. Does that mean the method was flawed or that science
>> makes mistakes sometimes?

>
> A false dilemma of either/or. I'm suggesting that science is valuable as
> is expertise and experience in fields. I'm suggesting that because
> errors can be made by these people, within the scientific field that
> critical thinking needs to be apply even when one is deemed an expert or
> even when research appears to conform to scientific standards. I'm
> suggesting that because confirmation bias is a human reality that those
> conducting research and those utilizing could be better served by
> exercising critical thinking.


I agree, biases should be minimized. Even under ideal conditions though,
errors are inevitable.

>> >> >> > Failures by scientists would seem to support my position that
>> >> >> > "experts"
>> >> >> > and researchs are flawed like any other human beings.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Of course they are, nobody is denying that.
>> >> >
>> >> > Without critical thinking, how do you determine which experts may
>> >> > make
>> >> > errors and which don't?
>> >>
>> >> When did I advocate abandoning critical thinking?
>> >
>> > What critical thinking have you applied to what you have labeled
>> > "conventional wisdom". Repeating information that one is exposed to is
>> > not a demonstration of critical thinking.

>>
>> It is if one agrees that the information makes sense, or if one finds the
>> source reputable. Nobody has the time to reexamine every study on every
>> topic.

>
> Either/or. So then it because a question of choice of what any of us
> choose to believe. what you describe as "makes sense" is often the
> result of the information feels good for us, so we tend to agree with
> it. The case of information that is anti-vegan would be an example.
> Believing that which does not conform to our thinking or motivations on
> this subject is likely to be ignored and disbelieved in favour of that
> which allows us to feel...smart, intelligent, superior, normal, etc.


I agree again, good points, those are pitfalls we are all challenged to
avoid. I'm sure I've made them, especially in the heat of debate.

>> >> > I'm noticing that you haven't addressed the issue of Type I and II
>> >> > errors with respect to the experts, science and the scientific
>> >> > method.
>> >>
>> >> What about it?
>> >
>> > Let's see how this affects your stated position on these issues.

>>
>> They came up with the wrong conclusion in this case, it happens, they're
>> human.

>
> All scientific research is conducted by humans AFAIK. All reasearchers
> are human. It then seems reasonable to me to review any research with a
> grain of salt before accepting it as "truth" Until I can or do review
> the results, it is merely information.


Most research I have read, and that's not a lot, has sections outlining
possible confounding factors, and there is always people and groups ready to
point out weaknesses after the fact, especially when the results contradict
their beliefs. Then there's the inevitable study five years later that
reaches a contradictory conclusion.. It's pretty daunting to decypher the
truth out of it all. A pound of salt is probably more like it.


  #95 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Ron" > wrote
> "Dutch" > wrote:


>> > Ooops. The evidence suggested that there were problems with the human
>> > trials for human children even before the drug was released for the
>> > market. ONE of the difficulties was that only a few scientists were in
>> > disagreement. IOW, the consensus of the medical community was that this
>> > was a good drug. Further, those conducting the research fell prey to
>> > type I and II errors when exploring their hypotheses.
>> >
>> >> Further, several
>> >> > who disagreed with the consensus of the experts were ignored.
>> >>
>> >> Several *what*, other experts, non-experts, journalists, passers-by?
>> >
>> > The public record show 3 degreed individuals at least in the same
>> > profession

>>
>> So it wasn't the presence of "experts" that was the primary problem, you
>> agree that experts are superior to laymen for doing research..

>
> I made no such claim. I merely note that "expertise" is an interesting
> concept that confuses experience with an ability to think critically.


Is there overwhelming evidence that the dissenting group were were any
better critical thinkers than the consensus group? They happened to have
been right in this one case, but that is hardly overwhelming.

> And it was the experts who were the problem.


Everyone involved were experts, maybe som kind of outside influence would
help in research, not expert of the subject matter but specializing in
eliminating bias.

>> had concerns with the drug and the rationale. However, as
>> > confirmation bias allows for people saw what they wanted to see.

>>
>> So are you suggesting that the minority opinion should overrule the
>> majority? That would seem to make things worse, even if would have netted
>> the right result here. Hindsight is so crystal clear.

>
> We disagree. A logical fallacy of a false dilemma. It is possible to
> incorporate a minority and majority perspective together and look for
> others options rather than stating an either/or proposition.


I am certain that for some part of the process, all participants'
perspectives *were* being considered collectively. It was in their final
conclusions that they disagreed.

>> >> > IOW,
>> >> > evidence already existed of significant problems without even
>> >> > needing
>> >> > to
>> >> > test the drug on pregnant mice.
>> >>
>> >> If testing showed serious problems then the drug should not have been
>> >> released.
>> >
>> > But they followed the consensus with respect to the drug.

>>
>> And they were wrong. Does that mean the method was flawed or that science
>> makes mistakes sometimes?

>
> A false dilemma of either/or. I'm suggesting that science is valuable as
> is expertise and experience in fields. I'm suggesting that because
> errors can be made by these people, within the scientific field that
> critical thinking needs to be apply even when one is deemed an expert or
> even when research appears to conform to scientific standards. I'm
> suggesting that because confirmation bias is a human reality that those
> conducting research and those utilizing could be better served by
> exercising critical thinking.


I agree, biases should be minimized. Even under ideal conditions though,
errors are inevitable.

>> >> >> > Failures by scientists would seem to support my position that
>> >> >> > "experts"
>> >> >> > and researchs are flawed like any other human beings.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Of course they are, nobody is denying that.
>> >> >
>> >> > Without critical thinking, how do you determine which experts may
>> >> > make
>> >> > errors and which don't?
>> >>
>> >> When did I advocate abandoning critical thinking?
>> >
>> > What critical thinking have you applied to what you have labeled
>> > "conventional wisdom". Repeating information that one is exposed to is
>> > not a demonstration of critical thinking.

>>
>> It is if one agrees that the information makes sense, or if one finds the
>> source reputable. Nobody has the time to reexamine every study on every
>> topic.

>
> Either/or. So then it because a question of choice of what any of us
> choose to believe. what you describe as "makes sense" is often the
> result of the information feels good for us, so we tend to agree with
> it. The case of information that is anti-vegan would be an example.
> Believing that which does not conform to our thinking or motivations on
> this subject is likely to be ignored and disbelieved in favour of that
> which allows us to feel...smart, intelligent, superior, normal, etc.


I agree again, good points, those are pitfalls we are all challenged to
avoid. I'm sure I've made them, especially in the heat of debate.

>> >> > I'm noticing that you haven't addressed the issue of Type I and II
>> >> > errors with respect to the experts, science and the scientific
>> >> > method.
>> >>
>> >> What about it?
>> >
>> > Let's see how this affects your stated position on these issues.

>>
>> They came up with the wrong conclusion in this case, it happens, they're
>> human.

>
> All scientific research is conducted by humans AFAIK. All reasearchers
> are human. It then seems reasonable to me to review any research with a
> grain of salt before accepting it as "truth" Until I can or do review
> the results, it is merely information.


Most research I have read, and that's not a lot, has sections outlining
possible confounding factors, and there is always people and groups ready to
point out weaknesses after the fact, especially when the results contradict
their beliefs. Then there's the inevitable study five years later that
reaches a contradictory conclusion.. It's pretty daunting to decypher the
truth out of it all. A pound of salt is probably more like it.




  #96 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote:

>
> >> > Ooops. The evidence suggested that there were problems with the human
> >> > trials for human children even before the drug was released for the
> >> > market. ONE of the difficulties was that only a few scientists were in
> >> > disagreement. IOW, the consensus of the medical community was that this
> >> > was a good drug. Further, those conducting the research fell prey to
> >> > type I and II errors when exploring their hypotheses.
> >> >
> >> >> Further, several
> >> >> > who disagreed with the consensus of the experts were ignored.
> >> >>
> >> >> Several *what*, other experts, non-experts, journalists, passers-by?
> >> >
> >> > The public record show 3 degreed individuals at least in the same
> >> > profession
> >>
> >> So it wasn't the presence of "experts" that was the primary problem, you
> >> agree that experts are superior to laymen for doing research..

> >
> > I made no such claim. I merely note that "expertise" is an interesting
> > concept that confuses experience with an ability to think critically.

>
> Is there overwhelming evidence that the dissenting group were were any
> better critical thinkers than the consensus group? They happened to have
> been right in this one case, but that is hardly overwhelming.
>
> > And it was the experts who were the problem.

>
> Everyone involved were experts, maybe som kind of outside influence would
> help in research, not expert of the subject matter but specializing in
> eliminating bias.
>
> >> had concerns with the drug and the rationale. However, as
> >> > confirmation bias allows for people saw what they wanted to see.
> >>
> >> So are you suggesting that the minority opinion should overrule the
> >> majority? That would seem to make things worse, even if would have netted
> >> the right result here. Hindsight is so crystal clear.

> >
> > We disagree. A logical fallacy of a false dilemma. It is possible to
> > incorporate a minority and majority perspective together and look for
> > others options rather than stating an either/or proposition.

>
> I am certain that for some part of the process, all participants'
> perspectives *were* being considered collectively. It was in their final
> conclusions that they disagreed.
>
> >> >> > IOW,
> >> >> > evidence already existed of significant problems without even
> >> >> > needing
> >> >> > to
> >> >> > test the drug on pregnant mice.
> >> >>
> >> >> If testing showed serious problems then the drug should not have been
> >> >> released.
> >> >
> >> > But they followed the consensus with respect to the drug.
> >>
> >> And they were wrong. Does that mean the method was flawed or that science
> >> makes mistakes sometimes?

> >
> > A false dilemma of either/or. I'm suggesting that science is valuable as
> > is expertise and experience in fields. I'm suggesting that because
> > errors can be made by these people, within the scientific field that
> > critical thinking needs to be apply even when one is deemed an expert or
> > even when research appears to conform to scientific standards. I'm
> > suggesting that because confirmation bias is a human reality that those
> > conducting research and those utilizing could be better served by
> > exercising critical thinking.

>
> I agree, biases should be minimized. Even under ideal conditions though,
> errors are inevitable.
>
> >> >> >> > Failures by scientists would seem to support my position that
> >> >> >> > "experts"
> >> >> >> > and researchs are flawed like any other human beings.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Of course they are, nobody is denying that.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Without critical thinking, how do you determine which experts may
> >> >> > make
> >> >> > errors and which don't?
> >> >>
> >> >> When did I advocate abandoning critical thinking?
> >> >
> >> > What critical thinking have you applied to what you have labeled
> >> > "conventional wisdom". Repeating information that one is exposed to is
> >> > not a demonstration of critical thinking.
> >>
> >> It is if one agrees that the information makes sense, or if one finds the
> >> source reputable. Nobody has the time to reexamine every study on every
> >> topic.

> >
> > Either/or. So then it because a question of choice of what any of us
> > choose to believe. what you describe as "makes sense" is often the
> > result of the information feels good for us, so we tend to agree with
> > it. The case of information that is anti-vegan would be an example.
> > Believing that which does not conform to our thinking or motivations on
> > this subject is likely to be ignored and disbelieved in favour of that
> > which allows us to feel...smart, intelligent, superior, normal, etc.

>
> I agree again, good points, those are pitfalls we are all challenged to
> avoid. I'm sure I've made them, especially in the heat of debate.
>
> >> >> > I'm noticing that you haven't addressed the issue of Type I and II
> >> >> > errors with respect to the experts, science and the scientific
> >> >> > method.
> >> >>
> >> >> What about it?
> >> >
> >> > Let's see how this affects your stated position on these issues.
> >>
> >> They came up with the wrong conclusion in this case, it happens, they're
> >> human.

> >
> > All scientific research is conducted by humans AFAIK. All reasearchers
> > are human. It then seems reasonable to me to review any research with a
> > grain of salt before accepting it as "truth" Until I can or do review
> > the results, it is merely information.

>
> Most research I have read, and that's not a lot, has sections outlining
> possible confounding factors, and there is always people and groups ready to
> point out weaknesses after the fact, especially when the results contradict
> their beliefs. Then there's the inevitable study five years later that
> reaches a contradictory conclusion.. It's pretty daunting to decypher the
> truth out of it all. A pound of salt is probably more like it.


"A pound of salt" is precisely how I view all information, yet, you
consider that among other things as devil's advocate, disagreement with
conventional wisdom, radical chic and so on.
  #97 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Ron" > wrote

> "A pound of salt" is precisely how I view all information, yet, you
> consider that among other things as devil's advocate, disagreement with
> conventional wisdom, radical chic and so on.


You appear to have a tendency to scoff at "conventional wisdom" for no other
reason than it's popular. The reason I say so is that the questions,
conclusions and arguments you present have frequently been clearly
nonsensical. Based on that observation I can't believe that you have
examined "conventional wisdom" critically, so I assume you reject it as an
exercise in non-conformity, not skepticism.


  #98 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Ron" > wrote

> "A pound of salt" is precisely how I view all information, yet, you
> consider that among other things as devil's advocate, disagreement with
> conventional wisdom, radical chic and so on.


You appear to have a tendency to scoff at "conventional wisdom" for no other
reason than it's popular. The reason I say so is that the questions,
conclusions and arguments you present have frequently been clearly
nonsensical. Based on that observation I can't believe that you have
examined "conventional wisdom" critically, so I assume you reject it as an
exercise in non-conformity, not skepticism.


  #99 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
>
> > "A pound of salt" is precisely how I view all information, yet, you
> > consider that among other things as devil's advocate, disagreement with
> > conventional wisdom, radical chic and so on.

>
> You appear to have a tendency to scoff at "conventional wisdom" for no other
> reason than it's popular. The reason I say so is that the questions,
> conclusions and arguments you present have frequently been clearly
> nonsensical. Based on that observation I can't believe that you have
> examined "conventional wisdom" critically, so I assume you reject it as an
> exercise in non-conformity, not skepticism.


Conventional wisdom is a general term that you applied to those things
for which you agree. A feel good proposition, if you ask me.

Agreement with X because it is popular amounts to a logical fallacy.
  #100 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
>
> > "A pound of salt" is precisely how I view all information, yet, you
> > consider that among other things as devil's advocate, disagreement with
> > conventional wisdom, radical chic and so on.

>
> You appear to have a tendency to scoff at "conventional wisdom" for no other
> reason than it's popular. The reason I say so is that the questions,
> conclusions and arguments you present have frequently been clearly
> nonsensical. Based on that observation I can't believe that you have
> examined "conventional wisdom" critically, so I assume you reject it as an
> exercise in non-conformity, not skepticism.


Conventional wisdom is a general term that you applied to those things
for which you agree. A feel good proposition, if you ask me.

Agreement with X because it is popular amounts to a logical fallacy.


  #101 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote
>>
>> > "A pound of salt" is precisely how I view all information, yet, you
>> > consider that among other things as devil's advocate, disagreement with
>> > conventional wisdom, radical chic and so on.

>>
>> You appear to have a tendency to scoff at "conventional wisdom" for no
>> other
>> reason than it's popular. The reason I say so is that the questions,
>> conclusions and arguments you present have frequently been clearly
>> nonsensical. Based on that observation I can't believe that you have
>> examined "conventional wisdom" critically, so I assume you reject it as
>> an
>> exercise in non-conformity, not skepticism.

>
> Conventional wisdom is a general term that you applied to those things
> for which you agree. A feel good proposition, if you ask me.


It doesn't mean *I* necessarily agree with it, it refers to ideas which are
widely accepted.

> Agreement with X because it is popular amounts to a logical fallacy.


I know that. Disagreement with X because it is popular also amounts to a
logical fallacy.


  #102 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote
>>
>> > "A pound of salt" is precisely how I view all information, yet, you
>> > consider that among other things as devil's advocate, disagreement with
>> > conventional wisdom, radical chic and so on.

>>
>> You appear to have a tendency to scoff at "conventional wisdom" for no
>> other
>> reason than it's popular. The reason I say so is that the questions,
>> conclusions and arguments you present have frequently been clearly
>> nonsensical. Based on that observation I can't believe that you have
>> examined "conventional wisdom" critically, so I assume you reject it as
>> an
>> exercise in non-conformity, not skepticism.

>
> Conventional wisdom is a general term that you applied to those things
> for which you agree. A feel good proposition, if you ask me.


It doesn't mean *I* necessarily agree with it, it refers to ideas which are
widely accepted.

> Agreement with X because it is popular amounts to a logical fallacy.


I know that. Disagreement with X because it is popular also amounts to a
logical fallacy.


  #103 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "Ron" > wrote
> >>
> >> > "A pound of salt" is precisely how I view all information, yet, you
> >> > consider that among other things as devil's advocate, disagreement with
> >> > conventional wisdom, radical chic and so on.
> >>
> >> You appear to have a tendency to scoff at "conventional wisdom" for no
> >> other
> >> reason than it's popular. The reason I say so is that the questions,
> >> conclusions and arguments you present have frequently been clearly
> >> nonsensical. Based on that observation I can't believe that you have
> >> examined "conventional wisdom" critically, so I assume you reject it as
> >> an
> >> exercise in non-conformity, not skepticism.

> >
> > Conventional wisdom is a general term that you applied to those things
> > for which you agree. A feel good proposition, if you ask me.

>
> It doesn't mean *I* necessarily agree with it, it refers to ideas which are
> widely accepted.


Arguments from popularity.

> > Agreement with X because it is popular amounts to a logical fallacy.

>
> I know that. Disagreement with X because it is popular also amounts to a
> logical fallacy.


That is either/or thinking -- more of the false dilemma.

You are offering me two choices, agree or believe the information versus
disagree or disbelieve the information. I consider a third option, it is
information that can be believed or disbelieved and still be held as
information.

this goes back week's Dutch. I clearly pointed out to you that I found
many, many of your statement to be black and white, either/or, or false
dilemmas.
  #104 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "Ron" > wrote
> >>
> >> > "A pound of salt" is precisely how I view all information, yet, you
> >> > consider that among other things as devil's advocate, disagreement with
> >> > conventional wisdom, radical chic and so on.
> >>
> >> You appear to have a tendency to scoff at "conventional wisdom" for no
> >> other
> >> reason than it's popular. The reason I say so is that the questions,
> >> conclusions and arguments you present have frequently been clearly
> >> nonsensical. Based on that observation I can't believe that you have
> >> examined "conventional wisdom" critically, so I assume you reject it as
> >> an
> >> exercise in non-conformity, not skepticism.

> >
> > Conventional wisdom is a general term that you applied to those things
> > for which you agree. A feel good proposition, if you ask me.

>
> It doesn't mean *I* necessarily agree with it, it refers to ideas which are
> widely accepted.


Arguments from popularity.

> > Agreement with X because it is popular amounts to a logical fallacy.

>
> I know that. Disagreement with X because it is popular also amounts to a
> logical fallacy.


That is either/or thinking -- more of the false dilemma.

You are offering me two choices, agree or believe the information versus
disagree or disbelieve the information. I consider a third option, it is
information that can be believed or disbelieved and still be held as
information.

this goes back week's Dutch. I clearly pointed out to you that I found
many, many of your statement to be black and white, either/or, or false
dilemmas.
  #105 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >, "Dutch" >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Ron" > wrote
>> >>
>> >> > "A pound of salt" is precisely how I view all information, yet, you
>> >> > consider that among other things as devil's advocate, disagreement
>> >> > with
>> >> > conventional wisdom, radical chic and so on.
>> >>
>> >> You appear to have a tendency to scoff at "conventional wisdom" for no
>> >> other
>> >> reason than it's popular. The reason I say so is that the questions,
>> >> conclusions and arguments you present have frequently been clearly
>> >> nonsensical. Based on that observation I can't believe that you have
>> >> examined "conventional wisdom" critically, so I assume you reject it
>> >> as
>> >> an
>> >> exercise in non-conformity, not skepticism.
>> >
>> > Conventional wisdom is a general term that you applied to those things
>> > for which you agree. A feel good proposition, if you ask me.

>>
>> It doesn't mean *I* necessarily agree with it, it refers to ideas which
>> are
>> widely accepted.

>
> Arguments from popularity.
>
>> > Agreement with X because it is popular amounts to a logical fallacy.

>>
>> I know that. Disagreement with X because it is popular also amounts to a
>> logical fallacy.

>
> That is either/or thinking -- more of the false dilemma.


Wake up Ron!!!! I presented no dilemma.

> You are offering me two choices, agree or believe the information versus
> disagree or disbelieve the information.


I didn't offer you ANY choices, I stated a fact that you need to get a grip
on, "Disagreement with X because it is popular amounts to a logical fallacy"

> I consider a third option, it is
> information that can be believed or disbelieved and still be held as
> information.


You're wrong, information should not be believed OR disbelieved until you
assess it for yourself, it should be taken in and held provisionally.

> this goes back week's Dutch. I clearly pointed out to you that I found
> many, many of your statement to be black and white, either/or, or false
> dilemmas.


You're out to lunch.




  #106 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >, "Dutch" >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Ron" > wrote
>> >>
>> >> > "A pound of salt" is precisely how I view all information, yet, you
>> >> > consider that among other things as devil's advocate, disagreement
>> >> > with
>> >> > conventional wisdom, radical chic and so on.
>> >>
>> >> You appear to have a tendency to scoff at "conventional wisdom" for no
>> >> other
>> >> reason than it's popular. The reason I say so is that the questions,
>> >> conclusions and arguments you present have frequently been clearly
>> >> nonsensical. Based on that observation I can't believe that you have
>> >> examined "conventional wisdom" critically, so I assume you reject it
>> >> as
>> >> an
>> >> exercise in non-conformity, not skepticism.
>> >
>> > Conventional wisdom is a general term that you applied to those things
>> > for which you agree. A feel good proposition, if you ask me.

>>
>> It doesn't mean *I* necessarily agree with it, it refers to ideas which
>> are
>> widely accepted.

>
> Arguments from popularity.
>
>> > Agreement with X because it is popular amounts to a logical fallacy.

>>
>> I know that. Disagreement with X because it is popular also amounts to a
>> logical fallacy.

>
> That is either/or thinking -- more of the false dilemma.


Wake up Ron!!!! I presented no dilemma.

> You are offering me two choices, agree or believe the information versus
> disagree or disbelieve the information.


I didn't offer you ANY choices, I stated a fact that you need to get a grip
on, "Disagreement with X because it is popular amounts to a logical fallacy"

> I consider a third option, it is
> information that can be believed or disbelieved and still be held as
> information.


You're wrong, information should not be believed OR disbelieved until you
assess it for yourself, it should be taken in and held provisionally.

> this goes back week's Dutch. I clearly pointed out to you that I found
> many, many of your statement to be black and white, either/or, or false
> dilemmas.


You're out to lunch.


  #107 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "Ron" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "Ron" > wrote
> >> >>
> >> >> > "A pound of salt" is precisely how I view all information, yet, you
> >> >> > consider that among other things as devil's advocate, disagreement
> >> >> > with
> >> >> > conventional wisdom, radical chic and so on.
> >> >>
> >> >> You appear to have a tendency to scoff at "conventional wisdom" for no
> >> >> other
> >> >> reason than it's popular. The reason I say so is that the questions,
> >> >> conclusions and arguments you present have frequently been clearly
> >> >> nonsensical. Based on that observation I can't believe that you have
> >> >> examined "conventional wisdom" critically, so I assume you reject it
> >> >> as
> >> >> an
> >> >> exercise in non-conformity, not skepticism.
> >> >
> >> > Conventional wisdom is a general term that you applied to those things
> >> > for which you agree. A feel good proposition, if you ask me.
> >>
> >> It doesn't mean *I* necessarily agree with it, it refers to ideas which
> >> are
> >> widely accepted.

> >
> > Arguments from popularity.
> >
> >> > Agreement with X because it is popular amounts to a logical fallacy.
> >>
> >> I know that. Disagreement with X because it is popular also amounts to a
> >> logical fallacy.

> >
> > That is either/or thinking -- more of the false dilemma.

>
> Wake up Ron!!!! I presented no dilemma.


Of course you did. I just stopped commenting on when it was happening.

> > You are offering me two choices, agree or believe the information versus
> > disagree or disbelieve the information.

>
> I didn't offer you ANY choices, I stated a fact that you need to get a grip
> on, "Disagreement with X because it is popular amounts to a logical fallacy"


You have consistently presented two choices or two interpretations --
this OR that. A false dilemma.

> > I consider a third option, it is
> > information that can be believed or disbelieved and still be held as
> > information.

>
> You're wrong, information should not be believed OR disbelieved until you
> assess it for yourself, it should be taken in and held provisionally.


Which is what I've been saying all along -- this includes what you have
loosely termed "conventional wisdom".

> > this goes back week's Dutch. I clearly pointed out to you that I found
> > many, many of your statement to be black and white, either/or, or false
> > dilemmas.

>
> You're out to lunch.


I can eat a sandwich and recognize it for what it is -- I think my
sanity is very much intact. People with perceptual problems and no
control aren't likely to be able to manage that reality very well.
  #108 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "Ron" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "Ron" > wrote
> >> >>
> >> >> > "A pound of salt" is precisely how I view all information, yet, you
> >> >> > consider that among other things as devil's advocate, disagreement
> >> >> > with
> >> >> > conventional wisdom, radical chic and so on.
> >> >>
> >> >> You appear to have a tendency to scoff at "conventional wisdom" for no
> >> >> other
> >> >> reason than it's popular. The reason I say so is that the questions,
> >> >> conclusions and arguments you present have frequently been clearly
> >> >> nonsensical. Based on that observation I can't believe that you have
> >> >> examined "conventional wisdom" critically, so I assume you reject it
> >> >> as
> >> >> an
> >> >> exercise in non-conformity, not skepticism.
> >> >
> >> > Conventional wisdom is a general term that you applied to those things
> >> > for which you agree. A feel good proposition, if you ask me.
> >>
> >> It doesn't mean *I* necessarily agree with it, it refers to ideas which
> >> are
> >> widely accepted.

> >
> > Arguments from popularity.
> >
> >> > Agreement with X because it is popular amounts to a logical fallacy.
> >>
> >> I know that. Disagreement with X because it is popular also amounts to a
> >> logical fallacy.

> >
> > That is either/or thinking -- more of the false dilemma.

>
> Wake up Ron!!!! I presented no dilemma.


Of course you did. I just stopped commenting on when it was happening.

> > You are offering me two choices, agree or believe the information versus
> > disagree or disbelieve the information.

>
> I didn't offer you ANY choices, I stated a fact that you need to get a grip
> on, "Disagreement with X because it is popular amounts to a logical fallacy"


You have consistently presented two choices or two interpretations --
this OR that. A false dilemma.

> > I consider a third option, it is
> > information that can be believed or disbelieved and still be held as
> > information.

>
> You're wrong, information should not be believed OR disbelieved until you
> assess it for yourself, it should be taken in and held provisionally.


Which is what I've been saying all along -- this includes what you have
loosely termed "conventional wisdom".

> > this goes back week's Dutch. I clearly pointed out to you that I found
> > many, many of your statement to be black and white, either/or, or false
> > dilemmas.

>
> You're out to lunch.


I can eat a sandwich and recognize it for what it is -- I think my
sanity is very much intact. People with perceptual problems and no
control aren't likely to be able to manage that reality very well.
  #109 (permalink)   Report Post  
pearl
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Gordon Couger" > wrote in message news:0xcKd.9159$8Q.7467@okepread06...
> I tend to agree with you all human studies are seriously flawed


'William Harris, M.D. writes: On 11/30/99 I took 16 samples of
soy products for an aluminum assay to University of Hawaii at
Manoa College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources.
.....
...there are still some lively academic voices suspecting a role for
aluminum in Alzheimer's and other neurodegenerative disease.

A few can be found referenced at:

http://www.bio.unipd.it/~zatta/alumin.htm
http://www.tv.cbc.ca/healthshow/pastitem/adandal.html
http://student.biology.arizona.edu/ad/reference.html
http://student.biology.arizona.edu/ad/allevels.html

The following references can be researched at:

http://www.medportal.com/

Clauberg M., and Joshi, J.G. "Regulation of serine protease activity
by aluminum: Implications for Alzheimer disease." Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 90
(1993) 1009-12.

Fasman, G D., and Moore, C.D. "The solubilization of model
Alzheimer tangles: Reversing the b-sheet conformation induced by
aluminum with silicates." Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences of the United States of America. 91 (1994): 11232- 11235.

Ghany, M.A. et al. "Aluminum-induced Nonenzymatic Phospho-
incorporation into Human Tau and Other Proteins." The Journal
of Biological Chemistry. 268 (1993): 11976- 11981.

Hollosi, Miklos et al. "Stable Intrachain and Intrachain complexes
of neurofilament peptides: A putative link between Al and Alzheimer
disease." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the
United States of America. 91 (1994): 4902-4906.

Jacqmin, Helene et al. "Components of Drinking Water and Risk
of Cogitive Impairment in the Elderly." American Journal of
Epidemiology. 139 (1994): 48-57.

Kuroda, Y. et al. "Application of Long-Term Cultured Neurons
in Aging and Neurological Research: Aluminum Neurotoxicity,
Synaptic Degeneration and Alzheimers Disease." Gerontology.
41 (1994): 2-6.

Lovell, M.A. et al. "Laser Microprobe Analysis of Brain Aluminum
in Alzheimers Disease." Annals of Neurology. 33 (1993): 36-42.

Mattson, M.P. "Comparison of the effects of elevated intracellular
aluminum and calcium levels on neuronal survival and tau
immunoreactivity." Brain Research. 602 (1993): 21-31.

McLachlan, D.R. et al. "Desferrioxamine and Alzheimers Disease:
Video Home Behavior Assesment of Clinical Course and Measures
of Brain Aluminum." Therapeutic Drug Monitoring. 15 (1993): 602-607.

McLachlan, D.R. et al. "Risk for neuropathologically confirmed
Alzheimers disease and residual aluminum in municipal drinking
water employing weighted residential histories." Neurology. 46
(1996): 401-405.
...
http://www.vegsource.com/harris/brain_aging.htm

> compared to the same kind of study done in rats or pigs because
> you can't control all the variables all their lives and kill
> them and and study their organs and then feed the meat to other
> animals to see if it has an effect on them.


"My own conviction is that the study of human physiology by way
of experiments on animals is the most grotesque and fantastic error
ever committed in the whole range of human intellectual activity."
- Dr G. F. Walker, Medical World, December 1933.
.....
http://www.health.org.nz/contents.html

BMJ 2004;328:514-517 (28 February),
doi:10.1136/bmj.328.7438.514

Where is the evidence that animal research benefits humans?
Pandora Pound, research fellow1, Shah Ebrahim, professor1,
Peter Sandercock, professor2, Michael B Bracken, professor3,
Ian Roberts, professor4 Reviewing Animal Trials Systematically
(RATS) Group 1 Department of Social Medicine, University of
Bristol, Bristol BS8 2PR, 2 Department of Clinical Neurosciences,
University of Edinburgh, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh ..,
3 Center for Perinatal, Pediatric, and Environmental Epidemiology,
Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT 06520
USA, 4 London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine,
London WC1B 3DP
...
Clinicians and the public often consider it axiomatic that animal
research has contributed to the treatment of human disease, yet
little evidence is available to support this view. Few methods
exist for evaluating the clinical relevance or importance of basic
animal research, and so its clinical (as distinct from scientific)
contribution remains uncertain.1 Anecdotal evidence or
unsupported claims are often used as justification-for example,
statements that the need for animal research is "self evident"2
or that "Animal experimentation is a valuable research method
which has proved itself over time."3 Such statements are an
inadequate form of evidence for such a controversial area of
research. We argue that systematic reviews of existing and
future research are needed.

Assessing animal research

Despite the lack of systematic evidence for its effectiveness,
basic animal research in the United Kingdom receives much
more funding than clinical research.1 4 5 Given this, and
because the public accepts animal research only on the
assumption that it benefits humans,6 the clinical relevance of
animal experiments needs urgent clarification.
..............'
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/conte...l/328/7438/514


  #110 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:

[..]

>> >> > Agreement with X because it is popular amounts to a logical fallacy.
>> >>
>> >> I know that. Disagreement with X because it is popular also amounts to
>> >> a
>> >> logical fallacy.
>> >
>> > That is either/or thinking -- more of the false dilemma.

>>
>> Wake up Ron!!!! I presented no dilemma.

>
> Of course you did. I just stopped commenting on when it was happening.


Of course I did not. You presented the opinion that "Agreement with X
because it is popular amounts to a logical fallacy", which is true, to which
I replied, "Disagreement with X because it is popular amounts to a logical
fallacy" which is also true. I did not suggest that you must select one or
the other, in fact my point is that YOU appear to reject fallacy "A" and put
"B" in it's place. Why would I suggest that you must select one of two
responses both of which I have just finished identifying as logical
fallacies?

>> > You are offering me two choices, agree or believe the information
>> > versus
>> > disagree or disbelieve the information.

>>
>> I didn't offer you ANY choices, I stated a fact that you need to get a
>> grip
>> on, "Disagreement with X because it is popular amounts to a logical
>> fallacy"

>
> You have consistently presented two choices or two interpretations --
> this OR that. A false dilemma.


You are seeing something that isn't there. You are creating it.

>> > I consider a third option, it is
>> > information that can be believed or disbelieved and still be held as
>> > information.

>>
>> You're wrong, information should not be believed OR disbelieved until you
>> assess it for yourself, it should be taken in and held provisionally.

>
> Which is what I've been saying all along -- this includes what you have
> loosely termed "conventional wisdom".


Exactly right. I have never advocated accepting "conventional wisdom"
uncritically, what I have been saying is that you should not *reject*
"conventional wisdom" uncritically as you seem to do.

>> > this goes back week's Dutch. I clearly pointed out to you that I found
>> > many, many of your statement to be black and white, either/or, or false
>> > dilemmas.

>>
>> You're out to lunch.

>
> I can eat a sandwich and recognize it for what it is -- I think my
> sanity is very much intact. People with perceptual problems and no
> control aren't likely to be able to manage that reality very well.


You live in a world of your own design, you see false dilemmas where none
exist.




  #111 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:

> [..]
>
> >> >> > Agreement with X because it is popular amounts to a logical fallacy.
> >> >>
> >> >> I know that. Disagreement with X because it is popular also amounts to
> >> >> a
> >> >> logical fallacy.
> >> >
> >> > That is either/or thinking -- more of the false dilemma.
> >>
> >> Wake up Ron!!!! I presented no dilemma.

> >
> > Of course you did. I just stopped commenting on when it was happening.

>
> Of course I did not. You presented the opinion that "Agreement with X
> because it is popular amounts to a logical fallacy", which is true, to which
> I replied, "Disagreement with X because it is popular amounts to a logical
> fallacy" which is also true. I did not suggest that you must select one or
> the other, in fact my point is that YOU appear to reject fallacy "A" and put
> "B" in it's place. Why would I suggest that you must select one of two
> responses both of which I have just finished identifying as logical
> fallacies?
>
> >> > You are offering me two choices, agree or believe the information
> >> > versus
> >> > disagree or disbelieve the information.
> >>
> >> I didn't offer you ANY choices, I stated a fact that you need to get a
> >> grip
> >> on, "Disagreement with X because it is popular amounts to a logical
> >> fallacy"

> >
> > You have consistently presented two choices or two interpretations --
> > this OR that. A false dilemma.

>
> You are seeing something that isn't there. You are creating it.
>
> >> > I consider a third option, it is
> >> > information that can be believed or disbelieved and still be held as
> >> > information.
> >>
> >> You're wrong, information should not be believed OR disbelieved until you
> >> assess it for yourself, it should be taken in and held provisionally.

> >
> > Which is what I've been saying all along -- this includes what you have
> > loosely termed "conventional wisdom".

>
> Exactly right. I have never advocated accepting "conventional wisdom"
> uncritically, what I have been saying is that you should not *reject*
> "conventional wisdom" uncritically as you seem to do.
>
> >> > this goes back week's Dutch. I clearly pointed out to you that I found
> >> > many, many of your statement to be black and white, either/or, or false
> >> > dilemmas.
> >>
> >> You're out to lunch.

> >
> > I can eat a sandwich and recognize it for what it is -- I think my
> > sanity is very much intact. People with perceptual problems and no
> > control aren't likely to be able to manage that reality very well.

>
> You live in a world of your own design,


We all do.

In the world that I've designed for myself, I can eat. I can live and I
can surround myself with "healthy" individuals. It seems you constructed
a different world/reality for yourself. Funny how that is.

> you see false dilemmas where none
> exist.

  #112 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Ron" > wrote

>> Maybe some of them do, depending on who pays them. I would add that
>> vegetarian advocates are quick to point out weaknesses in the methodolgy
>> of
>> this particular research. Here is an example
>> http://www.vnv.org.au/Nutrition/SoyFoods.htm. So obviously more
>> confirmation
>> bias at work there.

>
> The net result of this conversation is that is a lot of information the
> contradicts. To accept any information on the brain aging and senility
> is then a choice.
>
> Oddly, each of the results confirming or negating the opinions is done
> by "experts".


Experts form opinions based on limited data. These opinions should be
considered and held tentatively, neither accepted holus-bolus nor rejected
out of hand. This kind of rational critical thinking is difficult for many
people. People are uncomfortable with uncertainity, they tend to want to
*know* if it is RIGHT or WRONG.


  #113 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
>
> >> Maybe some of them do, depending on who pays them. I would add that
> >> vegetarian advocates are quick to point out weaknesses in the methodolgy
> >> of
> >> this particular research. Here is an example
> >> http://www.vnv.org.au/Nutrition/SoyFoods.htm. So obviously more
> >> confirmation
> >> bias at work there.

> >
> > The net result of this conversation is that is a lot of information the
> > contradicts. To accept any information on the brain aging and senility
> > is then a choice.
> >
> > Oddly, each of the results confirming or negating the opinions is done
> > by "experts".

>
> Experts form opinions based on limited data. These opinions should be
> considered and held tentatively, neither accepted holus-bolus nor rejected
> out of hand. This kind of rational critical thinking is difficult for many
> people. People are uncomfortable with uncertainity, they tend to want to
> *know* if it is RIGHT or WRONG.


A false dilemma of providing only two choices. The information is right,
the information is wrong, or the information is simply just information
that can be assessed later. I don't know (or the fear of being wrong)
becomes I don't know, yet.
  #114 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Dutch wrote:
> homo felcher Ron wrote
>
> >> Maybe some of them do, depending on who pays them. I would add

that
> >> vegetarian advocates are quick to point out weaknesses in the

methodolgy
> >> of
> >> this particular research. Here is an example
> >> http://www.vnv.org.au/Nutrition/SoyFoods.htm. So obviously more
> >> confirmation
> >> bias at work there.

> >
> > The net result of this conversation is that is a lot of information

the
> > contradicts. To accept any information on the brain aging and

senility
> > is then a choice.
> >
> > Oddly, each of the results confirming or negating the opinions is

done
> > by "experts".

>
> Experts form opinions based on limited data. These opinions should be


> considered and held tentatively, neither accepted holus-bolus nor

rejected
> out of hand. This kind of rational critical thinking is difficult for

many
> people. People are uncomfortable with uncertainity, they tend to want

to
> *know* if it is RIGHT or WRONG.


Homo felcher Ron isn't interested in right/wrong (actually,
correct/incorrect) in this way. The skanky little sophist is only
concerned with appearance, and the particular appearance he wishes to
cultivate with his seemingly out-of-hand rejection of scientific
conclusions, ANY scientific conclusions, is that he somehow is "beyond"
all that kind of thing. To the little felcher, appearance is
everything.

  #115 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >, "Dutch" >
>> > wrote:

>> [..]
>>
>> >> >> > Agreement with X because it is popular amounts to a logical
>> >> >> > fallacy.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I know that. Disagreement with X because it is popular also amounts
>> >> >> to
>> >> >> a
>> >> >> logical fallacy.
>> >> >
>> >> > That is either/or thinking -- more of the false dilemma.
>> >>
>> >> Wake up Ron!!!! I presented no dilemma.
>> >
>> > Of course you did. I just stopped commenting on when it was happening.

>>
>> Of course I did not. You presented the opinion that "Agreement with X
>> because it is popular amounts to a logical fallacy", which is true, to
>> which
>> I replied, "Disagreement with X because it is popular amounts to a
>> logical
>> fallacy" which is also true. I did not suggest that you must select one
>> or
>> the other, in fact my point is that YOU appear to reject fallacy "A" and
>> put
>> "B" in it's place. Why would I suggest that you must select one of two
>> responses both of which I have just finished identifying as logical
>> fallacies?
>>
>> >> > You are offering me two choices, agree or believe the information
>> >> > versus
>> >> > disagree or disbelieve the information.
>> >>
>> >> I didn't offer you ANY choices, I stated a fact that you need to get a
>> >> grip
>> >> on, "Disagreement with X because it is popular amounts to a logical
>> >> fallacy"
>> >
>> > You have consistently presented two choices or two interpretations --
>> > this OR that. A false dilemma.

>>
>> You are seeing something that isn't there. You are creating it.
>>
>> >> > I consider a third option, it is
>> >> > information that can be believed or disbelieved and still be held as
>> >> > information.
>> >>
>> >> You're wrong, information should not be believed OR disbelieved until
>> >> you
>> >> assess it for yourself, it should be taken in and held provisionally.
>> >
>> > Which is what I've been saying all along -- this includes what you have
>> > loosely termed "conventional wisdom".

>>
>> Exactly right. I have never advocated accepting "conventional wisdom"
>> uncritically, what I have been saying is that you should not *reject*
>> "conventional wisdom" uncritically as you seem to do.
>>
>> >> > this goes back week's Dutch. I clearly pointed out to you that I
>> >> > found
>> >> > many, many of your statement to be black and white, either/or, or
>> >> > false
>> >> > dilemmas.
>> >>
>> >> You're out to lunch.
>> >
>> > I can eat a sandwich and recognize it for what it is -- I think my
>> > sanity is very much intact. People with perceptual problems and no
>> > control aren't likely to be able to manage that reality very well.

>>
>> You live in a world of your own design,

>
> We all do.


Not with respect to the body of logic and reason. Either you live in that
world or you create your own little irrational feelgood world. Your choice.

> In the world that I've designed for myself, I can eat. I can live and I
> can surround myself with "healthy" individuals.


I'm all right Jack.

> It seems you constructed
> a different world/reality for yourself. Funny how that is.


Non sequitor and distraction. See below.

>> you see false dilemmas where none
>> exist.





  #116 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote
>>
>> >> Maybe some of them do, depending on who pays them. I would add that
>> >> vegetarian advocates are quick to point out weaknesses in the
>> >> methodolgy
>> >> of
>> >> this particular research. Here is an example
>> >> http://www.vnv.org.au/Nutrition/SoyFoods.htm. So obviously more
>> >> confirmation
>> >> bias at work there.
>> >
>> > The net result of this conversation is that is a lot of information the
>> > contradicts. To accept any information on the brain aging and senility
>> > is then a choice.
>> >
>> > Oddly, each of the results confirming or negating the opinions is done
>> > by "experts".

>>
>> Experts form opinions based on limited data. These opinions should be
>> considered and held tentatively, neither accepted holus-bolus nor
>> rejected
>> out of hand. This kind of rational critical thinking is difficult for
>> many
>> people. People are uncomfortable with uncertainity, they tend to want to
>> *know* if it is RIGHT or WRONG.

>
> A false dilemma of providing only two choices. The information is right,
> the information is wrong, or the information is simply just information
> that can be assessed later. I don't know (or the fear of being wrong)
> becomes I don't know, yet.


Then stop assuming that "conventional wisdom" is always wrong.


  #117 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

homo felcher Ron wrote:
> In article >, "Dutch"

>
> wrote:
>
> > homo felcher Ron wrote
> >
> > >> Maybe some of them do, depending on who pays them. I would add

that
> > >> vegetarian advocates are quick to point out weaknesses in the

methodolgy
> > >> of
> > >> this particular research. Here is an example
> > >> http://www.vnv.org.au/Nutrition/SoyFoods.htm. So obviously more
> > >> confirmation
> > >> bias at work there.
> > >
> > > The net result of this conversation is that is a lot of

information the
> > > contradicts. To accept any information on the brain aging and

senility
> > > is then a choice.
> > >
> > > Oddly, each of the results confirming or negating the opinions is

done
> > > by "experts".

> >
> > Experts form opinions based on limited data. These opinions should

be
> > considered and held tentatively, neither accepted holus-bolus nor

rejected
> > out of hand. This kind of rational critical thinking is difficult

for many
> > people. People are uncomfortable with uncertainity, they tend to

want to
> > *know* if it is RIGHT or WRONG.

>
> A false dilemma of providing only two choices.


No, not a "false dilemma".

That really does seem to be a catch-all with you. Fundamentally,
little homo, you don't understand the meaning of the word dilemma.

  #118 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "Ron" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> >> > wrote:
> >> [..]
> >>
> >> >> >> > Agreement with X because it is popular amounts to a logical
> >> >> >> > fallacy.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I know that. Disagreement with X because it is popular also amounts
> >> >> >> to
> >> >> >> a
> >> >> >> logical fallacy.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > That is either/or thinking -- more of the false dilemma.
> >> >>
> >> >> Wake up Ron!!!! I presented no dilemma.
> >> >
> >> > Of course you did. I just stopped commenting on when it was happening.
> >>
> >> Of course I did not. You presented the opinion that "Agreement with X
> >> because it is popular amounts to a logical fallacy", which is true, to
> >> which
> >> I replied, "Disagreement with X because it is popular amounts to a
> >> logical
> >> fallacy" which is also true. I did not suggest that you must select one
> >> or
> >> the other, in fact my point is that YOU appear to reject fallacy "A" and
> >> put
> >> "B" in it's place. Why would I suggest that you must select one of two
> >> responses both of which I have just finished identifying as logical
> >> fallacies?
> >>
> >> >> > You are offering me two choices, agree or believe the information
> >> >> > versus
> >> >> > disagree or disbelieve the information.
> >> >>
> >> >> I didn't offer you ANY choices, I stated a fact that you need to get a
> >> >> grip
> >> >> on, "Disagreement with X because it is popular amounts to a logical
> >> >> fallacy"
> >> >
> >> > You have consistently presented two choices or two interpretations --
> >> > this OR that. A false dilemma.
> >>
> >> You are seeing something that isn't there. You are creating it.
> >>
> >> >> > I consider a third option, it is
> >> >> > information that can be believed or disbelieved and still be held as
> >> >> > information.
> >> >>
> >> >> You're wrong, information should not be believed OR disbelieved until
> >> >> you
> >> >> assess it for yourself, it should be taken in and held provisionally.
> >> >
> >> > Which is what I've been saying all along -- this includes what you have
> >> > loosely termed "conventional wisdom".
> >>
> >> Exactly right. I have never advocated accepting "conventional wisdom"
> >> uncritically, what I have been saying is that you should not *reject*
> >> "conventional wisdom" uncritically as you seem to do.
> >>
> >> >> > this goes back week's Dutch. I clearly pointed out to you that I
> >> >> > found
> >> >> > many, many of your statement to be black and white, either/or, or
> >> >> > false
> >> >> > dilemmas.
> >> >>
> >> >> You're out to lunch.
> >> >
> >> > I can eat a sandwich and recognize it for what it is -- I think my
> >> > sanity is very much intact. People with perceptual problems and no
> >> > control aren't likely to be able to manage that reality very well.
> >>
> >> You live in a world of your own design,

> >
> > We all do.

>
> Not with respect to the body of logic and reason. Either you live in that
> world or you create your own little irrational feelgood world. Your choice.


I choose healthy people to date. You choose, it would seem by your
comments, someone who is mentally unstable and unable to control their
obsessional behaviour. We do construct our own reality. Based further on
your comments, you chose to have an eating disorder. Again, we construct
our own world. Whereas, I choose to eat.

> > In the world that I've designed for myself, I can eat. I can live and I
> > can surround myself with "healthy" individuals.

>
> I'm all right Jack.


The evidence suggests otherwise. Someone with an eating disorder married
to someone with an eating disorder contradicts your claims of wellness.

> > It seems you constructed
> > a different world/reality for yourself. Funny how that is.

>
> Non sequitor and distraction. See below.
>
> >> you see false dilemmas where none
> >> exist.

  #119 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

little HIV+ felcher Ron wrote:
> In article >, "Dutch"

>
> wrote:
>
> > little HIV+ felcher Ron wrote in message
> > ...
> > > In article >, "Dutch"

>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> little HIV+ felcher Ron wrote in message
> > >> ...
> > >> > In article >, "Dutch"

>
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> [..]
> > >>
> > >> You live in a world of your own design,
> > >
> > > We all do.

> >
> > Not with respect to the body of logic and reason. Either you live

in that
> > world or you create your own little irrational feelgood world. Your

choice.
>
> I choose healthy people to date.


non sequitur.

  #120 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "Ron" > wrote
> >>
> >> >> Maybe some of them do, depending on who pays them. I would add that
> >> >> vegetarian advocates are quick to point out weaknesses in the
> >> >> methodolgy
> >> >> of
> >> >> this particular research. Here is an example
> >> >> http://www.vnv.org.au/Nutrition/SoyFoods.htm. So obviously more
> >> >> confirmation
> >> >> bias at work there.
> >> >
> >> > The net result of this conversation is that is a lot of information the
> >> > contradicts. To accept any information on the brain aging and senility
> >> > is then a choice.
> >> >
> >> > Oddly, each of the results confirming or negating the opinions is done
> >> > by "experts".
> >>
> >> Experts form opinions based on limited data. These opinions should be
> >> considered and held tentatively, neither accepted holus-bolus nor
> >> rejected
> >> out of hand. This kind of rational critical thinking is difficult for
> >> many
> >> people. People are uncomfortable with uncertainity, they tend to want to
> >> *know* if it is RIGHT or WRONG.

> >
> > A false dilemma of providing only two choices. The information is right,
> > the information is wrong, or the information is simply just information
> > that can be assessed later. I don't know (or the fear of being wrong)
> > becomes I don't know, yet.

>
> Then stop assuming that "conventional wisdom" is always wrong.


It is definitely conventional and it is sometimes wrong.
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Another previously reputable company bites the dust... Pete C. General Cooking 222 27-11-2010 09:40 AM
chicken organs beth thomas General Cooking 39 26-08-2008 02:52 AM
Report: Prions cling to surgical equipment [email protected] Vegan 4 29-08-2006 07:52 PM
New Study on Prions [email protected] Vegan 0 29-01-2005 10:12 PM
Prions in Breast Milk [email protected] Vegan 19 27-01-2005 07:58 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:26 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"