From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Thu Apr 17 2003 - 21:00:09 MDT
gts wrote,
> The key point is that, from a paleodieter's perspective, the
> *burden of
> proof* is always on those who would deviate from the default
> paleodiet. It's
> a question of who has the burden of proof.
It never ceases to amaze me how often debates on the Internet lead to the
argument over "burden of proof." I can't imagine taking a "default"
position without having evidence and just assuming my position is right
until someone proves me wrong. I certainly wouldn't debate it on the
Internet or try to convince others of my position without evidence. I even
question the assumption that most people have that "the way it has always
been" is necessarily best or even acceptable. A lot of things that have
"always been that way" are just plain detestable.
> For example it is not for paleodieters to prove that dairy
> and agricultural
> products are unnecessary and not valuable to the diet. The
> burden of proof
> is rather on those who say dairy and agricultural; products
> are necessary
> and valuable additions to the diet.
Why is either one more "default" than the other? Virtually everybody in
modern America eats dairy products. Why wouldn't this be the default, and
the burden of proof be on those who want to change the standard diet. Why
would anybody insist that dairy is not valuable without evidence? Why would
anybody insist that dairy is valuable without evidence?
And personally, I can't imagine anybody arguing *history* as evidence. Why
not scientifically define requirements for a good diet and then measure
dairy products for how well they fill those needs? Or scientifically
determine what is detrimental for a good diet and then measure dairy
products for those undesirable substances? Or just feed various diets to
animals and see which ones work better? Or do surveys of humans on
different diets to see how they are faring?
The anti-science subtext of these discussions is very disturbing to see on
the Extropians list. Nutrition and body functions are a modern subset of
biochemistry. I don't see why science is being ignored as an obvious tool
here. I know it has been mentioned that nutritional "science" is bogus, but
I think that applies more to pop science and pseudo-science. Biochemistry,
medicine and nutritional specialties are respectable and highly supportable
scientific disciplines.
-- Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, IAM, GSEC <www.HarveyNewstrom.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Apr 17 2003 - 21:07:45 MDT