On Wednesday, February 16, 2000 11:23 AM John Thomas jwthom@earthlink.net
wrote:
> Your point is well taken; it's obviously not possible to
> determine these things with the kind of exactness you might find in a
> white rat experiment. I was more concerned with Daniel's "studies
> confirm" statements than with arguing about health per se.
Actually, what I wrote regarding two studies was that they "seemed to
confirm..." Note the qualification. I'm usually very careful about this
stuff. If someone is going to accuse me of sloppy thinking, please don't
back it up with sloppy quoting.:)
> As I
> mentioned in a later post, I take vitamins myself based on the
> inexact knowledge we do have. But I tend to bristle when someone
> starts slinging around "scientific studies" as evidence for a
> viewpoint they've already settled on.
I have not settled on this and modify my regimen as I learn more. I don't
do any radical changes mainly because I don't want to be caught in some fad
that doesn't work.:) (Also, I'm not rich, so I can't afford to be taking
every last supplement that hits the market.:) As I've mentioned in several
posts ago, I also don't want to be caught in some pill-popping religion.
The goal is a long, healthy, happy life -- not obesience before some theory
or other.
I also "bristle" when someone (who has not participated in this discussion
since:) disses something by claiming that "there has not been a single study
I'm aware of to show that popping vitamin pills has any positive health
benefit at all." (Lee Daniel Crocker on 2000/2/15) This wasn't even
against life extension claims, but against health claims in general, which,
to me, is painting with a broading brush than even John (I hope!) would care
to.
> In real life we always need to
> base our decisions on partial knowledge and understanding. Confusing
> this with scientific verification helps no one. Of course, in
> economics things may be different ;-)
I think all knowledge, including scientific knowledge, exists in specifiable
contexts. That a study might be imperfect does not invalidate it. It only
means we must be aware of what we can really base on any given experiment,
observation, anecdote, etc.
Long lives to all, especially my critics!:)
Daniel "bristling at those who bristle at me" Ust
http://mars.superlink.net/neptune/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:03:50 MDT