From: Adrian Tymes (wingcat@pacbell.net)
Date: Mon Apr 14 2003 - 16:12:47 MDT
--- Harvey Newstrom <mail@HarveyNewstrom.com> wrote:
> gts wrote,
> > The assumptions underlying paleodiet theory are 1)
> the basic
> > principles of evolutionary theory are correct
> (e.g., natural
> > selection, adaptation) and 2) modern nutritional
> science is
> > incomplete and fraught with contradictions
> >
> > The conclusion then is that evolutionary science
> is a more
> > reliable guide to making diet choices than
> nutritional science.
>
> So whatever "nature" has given us is the best
> answer, and science can never
> hope to improve upon that?
I read it as more like, "the branch of science known
as nutritional science has produced such unreliable
results so far, for whatever reason*, that the branch
of science known as evolutionary science has actually
produced more reliable and accurate results, almost by
accident, in the area that nutritional science was
deliberately trying to study." Which is a serious
problem, but solvable in theory.
*One can debate whether this is because of the
methods used, sheer falsification of data, or
whatever, and to what degree pressure from those who
fund these studies have affected this, but the cause
of the fact is a separate issue from the fact itself,
and not all who are interested in the one are
interested in the other.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Apr 14 2003 - 16:20:43 MDT