From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Fri Apr 18 2003 - 07:49:53 MDT
gts wrote,
> If you do not accept the argument from evolutionary
> science that we are best adapted to a diet devoid
> of grain and dairy and legumes then obviously you won't
> accept the notion that the burden of proof should be
> on those who advocate a deviation from the paleodiet.
You have exactly nailed the flaw in this argument: It only works if you
already believe in the theory. It does not work if you do not believe in
the theory. This is known as a non-falsifiable argument. It is the same
logic that Christians use to "prove" the Bible by quoting scripture. It
only works if you believe, and doesn't work if you don't believe. As such,
it is not really a form of "proof" or "evidence" at all. It is just a form
of preaching to the choir.
> I don't think that is especially unreasonable, Harvey. Do you
> accept the argument from evolution science?
I don't accept or reject your conclusions. I reject your methods of
choosing your position as the default and saying the burden-of-proof is on
someone else to prove you wrong. I don't accept any unproven positions just
because they haven't been proven wrong yet.
> > And personally, I can't imagine anybody arguing *history*
> as evidence.
>
> Interesting. This is also an infamous argument of the
> creationists in their
> debates with evolution scientists.
I meant history as evidence of dietary superiority. History is great
evidence that something has happened. It is not very good evidence that
what happened was the best thing that could have happened. Was the asteroid
that wiped out the dinosaurs the "optimum" event? Just because evolution
takes a turn does not mean it is for the best. I know evolution tends to go
toward survival of the fittest, but this is no guarantee that the result was
indeed "best".
> "Macro-evolution (the evolution of new
> species) can't be true empirical science," they say, "because
> macro-evolution has never been duplicated in a laboratory.
> It's only an
> argument about historical evidence."
>
> Unfortunately macro-evolution is supported only by arguments about
> historical evidence. Do you take it as science nonetheless?
Evolution of new species are too complicated to be duplicated in the
laboratory with twentieth century technology. However, testing nutritional
diets is easy to test. It is fully consistent to want nutritional studies
done.
-- Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, IAM, GSEC <www.HarveyNewstrom.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Apr 18 2003 - 07:59:50 MDT