From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Fri Apr 18 2003 - 14:05:25 MDT
gts wrote,
> literature is already replete with evidence from
> nutritional science that paleolithic foods are
> healthy foods.
>
> Paleodiet theory states only that those foods have
> been found to be most healthy *because* they are
> the foods to which we are best genetically
> adapted.
Great. I must have misunderstood you. I was under the mistaken belief that
you were disputing nutritional science with a diet dictated by paleo
history.
> This leads to the approach to nutritional science
> that Eliezer seems to be suggesting and which I also
> recommend (in which any non-paleolithic nutritional
> hypothesis is the competing hypothesis which
> must disprove the default paleo hypothesis). Do you follow?
Yes, but I disagree with this method of debate. I think it is invalid to
choose a default position which does not have to be proven. Established
theories must become established with evidence and proof. They do not
become "default" first, with the burden of disproving them falling to
others. Scientists must falsify their own theories, test them either way,
and provide the results as evidence. There is no "default" position or
"burden-of-proof" in science. Such arguments are more often used by
religions and cults.
-- Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, IAM, GSEC <www.HarveyNewstrom.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Apr 18 2003 - 14:15:43 MDT