3 ms·

There is a difference between "appeal to nature" and the idea that there may be more compounds and nutrients in whole foods, perhaps acting in tandem, in ways t

There is a difference between "appeal to nature" and the idea that there may be more compounds and nutrients in whole foods, perhaps acting in tandem, in ways that we haven't yet figured out. I don't think this article is particularly well written or argued, but at the same time, I don't see any appeals to animism or mysticism in it. The author is simply suggesting, albeit not as clearly as he could have, that we have focused in isolation on only a subset of the nutrients we actually need. Obviously, the responsible "next step" to that sort of argument would be to form hypotheses and undertake further study. But that's not really the function of the article, as far as I'm aware. Consider the broccoli example mentioned in the article: "A 2011 study on broccoli, for example, found that giving subjects fresh broccoli florets led them to absorb and metabolize seven times more of the anticancer compounds known as glucosinolates, present in broccoli and other cruciferous vegetables, than when glucosinolates were given in straight capsule form. The researchers hypothesized that this might be because the whole broccoli contained other compounds that helped people’s bodies put the anticancer chemicals to use." Now, the "appeal to nature" argument here would be that there is something fundamentally irreducible or non-replicable in broccoli that we just can't reproduce in a lab, because nature. That's not what the article says. Instead, it says that researchers hypothesized that there may be more components to broccoli than we've yet figured out. That's science. Science is always probing at the edges of what we haven't yet figured out, or revising what we think we have figured out. The author does his point no favors by harping about synthetic vitamins. I'll grant you that. But he's not advancing any magical thinking.

TTPrograms 12y ago
You could just as easily hypothesize that there are components in broccoli that are unhealthy. The science isn't the hypothesis, it's the experimentation. Without experimental evidence you just have a guess, and in this case you can prefer the one "from nature" without evidence to suggest one or the other is correct. This is exactly the "appeal to nature" fallacy. You really need to compare cancer incidence in different populations to get a full idea. > the "appeal to nature" argument here would be that there is something fundamentally irreducible or non-replicable in broccoli that we just can't reproduce in a lab, because nature This is a huge strawman.
- dasil003 12y ago
  > This is exactly the "appeal to nature" fallacy. The more dangerous "fallacy" is the idea that all food is equivalent until rigorously experimented and proven otherwise. This is the mentality that the food industry hangs its hat on to continue producing the worst possible products that still somehow meet FDA and public approval. It's dangerous because these foods are engineered primarily to appeal to convenience and taste sensibilities which give people an emotional connection to these substandard foods so that they will be more willing accept any evidence that said foods are acceptable. The idea that eating whole foods which have traditionally been cultivated or gathered by humans is generally preferable to a manufactured alternative is not a bad or fallacious principle. It isn't "because nature", it's because we've been eating those things a long time with a good deal of success, and conversely, in the last 70-80 years of explosion of heavily processed convenience foods we've seen an explosion in diet related health problems. Waiting for conclusive scientific proof of the mechanisms of all these problems instead of using Occam's razor and some common sense is a phenomenally stupid thing to do.
  - cbd1984 12y ago
    > The more dangerous "fallacy" is the idea that all food is equivalent until rigorously experimented and proven otherwise. OK, so even if we accept based on no evidence that it isn't, why should we prefer so-called 'natural' foods. And please tell me how GMOs such as corn (maize) and apples are natural, BTW. > This is the mentality that the food industry hangs its hat on to continue producing the worst possible products that still somehow meet FDA and public approval. Appeal to 'corporations are evil' is also a rather dangerous fallacy. > The idea that eating whole foods which have traditionally been cultivated or gathered by humans is generally preferable to a manufactured alternative is not a bad or fallacious principle. Without evidence it is. This bald assertion does your side no favors. > It isn't "because nature", it's because we've been eating those things a long time with a good deal of success Not really. Look at how common deficiency disorders were, back before such horrible modern artificial nonsense such as refrigeration and food preservation. Besides, what my ancestors ate is not the same as what your ancestors ate, most likely, so which is better? Which diet should we follow? And my ancestors didn't all come from the same place, so which of my ancestors' diets should I follow?

TTPrograms 12y ago

You could just as easily hypothesize that there are components in broccoli that are unhealthy. The science isn't the hypothesis, it's the experimentation. Without experimental evidence you just have a guess, and in this case you can prefer the one "from nature" without evidence to suggest one or the other is correct. This is exactly the "appeal to nature" fallacy. You really need to compare cancer incidence in different populations to get a full idea. > the "appeal to nature" argument here would be that there is something fundamentally irreducible or non-replicable in broccoli that we just can't reproduce in a lab, because nature This is a huge strawman.

dasil003 12y ago
> This is exactly the "appeal to nature" fallacy. The more dangerous "fallacy" is the idea that all food is equivalent until rigorously experimented and proven otherwise. This is the mentality that the food industry hangs its hat on to continue producing the worst possible products that still somehow meet FDA and public approval. It's dangerous because these foods are engineered primarily to appeal to convenience and taste sensibilities which give people an emotional connection to these substandard foods so that they will be more willing accept any evidence that said foods are acceptable. The idea that eating whole foods which have traditionally been cultivated or gathered by humans is generally preferable to a manufactured alternative is not a bad or fallacious principle. It isn't "because nature", it's because we've been eating those things a long time with a good deal of success, and conversely, in the last 70-80 years of explosion of heavily processed convenience foods we've seen an explosion in diet related health problems. Waiting for conclusive scientific proof of the mechanisms of all these problems instead of using Occam's razor and some common sense is a phenomenally stupid thing to do.
- cbd1984 12y ago
  > The more dangerous "fallacy" is the idea that all food is equivalent until rigorously experimented and proven otherwise. OK, so even if we accept based on no evidence that it isn't, why should we prefer so-called 'natural' foods. And please tell me how GMOs such as corn (maize) and apples are natural, BTW. > This is the mentality that the food industry hangs its hat on to continue producing the worst possible products that still somehow meet FDA and public approval. Appeal to 'corporations are evil' is also a rather dangerous fallacy. > The idea that eating whole foods which have traditionally been cultivated or gathered by humans is generally preferable to a manufactured alternative is not a bad or fallacious principle. Without evidence it is. This bald assertion does your side no favors. > It isn't "because nature", it's because we've been eating those things a long time with a good deal of success Not really. Look at how common deficiency disorders were, back before such horrible modern artificial nonsense such as refrigeration and food preservation. Besides, what my ancestors ate is not the same as what your ancestors ate, most likely, so which is better? Which diet should we follow? And my ancestors didn't all come from the same place, so which of my ancestors' diets should I follow?