3 ms·

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. Witho

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?
  - dasil003 12y ago
    Don't put words in my mouth. Where did I say corn and apples are healthy? Where did I say corporations are evil? Where did I split us into two groups, my side and your side? You are arguing a stereotype rather than my actual statements.
frozenport 12y ago
>>The science isn't the hypothesis, it's the experimentation. Its both! Without a model we don't know what an experiment is testing, indeed a pure experiment is unconvincing for example Ohm's eponymous law were ridiculed as a "web of naked fallacies", and only accepted after a model was proposed. Or consider my theory that Canadian Geese take summer with them when they migrate south. My experiment shows that after they leave it gets really cold, but nobody believes my model! >>in broccoli that are unhealthy Quite possibly, what is your hypothesis?

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?
- dasil003 12y ago
  Don't put words in my mouth. Where did I say corn and apples are healthy? Where did I say corporations are evil? Where did I split us into two groups, my side and your side? You are arguing a stereotype rather than my actual statements.

frozenport 12y ago

>>The science isn't the hypothesis, it's the experimentation. Its both! Without a model we don't know what an experiment is testing, indeed a pure experiment is unconvincing for example Ohm's eponymous law were ridiculed as a "web of naked fallacies", and only accepted after a model was proposed. Or consider my theory that Canadian Geese take summer with them when they migrate south. My experiment shows that after they leave it gets really cold, but nobody believes my model! >>in broccoli that are unhealthy Quite possibly, what is your hypothesis?