whitie

3 ms·

1.
by whitie 11y ago
Naturalistic fallacy does not apply to food (it only has only ever been formally applied in moral philosophy) The idea that more natural foods are generally healthier than less natural foods is based mainly on inductive reasoning, eg. breas
2.
How GM mosquitos could have caused Brazil's microcephaly disaster(theecologist.org)
3 points by whitie 11y ago|0 comments
3.
by whitie 11y ago
The fallacy links are just inappropriate in this case. "It's not one or the other" To a large degree it is, as in "you cant have your cake and eat it".
4.
by whitie 11y ago
The claim which I quoted twice.
5.
by whitie 11y ago
No its coincidental. Cuminum cyminum, Brown Cumin - Asian grocery grade, 1g a day.
6.
by whitie 11y ago
We should be able to do better than that. If there are indications that some foods are burdensome to health, then there should be indications that some foods are beneficial. It is just taking us forever to separate the facts from the persu
7.
by whitie 11y ago
Don't have a tantrum. "Later on more work was done to get better global temperature proxies and it was decided that the trend was upwards." Anecdotal memories of an article or two on Ice ages in the Seventies do nothing to su
8.
by whitie 11y ago
I just linked the paper to show that what you did say was incorrect. This is really not the forum for half sayings and saying what-nots.
9.
by whitie 11y ago
"Later ... it was decided that the trend was upwards." Between '65 and '79 there were 6 times as many research papers predicting warming. That was even despite increasing knowledge of Ice Ages. "The Myth of the 1970