Holly,

> The "objective
> language of empirical science" is fine, but as a student of science
> I find it is NOT particularly good at communicating to a wide variety
> of people.

I believe you and I think it's a shame.

However I was referring more to scientific communications about diet on a
global, adult university level, and specifically comparing such discussion
to religious dialogue. The Moslem and the Jew and Christian and the Buddhist
will all agree on the objective empirical definition of "Omega 3 Fatty Acid"
and will reach similar conclusions about the need for it based on empirical
evidence. But they will have difficulty understanding one another when the
discussion of diet includes religious considerations. The Jew will encounter
resistance when he tries to insist that resources be allocated to providing
the world population with kosher foods, for example. Similarly, I will have
difficulty when jean-claude or others start making dietary recommendations
based on what appear to be mystical considerations about "spinning away from
our center". Empirical science gives all educated people on earth a
universal language in which to talk about food and nutrition.

> Even though I sometimes disagree with or have trouble understanding
> Jean-Claude's logic, it always makes me think (and often makes me smile!).

Me too. :)

-gts