>Then let's point out that ALL of science is speculative and may not be
>true.  We base our notion of "truth" in science firmly on probability
>theory.

But Andrew, that wouldn't be true!  Theory is one part of science, but its
siamese twin is empirical fact.  Some of the world's prettiest theories
have been demolished by inconvenient facts, and most every theoretical
advance has come about due to that annoying need to explain a pesky fact
that refuses to go away. Nor is any theory deserving of serious respect if
it can't muster facts in its defense or give answer to facts that appear to
refute it.  This is what separates science from philosophy.

It is not speculation that if you get your head cut off you will not be
able to wiggle your toes.  It is not speculation that nitroglycerin is
flammable.  It is not speculation that the sun is hot.  It is not
speculation that people who die of heart attacks often have elevated
cholesterol.  It is not speculation that I cannot flap my arms and fly
while on planet Earth.  These are facts.

Facts do not have an agenda, facts do not care what you think or how you
wish the universe worked. They don't care about your reputation or your
career.  They don't care whether you ignore them or not.  You can cry at
them, laugh at them, rage against them, and they still don't care.  They
don't even care whether you notice them or not.  They simply are.  And
without them you don't have science.

Speculation is half of science, not all of it.

>> What I can tell you is that when I changed my diet radically, said change
>> including an ENORMOUS increase in intake of AA, my health improved in every
>> measurable way.  I don't credit this to the AA; perhaps I would be
>> healthier still without the AA, perhaps the AA made no difference at all,
>> perhaps the AA helped.
>
>Your reasoning here begs the post hoc, ergo propter hoc conclusion.

You seem hellbent on making me take a position on the health benefits or
lack thereof of arachidonic acid.  Andrew, I take NONE.   My reasoning begs
ALL questions except the question of whether or not there is good reason
for healthy skepticism--which in my opinion there is.  My only other
position would be that it's important when speculating to the general
public (which is what you're doing on this list; this is NOT a group of
scientists you're talking to) that you let them know you -are- speculating
so as to avoid the possibility of frightening people for no good reason.

>I'm fabberghasted at your insistance that dietary (exogenous) AA plays
>any appreaciable role in a person's health.

I'm confused by this statement in two ways:

First, because I have never insisted that dietary AA plays any appreciable
role in a person's health. I've tried to make it clear that I take no
position whatsoever on that matter, that I am merely skeptical.  In my very
last message I openly acknowledge this in as clear English as I can think
of.

Second, because in general we been talking consstantly about the alleged
dangers of eating foods with high amounts of arachidonic acid such as beef
suet, red meat and eggs--in fact it kicked off with a discussion of whether
or not eating pemmican was healthy for paleodieters.  That is how this
thread started.  If at some point the conversation switched from ingested
AA to AA production within the human metabolism, I missed that and I
apologize.  Then again, you must have missed something yourself,  because
every single message I've posted on this subject has mentioned MY
consumption of arachidonic acid and how I question the belief that
ingesting AA is a health hazard to me.  EVERY SINGLE MESSAGE I HAVE WRITTEN
has referred to arachidonic acid in the diet, including all the messages in
which you have responded to me.  In fact just look six paragraphs above,
and there you are, replying to my message about ingested arachidonic acid
and telling me that my reasoning "begs the post hoc, ergo propter hoc
conclusion."

So frankly, I am indeed very confused.  When exactly did this turn from a
discussion of the dangers of EATING AA to the dangers of AA production
within the body?


>I think it's funny how Americans have been sold a bill of goods that low
>fat/fat free foods spells low blood fats.

We are completely in agreement here.  See
http://www.syndicomm.com/lowfat.html for a brief essay I wrote on the
general subject of the valueless nature of popular low-fat diets.


>> >There are many many strong facts. [about AA as a health hazard]
>>
>> Please share them.
>
>Clever misquotation!  Is this signs of an agenda?  See comments below.

If you have been misquoted it has been in error, and involves nothing but
stupidity or oversight on my part.  However, I don't see that you've been
misquoted.  Let us examine this.

I stated, "It seems to me as if there is a lot of generalizing about AA but
not a lot of strong facts or specific references being offered."  You
responded, "There are many many strong facts.  The problem is that these
facts MUST
BE INTERPRETED," and then went on to generalize about agendas and politics
and unspecified things being buried in unspecified journals.

I then asked you to please share the facts you claimed existed; after all,
in my original criticism I was complaining that no one was giving any.  You
responded claiming there were many strong facts... and again, gave none.
In  looking closely at your messages and mine yet again, I don't think I
misquoted or distorted you at all.

If you feel you've been misquoted I honestly don't understand where.
HOWEVER, I apologize anyway, since I had no intention of doing so.  And I
now re-iterate my request that you share with us the many strong facts that
you think must be interpreted in order to reach the conclusion that AA is a
health hazard.  If they are too plentiful then some brief highlights will
do, if you will be so kind as to follow them up with specific references
the reader may pursue on his own.

Since it's now changed to a discussion of AA being produced in the
metabolism, as opposed to it being a danger in the diet, I'll assume that's
what we'll be talking about from now on.

> "An argument against a position need not have an agenda."
>To the contrary, your agenda is to put forward or advance your
>perspective of the facts.

You appear to think that if you use words a certain way, everyone else must
use them that way too.

From my general perspective on life, I am perfectly capable of asking
questions which do not advance any particular agenda.  I am usually quite
pleased when I can ask a question which challenges my own perspective on
any issue.  When I find a question I cannot answer or which even suggests
that I may be completely wrong about everything I believe (or would like to
believe), then I see an opportunity for further learning, or to appreciate
the fact that I just don't know everything (a bit of humility that a lot of
people, including myself, should be reminded of more often).

Of course, one possible perspective on this would be to say that the agenda
behind most questions I ask is simply the perspective that I wish to
challenge preconceptions and learn as much as possible.

HOWEVER, an equally valid perspective would be to say that no question ever
has an agenda, but that SOMETIMES a questionER might have one... or
sometimes he might not.  Or that frequently a questioner may have as his
only agenda the desire to learn and find truth of as objective a nature as
possible--which in my view effectively translates to ofen having no
particular agenda at all when I ask a question.

The reason I prefer this latter perspective is that my experience has been
that people who assume that every question has an agenda are quite often
people who are dishonest, paranoid, or are simply afraid to have their own
preconceptions challenged.  The simple fact is that assuming that a
question has an agenda is quite often an easy way to dodge having to answer
it.  In fact the Stalinists and the Nazis used this very technique to
stunning effect, as do a number of modern day religious cults;  I refer you
to SNAPPING by Flo Conway and Jim Siegleman, and MODERN FASCISM by Gene
Edward Veith, Jr. for some interesting (and wildly different) perspectives
on that.


>Goetzl EJ. Oxygenation products of arachidonid acid as mediators of
>hypersensitivity and inflammation. Symposium on Prostaglandins. Medical
>Clinics of North America 1981; 65(4): 809.
>
>Brenner RR. The oxidative desaturation of unsaturated fatty acids in
>animals. Molecular & Cellular Chemistry 1974; 3(1): 41
>
>Smith WL. The eicosanoids and their biochemical mechanisms of action.
>Biochem J 1989; 259: 315-324
>
>Samuelsson B, Dahlen SE, Lindgren JA, Rouzer CA, Serhan CN. Leukotrienes
>and lipoxins: Biosynthesis, and biological effects. Science 1987; 237:
>1171-1176.


Ah, thank you.  <relieved sigh>  I will do my best to consult these and to
contemplate their significance.


>I take exception to the derrogatory nature
>of the phrase "... idle speculation is the easiest part ..."
>Speculation perhaps, idle no.  Biologically plausible speculation, yes.
>Biologically plausible speculation, easy?  No.  You have to be neck deep
>in the breathe and depth of the literature. You're out of your league
>here and might do well to reconsider.  There is a tradition and a rigor
>to the speculative portion of research. You have to be neck deep
>in the breathe and depth of the literature.  You're out of your league
>here and might do well to reconsider.  There is a tradition and a rigor
>to the speculative portion of research.

We are in agreement that speculation need not be idle.  Although I would
suggest to you that -most- speculation is in fact idle, sometimes
speculation involves a very great amount of work indeed.

On the other hand, idle speculation isn't necessarily trivial or without
value either.  Einstein's idle speculation on the matter of acceleration
and gravity led to some of the most important advances in the history of
physics.  Often, simple idle speculation yields sudden intense flashes of
inspiration with enormously rich rewards to be reaped.

However, idle speculation is not appropriate in all times and places, and
often IS nothing but a pleasant way to wile away time.  More than one
scientist who I know a good deal better than I know you has reminded me of
that when I've made my own incautious generalizations.

Furthermore, whether the speculation is idle or not, absent rigorous proof
a scientist who is wandering 'midst a group of non-scientists sharing his
speculations might want to stop and think about a few possibilities.  Such
as that due to his credentials, non-scientists might take his speculations
a good bit more seriously than is appropriate.  Or that they just might
possibly misunderstand him.  Or that many people may forget that
speculation isn't proof, scientists are not infallible or more than human,
and that reasoned skepticism and demands for evidence are usually healthy
things.

Not to put too fine a point on it, when said scientists turns condescending
and insulting when someone voices healthy skepticism, he does much to
discredit his own field.

As for being out of my depth: perhaps so.

Peace.

 -=-=-

Once in a while you get shown the light/
 In the strangest of places if you look at it right   ---Robert Hunter

http://www.syndicomm.com/esmay