Rex:

> As a simple thought-experiment of my position, I offer the obvious point
> that much scientific knowledge becomes dated and invalidated by the next
> report out.  Physics and astronomy strike me as glaring examples.  No two
> scientists seem able to agree about anything unless they are ganging up on
> a third.

It's true that theories are continually being revised, but new theories never
destroy the old ones completely. We still learned Newtonian mechanics in high
school, because it's an extremely good approximation of Einsteinian relativity
in everyday life.

Science (like physics and biology), even though it has imperfections, is at
least based on observation, experimentation and logic; dismissal of "a priori
assumptions". On the contrary, much of the fruitarian reasoning is based on
unfounded ideas about Nature, usually in plain contradiction with experience and
denial of scientific observations and results.

I am not saying that all our posts should be backed by science and peer-reviewed
:-) But at least, the assertions shouldn't be illogic or in contradiction with
what is known about biology, anthropology or medicine. I am not saying the
specifically to you or anyone, and I agree that many controversies exist in
science, but science can be an invaluable tool to dismiss dogmas and prejudices.

[About instincto]
> Sadly, from my point of view, there is no mention of the effect
> of *quality* in what they do.  How can any of their thoughts make sense
> without factoring quality into the equation?

If you are talking about food quality, then you are wrong.

>I certainly left the program with the impression that honey is a *big deal* to
>primitive people.

You will admit from what you have seen that getting honey is quite difficult. I
am not saying that honey is not praised by primitive people, only that, because
it's difficult to get, they consume it only very occasionally (as attested by
observations from anthropologists).


Best wishes,

Jean-Louis
[log in to unmask]