Yes, Kirt, I'm fond of saying that the plural of anecdote is
science.
   Consider, now, dear Clara Davis, whose studies are said to have
'inspired' Burger to create his instincto/anapsological scheme.
But the work on infants shows a trio who--
  ate substantial and varying amounts of cooked food, even when raw
was at the same meal;
   violated ALL rules of food combining;
   ate foods forbidden or frowned on by some raw sects (grains,
dairy, RAF).
   We hear about the raw claves' brains, but the rest is ignored,
since it is Ungood.
   If someone brings up the Ungood, the proper, scientific reply
is---
   well, the sample size is small;
   well, the infants were of cooked stock (whatever that means);
   well, given time they would have conformed better, after detoxing.
   Welling up from the bottom of those wells is misuse of science to
shore up preconceived notions.
   Is a new notion to be tried? Unproven! Forget that the old may
be as unproven till some poor soul tests it, witness the
superior cleanliness of wood cutting boards over smooth plastic.
   Proof is nice; proof is costly, and funding's done for profit
more than for knowledge.
   Plausible reasoning substitutes for rigor more than many would
like to think: peasants say, Stones fell from the sky! The logical
scientist Lavoisier says, But stones cannot be in the sky, or they
would long ago have fallen by Gravity to earth, hence these stones
found by the peasant in his field (worked for generations) must have
been uncovered by lightning bolts, which also account for their
heated appearance.  The superstitious pesant cannot grasp the truths
of science.
   The stones are put in a museum as cases of peasant superstition,
and are later relabeled 'meteorites.'
   An age later, Bernard Shaw says, Science is always wrong! Religion
is always right! And both scientists and believers think he's
praising faith and dissing science, when he's doing the opposite.
   And now we have the Brix 'issue;' is the froth because it seems to
buttress fruitarian dogma, and is therefore The Thing Which Is Not?
Is it also a peasant confronting professionals?
   I remain sceptical of brix, and interested in the ideas a
professional farmer can impart to ax-grinders and data-seekers.
Be aware that, let Latin and Greek squares multiply as they will,
complexity in lifeforms may REQUIRE on-farm or in-garden research
using unfamiliar methods and notions.
   If we tolerate, even like, Davis' sample of 3, we can also be
aware that a redefined sample of days or months makes her findings
firmer by sleight of hand, though it might be nice to do it again
elsewhere...
   Enough! No dissertation on method here.

 Pet