Pet:
>   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;

And, overall, chose raw beef over cooked unless it was cooked rare when no
preference was noticed...

And prefered cooked bone marrow to raw marrow...

>   violated ALL rules of food combining;

And drank sporadically during the meal...

>   ate foods forbidden or frowned on by some raw sects (grains,
>dairy, RAF).

And dig that raw and raw _soured_ milk--this was before pastuerization!

>   We hear about the raw claves' brains, but the rest is ignored,
>since it is Ungood.

I didn't see mention of raw calve's brains being eaten in the article. In
an overview of the foods provided it mentioned organs cooked and raw, but
later on it says the organs were all cooked because of safety concerns or
something (I don't have the article at home right now). And I can't see
that the brains were the prefered food (whether raw or cooked) from any
data! (And I be guilty of repeating that rumor :( Oh lordy...)

>   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.

And well, their "true" instinct couldn't possibly function with cooked
items "ruining" everything (except it appeared to).

And well, they weren't tremendously healthy on the diet (colds, etc.)

>   Welling up from the bottom of those wells is misuse of science to
>shore up preconceived notions.

It was funny. The whole time I'm reading through it, I'm thinking how
instinctos would emphasize this and minimize that and explain away
this...and how the raw vegans would emphasize this and explain away
that...and how it is a great example of a fascinating little study which
only leaves me with more questions than I started with!

>   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.

Ya, lost me der, padner ;)

>   Proof is nice; proof is costly, and funding's done for profit
>more than for knowledge.

So who was profiting from the
three-bambinos-around-a-table-laden-with-wholesome-foods study?

>   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.

Hey, I understood that last bit the second time through. ;) What favorite
herb are you sprinkling on your salad these days, Pet? ;)

>   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?

Nah, Tom's just a little battle weary (and you and I would be too if we
walked a mile in his shoes). Windmills are sometimes fruit related. (Eh,
Pet? Did you get my quickie reference? I sat through Bob Goulet so I can
type sentences like that. ;)) Everybody's been enjoying the Brix methinks.
What froth do you refer to?

>   I remain sceptical of brix, and interested in the ideas a
>professional farmer can impart to ax-grinders and data-seekers.

Me too, me too, said the amateur-farmer/data-grinder/ax-seeker.

>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.

Does that herb have an illicit status, perchance?

>   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...

Just the method is enough of a rip-off, when Burger doesn't even mention it
at all. Instincto is no more than the Davis experiment limited to raw foods
_forever_ and ever. Well, that's not exactly true. These days, we'd have to
make sure those kids learned how to read a helluva complicated flowchart
and also that we only give them beef on Fridays ;)

>   Enough! No dissertation on method here.

Ah, Pet, you're as clear as a kalidescope and fun as a game of peekaboo.
This is no way to start a thread on the Davis study...;)

Cheers,
Kirt