Peter:
> >>considering its very poor track record, just claiming that a few of
> >>your friends have been doing well on such a diet will not cut it.
>
> Carol:
> >I think it likely -- though I don't know it for sure -- that no
> >credible science supports fruitarianism because no credible science
> >has ever investigated it.
>
> I doubt this is any coincidence. :)

Researchers have their reasons for not studying fruitarianism, but
those reasons should not be construed as conclusions in themselves.

> Carol:
> >And as for Alan claiming that he knows people who do well on it...
> >How different is that from your statement of fruitarianism's "poor
> >track record" if neither of you have scientific studies to back you
> >up?
>
> I do not need scientific studies to draw the conclusion that
> fruitarianism basically is a hoax and a health fraud.

You're sounding *exactly* like Alan there. :D

> The raw-food archives provide more than enough evidence for me.
> Besides, I am not making the claims, Alan is, so I do not need to
> prove anything.

I would think you'd jump at the chance to back up what you say, if
for no other reason than to make Alan look inept by comparison.

> Being skeptical of a phenomenon cannot be compared to making a claim.

Of course these are different positions, and I understand your desire
that wild and unsupported claims not go unchallenged, but you don't
just express skepticism, you make claims of your own, however indi-
rectly.  Just above, when you said "I do not need scientific studies
to draw the conclusion that fruitarianism basically is a hoax and a
health fraud." you were basically saying that fruitariansim is a hoax
and a health fraud.  At least that's how it came across to me.  And
when I read something like that coming from a person who demands that
other people provide supporting evidence, I certainly hope that they
will practice what they preach.

Peter:
> A lot of bad and corrupt science is being conducted but that is no
> excuse to dismiss the good science that is being done just because it
> threatens your dogma.

Since he didn't mention any studies in particular, how can you say
that he's dismissing anything?  Maybe he just hasn't read it.
Anyhow... Everyone who believes that there is both good and bad
science does pick and choose, putting what they read into one or
the other category.  Hopefully, they do this by reading it for them-
selves and making their own decision, but some rely on "experts" to
do the thinking for them.  However they do it, everybody picks and
chooses.

> Carol:
> >Seems to me that as much as we differ, Alan and I would agree that
> >putting a couple of scientific references at the end of one's
> >statements shouldn't be assumed to give that statement any more
> >weight. One would have to go back to the orig-inal article and read it
> >to find out.
>
> True but all it takes is one person to pull out the original article to
> refute the claims being made.

Not necessarily.  People often differ in their analysis of the
same data.

> When Alan makes vague references to
> successful fruitarians or sweeping generalizations about human health,
> with little or no evidence these statements are not falsifiable. At
> least scientific references can be checked on.

Yes.  And people can then make up their own minds about whether the
science in question is good or not.  And they won't all agree.

Peter:
> We all need to learn to be
> critical consumers of information regardless of its source.

Absolutely. :)

Carol