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.

Peter:
>>I doubt this is any coincidence. :)

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

Then let us call it a fine hint. :)

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?

Peter:
>>I do not need scientific studies to draw the conclusion that
>>fruitarianism basically is a hoax and a health fraud.

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

How far are you willing to take this logic?  I am calling him a fraud
based on his refusal to be held accountable for his claims.

Peter:
>>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.

Carol:
>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.

Alan has refused again and again to be held accountable for his claims
- that is for anybody to verify by reading his posts to this list.  I
am merely pointing out that the emperor is wearing no clothes. :)

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

Carol:
>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.

If I said I could walk on water but refused and got defensive when
asked to substantiate it, if somebody called me fraud, would you demand
they prove that I was charlatan and if they declined say they were
hypocrites?

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.

Carol:
>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.

As I remember it, his comments about science were general in nature.

Carol:
>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.

Show me some good science that even mildly suggests that humans can do
well long-term on a vegan fruit-based diet.  Alan could not provide it,
therefore he should have held back on those sweeping statements of his.

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.

Peter:
>>True but all it takes is one person to pull out the original article
>>to refute the claims being made.

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

But at least there is a debate based on something tangible.  Discussing
diet with proponents of fruitariansm is like debating the logic of math
with the Easter Bunny. :)

Peter:
>>then 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.

Carol:
>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.

True, but it beats trying to pin down Alan while he is playing his own
private version of hide and seek. :)

Best, Peter