Rex Harrill <[log in to unmask]>:
>May we talk about an overtone in your message?  You have openly scoffed at
>unsupported theories, as you define non-supported.  Sadly, if you will only
>consider university sponsored research to back up points I wish to make, my battle

Tom:
In the field of raw foods, some claims - things like "apes are fruitarians",
"humans are natural vegans", "protein is toxic", and so on, are claims
that can be verified or debunked, by research. (All the preceding claims
listed are bogus and crackpot/crank science - yet they are the tools used by
intellectually dishonest fruitarian fanatics to recruit people to their
diets.)

For other claims, such as "raw vegan diets are the BEST", "anyone can succeed
on fruit diets if they only have faith", and so on, all we have is individual
experience, i.e., anecdotal experience, to go on (that, and the credibility,
or lack therof, of those making the claims). For such claims, anecdotal
evidence is all we have, so it is what one must use until better, "conventional"
research becomes available.

So the point here is: if a claim can be established by research, i.e., "high
brix means more nutrients", then it is worth providing citations to the
research to support it.

Rex Harrill <[log in to unmask]>:
>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

Tom:
But that is the nature of science - it changes to reflect new knowledge.
It's comforting to think that we have discovered "eternal health principles"
to use the terminology of the fanatics. However, such a claim is based on
ignorance and ego, rather than honesty and reason. This is what separates
the realists from the cranks.

So, the changes in science are a reflection of its strength (and intellectual
honesty), and not a weakness.

Rex Harrill <[log in to unmask]>:
>Instead, for those who might like to go for a wild ride, I offer logic and, gasp,
>*on-farm experiments*.  For instance, I have proven to myself, many, many, times

Tom:
Logic is always welcome, as it is usually a weak point in the crank science
theories. Many crank science theories actually assume what they are trying
to prove - defective logic, to say the least! Real-world experience is
also very welcome, as it is a check on the ivory-tower theorists.

Rex Harrill <[log in to unmask]>:
>Is my guess that you, Tom, find offense with "Instincto" theories,
>close to the mark?

Tom:
Instincto does not offend me; however, Kirt has educated me (and the
others on this list) of the weaknesses and excessive idealism in instincto
theory. Instincto is a bit too idealistic for my personal tastes, but
I respect the choices of others in diet - so long as they are honest
about it (fanatics are dishonest, and I have no respect for fanatics).
(P.S. Kirt's writings - and mine - are in the archives. I think you,
and other new members, might find the archives interesting.)

Just as Kirt has criticized the idealism of Instincto here on this list,
so too I have criticized the excessive idealism of the raw vegan
movement, on this list. The objective of such criticism is to get people
to start thinking about their diets. Here thinking means clear, rational,
critical thinking - not the fictitious dogma, wild claims, and slogans
of the fanatic/crank science/crackpot crowd. Get people to think, and
they "Won't Get Fooled Again" by the fanatics (quoting the title of a
song by the rock band, The Who, that I used to like back in my fruitarian
days).

The power of getting people to start thinking is amazing. I have seen
major changes in the local raw fooder group, SF-LiFE, since I got involved
in the newsletter, and started challenging the "party line" and providing
honest information. There is so much power in the approach, that certain
fanatics appear to be trying to stop it (via dishonest means, of course).
I say this to the fanatics: you and your ways are outdated; your time is
past. The word is getting out, and your market is continuously decreasing.
Eventually what little remains of the lunatic fringe of the raw movement
will be exactly where it belongs - in the mental hospitals. :-)

Rex Harrill <[log in to unmask]>:
>Tom, I'm going to close this for now with a third sure-to-be-controversial comment:
>weeds are an index to the character of a soil.  As a soil becomes deficient in
>certain minerals, it starts to grow particular groups of weeds.  As the fertility

Tom:
When land is cleared, the native vegetation eventually regrows, in slow
stages. Your ref to "particular groups of weeds" is another way of saying
(growth) "stages". Figuratively, nature heals the damage done by humans.
So, I actually agree with much of what you are saying here.

Rex Harrill <[log in to unmask]>:
>Bitter, to my way of thinking, is a signal
>from the body to avoid something.  Your claim to prefer bitter is worrisome to me.
>Is this a learned, or even forced, preference?  Discounting dandelion for now,
>which is nothing but Mother Nature's (MN) attempt to heal soil calcium deficiency,

Tom:
Tastes are are influenced by INDIVIDUAL factors and CULTURE. I can't stand
hot food (pungent taste) in excess, yet others sit around and eat habanero
hot peppers. I don't consider that there is something wrong with those whose
tastes are different than mine. Indeed, I marvel at how they can eat such
things without burning up like I would! :-)

Ayurveda and TCM, and other herbal systems, promote bitter taste. There's
a saying in such circles: "Bitter is best". I find that it is cooling
and soothing to my system, and I rather like it.

Also, I do disagree that dandelion is (merely) the soil's cure for calcium
deficiency. Dandelion greens are delicious - raw or cooked, with or without
dressing.  Like the comedian says, dandelion greens don't get any
respect. :-)

Anyway, thanks for an interesting post!

Regards,
Tom Billings
[log in to unmask]