> >>>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

> Peter:
> How far are you willing to take this logic?

Carol:
I don't know what you mean there, so I'll say this...

I think that Alan's dogmatic style is just that -- his style.  He
does not have good e-list social skills.  Instead of prefacing what
he says with "in my opinion" and "I think" and such all the time, he
puts things out in a very blunt, know-it-all way.  This gets on some
people's nerves; they interpret it as meaning that he thinks he knows
everything and that what is best for him and his friends is what is
best for every person on the planet.

It has been suggested that what he needs to do is back up what
he says with science, so I have tried to point out that giving
references doesn't settle any issue raised on this list because of
(1) all the junk science out there (2) the huge voids that exist
in certain areas of scientific inquiry and (3) what I would bet to
be the extreme unlikeliness that list members actually dig up the
studies people refer to and read them for themselves.  Besides, he
usually claims that he is just speaking from his experiences and
those of his friends, and who could expect him to produce scientific
studies on them?  If there was a time, as I think there may have
been, when Alan said something along the lines of 'there are plenty
of studies, but I don't have time to list them', I'm totally with
you in that case and agree that he should produce those studies.
To claim that they exist but not to share them is dirty pool.  But,
if I recall correctly, most of Alan's sweeping generalizations were
drawn from his experiences and those of his friends.

It has also been suggested that any sort of absolute declaration is
dangerous because of the poor little newbies who might take it as a
great truth and go off and do something unwise.  This is -- like all
the whining about the dangers of the internet -- useless.  People
should examine EVERYTHING with a critical eye, whether it's advice
given by Dr. Famous T. Knowitall MD PhD DDS ND XYZ or bluntly stated
opinions from Alan.  A reminder about this in the welcome message
should be sufficient.

In my very humble opinion, it all comes down to manners.  It is NICE
to provide references for those list members who might actually want
to look the stuff up and read it.  It is NICE to qualify what you say
with statements that remind people that you know that you are not the
god of all knowledge.  But whether people provide references or not,
whether they write "IMHO" and such all over the place, it is always
their opinion they are stating and everyone who reads it should put
their own brain in gear before acting on it.

So Peter, that's where I'm coming from, and it's in that spirit of
good manners that I think you should set a good example for Alan and
provide references, if you require them of him.  It isn't just between
you two, you know, and there are probably onlooking list members who
are just as interested in reading your supporting science as they are
in reading Alan's.

> Peter:
> 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?

Carol:
No, and I don't think that is a good analogy.  (I never called you a
hypocrite, for one thing.)  A water-walking skill is easily verified
if the claimant is willing; but no matter how willing Alan might be
to do what he can to scientifically support his claims about his
successes and those of his friends, he cannot.

> >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.

> Peter:
> 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:
Again, I agree that Alan was overly assertive in his statements, but
those that were made about his experiences and those of his friends
cannot be substantiated that way and should not be expected to be.

> Peter:
> Discussing diet with proponents of fruitariansm is like debating
> the logic of math with the Easter Bunny. :)

:D