>Kirt:
>> Many of these books are simply unedited unscrutinized ego-trips by
>> alternative health "gurus"...
>
>Carol:
>Wouldn't it be better to let list members judge the reading material
>for themselves and write reviews of individual works rather than to
>make blanket criticisms?
Of course list members judge for themselves, just as I was. I would enjoy
posts reviewing books and have posted some in the past myself. My "blanket
judgement" was an opinion on the whole of most of the alternative health
books I have read.
>Kirt:
>> A reading list is fine as far as it goes but it doesn't address the central
>> issue, at least to me, of mistaking dogma for fact. Indeed, I'd venture to
>> say that most books on such a list could be studied as examples of such.
>
>Carol:
>But who is to say what is fact?
Alan, for one. ;)
>Many of the folks on this list
>probably subscribe to all sorts of alternative notions that are
>vilified in the mainstream media every day. And yet, from the same
>mainstream media, we constantly hear pronouncements that contradict
>those that were reported by them as fact only days before. Acceptance
>of something as fact by "experts" is no guarantee of its validity.
Research is basically data and conclusions. The conclusions are not facts;
they are new hypotheses to be studied. That there is so much apparent
disagreement in the conclusions drawn from research only shows that there
are no simplistic "facts" about nutrition or health. Thus Alan's
proclaimations are IMO much more overboard as he states them than my
requests for him to stop stating them as "truth".
Jean claude:
>The attempt of scientists to
>prove an hypothesis to make it a fact is no more than begging the other
>peoples to join in their belief...
Except that it is supposed to be a rigorous and peer-reviewed process that
has repeatable and verifiable results. None of this is true of most
alternative health theories, including instincto.
>It is like we were in a house looking at different window, each one of us us
>trying to prove the reality of what we see to others. It is unlikely that
>one point of view is better because it is necessarely a limited and
>incomplete perception of the outside world .
This takes it way too far IMO. All points of view are not equal in utility.
There is no question that all knowledge is fragmentary and incomplete.
Except to folks like Alan who have a corner on the "truth" for all of us.
Some points of view are much more useful to more people than others.
>If that perception doesn't
>agree with the perception of the neighbour , what is the purpose of trying
>to convince the other that my view is what it is?
Are you asking Alan or me. ;) My view is that there are pathetically few
healthy people on many of the raw regimes, and newbies come around all the
time seeking info. If Alan is not challenged then they will simply get more
of the dogma that is already in the books instead of a reality check from
the folks who have gone before them on the "raw path".
>Is it a tentative to have
>my experience of viewing the world from that window validated ? Is it going
>to satisfy me, to have somebody joining with me at that window and realising
>that even in that situation he or she doesn't see the same way, and might
>notice different things. Could it be that looking at the world through
>DIFFERENT windows, has a purpose?
Of course it does. You clearly have your favorite windows as do we all, but
Alan seems to be blinded by his "perspective".
>Could it be more Rich to all jump through the windows and BEING in the world
>together, EXPERIENCING instead of comenting from our respective balconies
>about witch view is right.?
That's just another window to me, one where the human ability to
discrimintate between utility and balderdash seems to be thrown out the
window. ;)
Alan, like many egotistical people in the alternative health arena,
elevates his balcony to absurd heights and disregards counter experiences.
I "experience" Alan's posts and take issue with his "facts", not his
experience. Using your termonology, all balconies are not equally useful,
nor true. Some are provably false (probably most actually). Your desire to
ignore the issue of judgement in preference to "being" and "experiencing"
is admirable, but taken to extremes one becomes unable to discriminate
between the useful and the bogus. And then folks like Alan consider
themselves supreme. Granted he will likely continue to do so regardless of
what I or others post here, but the newbies--and the folks trying to break
out of the stranglehold of dogmatic belief systems--may find it usefull to
see that there are many folks who disagree with his "truth".
>PROVING FACTS is useless to me > I am interested by what other people
>experience , because i am not interested to justify my own experiences.
>IT is a challenge for me ,on that list to have a sense of what the
>writers's experiences are
You might find it useful to see what the archives have to say about
instincto experience then. You will find plenty of anecdotal support for
instincto and plenty of counter-examples to the instincto lore which you
are enamored. And the archives will offer you some percpective on the
horrendnous track record of fruitarianism and raw veganism as well.
Cheers,
Kirt
Secola /\ Nieft
[log in to unmask]
|
