On Sun, 7 Dec 1997, Bill Wilcox wrote:

> Mary wrote:
> > What is the paleo view of colonics ..
> Doesn't sound very paleolithic to me.  How would a
> caveman do an enema?

This questions *BEGS* for about a million jokes.  However,
it is often the type of answer one frequently gets in
response to a question regarding something that does not
fit into the ($NAKED && $POINTY_STICK) test.

The problem I have with this answer is the logical fallacy
it utilizes.  It implies that *only* things that paleolithic
human *could* consume without technology are permitted.
Just because *all* things that were edible by p-human *are*
safe/healthy to eat, it does not mean that *all* things that
are safe/healthy to consume *are* things p-human would/could
consume.

If:  X = the set of all things consumed by p-man.
     Y = the set of all things safe/healthy to consume.

We will agree that all members of the set X *are* contained
within the set of Y.  However, that does not logically mean,
imply, or even suggest that all members of Y *are* contained
in the set comprising X.

So logically, the only value of using the aforemention cave-
man answer is in *veryfying* something is OK for consumption.
It can never validly be used to prove or suggest that something
is *NOT* OK for consumption.  Using it as your food guide
simply guarantees that are you are remaining within the set
of Y (since all X are in Y).  However, it is and will always
be valid to ask if things that are not in X are in Y.

I apologize for the length of this - and I intend to flame no
one, but the "caveman" answer has always stuck in my craw.
It smacks of the kind of "because I told you so" answer I got
from educational figures who were not willing to do the
legwork to really know the answer to my question rather than
give me a quick answer that neither satisfied my curiosity nor
made me respect them.  All I hope to come from this messages
is that we all *KNOW* the answer to the questions to which we
reply and only use the "caveman" answer when verifying
something *is* OK for consumption and not to prove something
*IS NOT*.

Regards,
Gene