Ward,
My personal thanks to you for the time and energy you invested in your
last post. I personally have no vested interest in either side except
for seeing the truth come out and having it be solid truth.
If any of the "alternative" voices are really interested in having their
view recognized, heard, and honored, then they need to offer solid
information with solid backing. And be willing to stand the test of
true scientific inquiry.
This has been a major problem in the raw food, hygienic, frutarian
movements since their beginnings. Making outrageous claims without
being willing to substantiate, document or reference their material.
For years, all my requests of these writers, and voices to give me
documentation was diverted or ignored. Not that I wanted to disprove
what they were saying, but to have actual proof for myself. The recent
attemots of many to document our thoughts, is highly commendable.
Common sense, intuition and insight are all valid means to obtain
information and truth. However, if it is real truth, then it should be
able to ALSO be documented, proven, validated, and stand the test of
scientific debate and inquiry. Otherwise, it will always remain as an
outside, fringe, unrespected thought.
Science is only the attempt to investigate and prove what is. If what
is, is what is, then it shouldn't be hard to prove.
At some level, I find NFL posts humerous and enjoyable, and admire their
commitment, tenacity and energy. But rarely do I put any stock into any
of them, because they refuse to document or validate any of their claims
or statements even when asked to do so. Now, if they would just put
their energy into doing something different (then the same thing so many
of those who came before them in their movement did) and offer some
legitimate backing, research, and studies to their claims. And if they
don;t exist, then put their energy into doing some legitimate research.
Who knows, it may even be fun. :)
When you consider how different the dietary approaches many of us on
this list are promoting in comparison to what most people are used to,
then it would seem only obvious and responsible of us to offer them
legitimiate and factual reasons why we recommend what we do. Otherwise
we are just "pissing" in the wind.
Years ago I wrote an article on the "counter-culture" in relation to the
movements that came out of the 60's. One of the things I found was that
many promoters of counterculture movements DIDN"T really want their
ideas to become mainstream. It seems they enjoy the role of being the
"devils advocate" to whatever is the mainstream, more so then they do in
seeing their movement become mainstream. And why not, because if it did
become mainstream, what use would we have of them anymore. And so, we
see, that many of these people, prefer the egotistical role of "keeper
of the key" or "devils advocate" as oppossed to have the information
properly validated and disseminated to the public.
In Health,
Jeff
"A Skeptical Beleiver" :)
|
