Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Wed, 4 Jun 1997 22:42:55 -0400 |
Content-Type: | TEXT/PLAIN |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
On Wed, 4 Jun 1997, Dean Esmay wrote:
> I've
> long been familiar with the line of thinking that every question has an
> agenda; I reject it.
I reject it too, for precisely the same reason you do: Only
questioners have agendas. And questions are the output of
questioners, without whom there are no questions.
The answers you can get depend upon the questions you ask, the
way you ask them, and what you will accept as an answer.
> As for facts:I think they are sometimes to be found in scientific journals.
Me too, really. I think we can agree that facts have no value
*until* they are interpreted.
> Also the paleodiet -does- have factual evidence behind it.
Not disputed.
> There is quite enough evidence to suggest that it is worth
> experimenting with and exploring on an individual basis to see what works
> well for us as individuals until such time as more in-depth, objective
> study can be made.
I agree, or I wouldn't be doing it.
I would only add this: I think there is value in *testing* the
premises of the paleodiet dialectically, as we do here, as well
as empirically, as we do with our bodies.
I consider my concerns about AA to be largely refuted, and I
submit that it is not *idle* to air those concerns and to test
them against the beliefs held by others. This process doesn't
settle anything, but it is edifying nonetheless.
Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]
|
|
|