I think that it does make sense to apply a non-uniform standard of evidence.
An short article last year in Skeptic magazine commented on the difficulty
in doing studies to determine what is good to eat.  The author suggested
that it may be several generations before we have all the answers.  My
reaction to the article was: "Well what are we supposed to eat in the
meantime?"  I think the Paleo diet gives us a "null hypothesis" that we can
start with.  Studies that encourage us to eat non-Paleo foods should be met
with extreme skepticism.  As Carl Sagan said, extraordinary claims require
extraordinary proof.  If that is proof is forthcoming, start eating.  ( I
for example have convinced myself that red wine has passed the test.   But
maybe I lowered the standard.)  Similarly, studies that show that paleo
foods are bad to eat should be met with skepticism.  But again, given
sufficient proof we should not eat those foods. Ken
----- Original Message ----- >
> Perhaps, on the other hand, we should simply accept or reject foods on
> the basis of known health problems.  If so, then we would have to
> include so-called paleo foods in our scrutiny, and in particular we
> would have to apply something like a uniform standard of evidence.  That
> is, it would make no sense to accept uncritically any study that appears
> to validate the food choices that we have already decided are paleo, but
> then become arch-skeptics of studies that appear to contradict them.
>
> Todd Moody
> [log in to unmask]