On Mon, 16 Sep 2002, Jim Swayze wrote:

> Hey, the assumptions are working both ways with this argument.  It was
> presented by someone on this list as undeniable truth that cheese is paleo.
> No need to even discuss the issue.

That's rubbish.  I never claimed that there's no need to discuss
the issue.  I didn't announce my position as "undeniable truth,"
but presented arguments.  This is the essence of discussion.

> The argument went something like this: Man eats cheese.  Because of this,
> he certainly would have eaten the stomach contents of sucklings since it's
> a form of cheese.  Therefore, man eats cheese.  Talk about broad-based,
> all-inclusive assumptions!  When I questioned the argument, I got your
> admonition not to generalize.

That is an utterly inaccurate reconstruction of the argument.

> If it could be shown (and it hasn't to my knowlege -- someone please
> correct me if I missed it) that we ate the stomach contents of sucklings on
> a regular basis and for long enough for it to be included in our natural
> diet, then maybe we need to seek out lamb entrails as an alternate source
> of nutrition.  But it's another step from there to say that whatever's in
> the stomach sack of young mammals is the same as Monterrey Jack.  But I'll
> leave that argument for another day.

As a general thing, your standard of evidence is too high for
most foods accepted as paleo.  Has it been shown that we ate
chickens or fish roe or blueberries or turkey livers or whatever
for hundreds of thousands of years.  No, it hasn't.  But we
regard them as paleo because we recognize that such foods were
readily available to paleo man, and there was no reason not to
eat them.  The principle that is that if a food source was
continuously available to paleo man then we should assume that he
took advantage of it, unless we have evidence to the contrary.
For purposes of reconstructing paleo diets, that principle is
often the best we can do, since direct physical evidence of many
specific foods may forever be lacking.

Do you want to defend the principle that the only acceptable
paleo foods are those for which we have direct physical evidence
of continuous consumption by paleo man for hundreds of thousands
of years?

The consumption of stomach contents of killed animals by hunters
is not my invention.  It is a fact that human (and nonhuman)
hunters are known to do this, which provides prima facie evidence
that ancient hunters could and would have done the same.  No
special modern technology is required; the sharp stick will do.
The onus is not on me to prove that ancient hunters also
practiced this, but on you to provide a reason to think they
didn't.

Despite the fact that I took pains to point out that my argument
only applies directly to forms of cheese most similar to the
rennet-fermented cheese that would be found in stomachs, such as
curd cheese and farmer cheese, you have again distorted my
position with your "Monterey Jack" comment above.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]