Okay, but what if science only acknowledges that which can be seen? What was that line from Hamlet....."there are more things in heaven and earth, Geoffrey, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Factor in faith, and it obfuscates clean science. I know plenty of astrophysicists who go to church regularly. Some things just defy the scientific process, and if they do, does that mean they don't exist?
Please don't call me any names, here. I am just stepping into the fray briefly in this discussion thread as I feel moved to contribute.
Do you remember when accupuncture first was divulged to the Western world? The idea that invisible, unscientifically proven energy fields could criss cross the body like a condensed road map, and somehow be tweaked to provide relief, cures, etc was unfathomable by Western Science. The fact that this type of "medicine" was thousands of years old was even more fantastic, as compared to Western medicine which is only hundreds of years old. I remember as a kid watching someone in I think Nixon's cabinet who got appendicitis while in China, and had to have an emergency appendectomy using ONLY accupuncture needles for pain management without anesthesia.... HE was awake and in no pain during the procedure. it was unimaginable.
How could barefoot doctors have figured out such a thing?
So, I try to keep an open mind that allows healing from all modalities, including following a paleo diet, using Western medicine for their diagnostic capabilities but not necessarily their prescriptive advice, and asking G-d for help when the yearly tax bill comes in the mail.
Be well,
Batsheva
________________________________
From: Geoffrey Purcell <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 4:38 AM
Subject: Re: R: [PALEOFOOD] Ages in Chaos re William
The real problem with beliefs based mostly on faith is that they can't really be falsified using the scientific method. Now, Ron and others have stated, at times, that modern science has often been wrong. That is, of course, true, but the whole point is that Science, over time, self-corrects itself with the help of the scientific method as more reliable studies are produced every year with the help of more advanced technology and more information, along with peer-review of those studies etc.
I have encountered this problem a lot with raw, palaeolithic dieters. They would point out that some scientific studies erroneously tried to show that cooked foods were beneficial, and that therefore we should ignore all scientific evidence and just focus on New-Age-oriented "stuff" like Weston-Price's unverified claims or Biblical references to diet. I, in return, pointed out that, actually, many other scientific studies focused on the harm done by cooking, such as the issue of heat-created toxins like polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons etc.
Of course, my other concern, here, is that the whole concept of palaeolithic diets is based on the theory of Evolution. If Evolution is discredited, then there is no reason to follow a palaeolithic diet at all.
Geoff.
"When I first joined this list I appreciated very much the sound scientific
background of many of you. So much so as to change the way I eat - and live.
The strenght of the paleo point of view is it makes sense AND it is backed
by hard scientific evidence. "
|
