Hi Ken,
Your comments sound decidedly defensive. My defense of William is based on
the democratic principle that everyone is entitled to their opinion - even
you, Ken.

You referred to William's anti-evolution assertions by saying they were
"backwoods, eccentric comments". That's dismissive, insulting, and
unnecessary. I think that comparing your attack on william is very
appropriate to the attacks on scientific heroes of the past. You and I may
believe that evolution is the only logical explanation for many of the
phenomena we see, but I'm sure that Semmelweiss' contemporaries were just as
sure that demons or humors were the "real" cause of illness. 

From my perspective, insisting, or even requesting that everyone on the list
agree with evolution looks more like proselytizing dogma than science. That
would mean we should call it Scientism.

As for your comment about sophistical demagoguery, I must admit that I did
go on and on. I could and should have made my point much more briefly. I
encourage my writing students to avoid this trap, then I fell into it
myself. I'll try to avoid that trap in future posts. 

Best Wishes, 
Ron

-----Original Message-----
From: Paleolithic Eating Support List [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Kenneth Anderson
Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 10:20 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: PALEOFOOD Digest - 21 Jul 2009 to 22 Jul 2009 - Special issue
(#2009-207)

Mr. Hoggan, your defense of William is an example of tolerant modern
liberalism taken to absurd degrees.  This list should at least affirm
evolution, and my suggesting this idea, should not be compared to
attacking a scientific hero or throwing someone in a mad house—that is
sophistical demagoguery.

Ken


> Date:    Tue, 21 Jul 2009 23:11:43 -0700
> From:    "Ron Hoggan, Ed. D." <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: evolution holds health lessons- Dr. Meller's new book (9)
>
> It is common to scorn ideas that are not congruent with current majority
> beliefs and values. On the paleofood list, evolution is usually considered
> to be the foundation of the nutritional strategies we endorse. That
doesn't
> make our conception of evolution or any other theory of evolution the
final
> word. It is, as William has pointed out, a theory. Even among those who
> subscribe to this theory, there is considerable disagreement about many
> facets of this theory.
>
> I happen to believe that the theory of evolution, in my limited
> understanding, is the best explanation I've encountered for the many
> observations of speciation, adaptation, etc. etc. However, I'm not
prepared
> to accept the notion that it is some inarguable TRUTH. I want to stay open
> to new possibilities. In the interim, and for practical purposes, I
proceed
> as if evolution is a fact, but that doesn't make it a fact. I
> whole-heartedly endorse William's expressed skepticism about evolution;
not
> because I agree with him that there is no evidence to support the theory
of
> evolution - there is a plentitude of evidence that supports it - I support
> him because there was once considerable evidence supporting the notion
that
> the earth was flat.
>
> Inaz Semmelweiss was put in an insane asylum because he thought that the
> deadly child-birth fever was transferred from one obstetric patient to
> another by doctors who didn't wash their hands. Semmelweiss was beaten by
> the guards when caught trying to escape. He died of the injuries sustained
> in that beating. Half a century later, Louis Pasteur got all the glory for
> the same insight.
>
> A contemporary of Semmelweiss, Stanislas Tanchou, studied cancer deaths
and
> came to the silly conclusion that cancer increases with civilization. The
> more civilized the lifestyle people adopt, the greater their risk of
cancer.
>
>
> We have persecuted outliers and dissenters for millennia. Yet it is almost
> always those who think otherwise that make new discoveries and lead us to
> new understandings.  If we can't celebrate dissenting voices, let's at
least
> tolerate them on the basis of the many contributions that have been made
by
> their counterparts in the past. What you call "backwoods, eccentric
> comments" may someday be heralded as a heroic insight.
>
> Best Wishes,
> Ron