Edited and compiled by Frederick Mann
Copyright © 2002, Build Freedom Holdings, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
This report is based on discussions on the Professors of Liberty email discussion list during August and September, 1999. For privacy reasons most names (except my own) are indicated as "Prof. XX." See also #TL04A: Unreality Imperative: The Most Fundamental Human Problem.
*****Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 11:25:27 -0700 To: Libprofs <libprofs-l@genius.ucsd.edu> From: Upgrade! (Frederick Mann) Subject: Re: Human Nature--evil or good At 12:08 PM 8/27/99 -0400, "Prof. SK" wrote: >Here's another topic (somewhat related to the free will issue) that may be >worth exploring. You often hear mainstreamers scuffle over whether human >nature is essentially good or evil, and whether we therefore do or do not >need a state, etc. I think Prof. JC on here has asked some questions in >this regard. (Thomas Sowell also explores this in 'A Conflict of Visions' to >some extent.) I've spent some years exploring "human nature," and studied several hundred books related to the topic. Recently I discovered two books that, in my opinion, provide a huge breakthrough in the understanding of human nature: 'Wings of Illusion' by John F. Schumaker Amazon: <http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0879756241/qid%3D935777382/002-997 3344-6258412> B&N (cheaper): <http://shop.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=5WZ40R5GCG &mscssid=800PQWLKBUSH2JX20017QRP4NV6E8320&pcount=0&srefer=&isbn=0879756241> 'The Corruption of Reality' by John F. Schumaker Amazon: <http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0879759356/qid%3D935777566/002-99733 44-6258412> B&N (cheaper): <http://shop.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=5WZ40R5GCG &mscssid=800PQWLKBUSH2JX20017QRP4NV6E8320&pcount=0&srefer=&isbn=0879759356> Frederick Mann*****
From: "Prof. FF" To: <libprofs-l@genius.ucsd.edu> Subject: Re: Human Nature--evil or good Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 11:37:05 -0700 I would appreciate your providing brief summaries of the main points of these books. That way, we can examine the theme here and now, when the topic is in current conversation. (I do appreciate the references and will get to them later.) Prof. FF*****
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 16:27:12 -0400 From: Prof. JC To: LibProfs <LibProfs-L@genius.ucsd.edu> Subject: Re: Human Nature--evil or good For something to be considered "good" or "bad," there must be a standard of at least one of them. Since there is no universal standard in policy, the other place such reasoning can come from is religion or ethics. I say human beings are by nature evil, because they are prone to rob, steal, plunder, create governments without any input from without. Indeed, way way back the first human to practice such craft by definition never learned it from anyone else. It came from within, unless you think a UFO dropped it into his mind (but where, then, did the UFO get evil from?) Since I think that public policy is generally evil -- according to my standards of right and wrong, and I do not believe in UFOs, I am left with two possible reasons why we have this evil in the world: (1) the devil makes them do it (2) at least some men are evil by nature. Evil exists and people do bad things. Why? Because at least some are evil. To say that there simply is no evil or good is to deny any reason for judging any action, including murder, and to proclaim that there is no standard of justice. Prof. JC*****
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 13:52:05 -0700 To: libprofs-l@genius.ucsd.edu From: Upgrade! (Frederick Mann) Subject: Re: Human Nature--evil or good At 11:37 AM 8/27/99 -0700, "Prof. FF" wrote: >I would appreciate your providing brief summaries of the main points of >these books... I'll be writing a report 'The Unreality Imperative: Most Fundamental Human Problem,' largely based on Schumaker, but also extending his thesis to areas such as anthropomorphism, diet, language, and politics. When my report is done in about a month, I'll post a message with a link to the list. Schumaker's basic thesis is that certain aspects of reality are unpalatable to human consciousness/intelligence. To cope with this, we developed a "counter-intelligence" that enables us to escape harsh reality with unreal beliefs such as religion, the paranormal, etc. (In my report I'll claim that practically all political belief belongs to the unreality realm.) Schumaker uses the term "paranormal belief imperative" to include religious/ paranormal belief. I use the wider ranging "unreality imperative" and argue that some areas not covered by Schumaker also belong in the unreality domain. Practically all of "culture" is a result of the unreality imperative. Practically all humans are slaves of culture. Schumaker calls culture, "the master hypnotist." Frederick Mann*****
From: "Prof. ME" To: <libprofs-l@genius.ucsd.edu> Subject: Re: Human Nature--evil or good Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 17:32:43 -0700 Hey, that's great. Schumaker says other folks make things up because they can't face reality. But everything that Schumaker dislikes is an illusion; everything (presumably) that he likes is for real. What a prodigiously useful epistemological tool. Prof. ME*****
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 17:19:18 -0700 To: libprofs-l@genius.ucsd.edu From: Upgrade! (Frederick Mann) Subject: Re: Human Nature--evil or good Have you read his books? Human beings, utilizing their intelligence, having recognized their "counter-intelligence" (as Schumaker calls it), and having become aware of "cultural hypnotism," can distinguish, at least to some extent, between reality and illusion. It has little to do with Schumaker's personal "likes" and "dislikes." I suggest you look in the mirror and repeat aloud your last two sentences above. After ten times or so, you should be able to grant them the respect (or contempt, if applicable) they deserve. Frederick Mann*****
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 23:57:59 -0400 From: "Prof. SK" Subject: Re: Human Nature--evil or good To: LibProfs <LibProfs-L@genius.ucsd.edu> Okay, contempt. The concept "counter-intelligence" is counter-intelligent. Prof. SK*****
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 23:51:22 -0400 From: "Prof. SK" Subject: Re: Human Nature--evil or good To: LibProfs <LibProfs-L@genius.ucsd.edu> Can you give an example of a "political belief?" Surely you don't mean ideas such as "there is a government." [See #TL07B: The Nature of Government.] Seems to me one of these metaphorical, nonrigorous social science inquiries. It is absolutely nonsense to say humans are "slaves of culture." And who in their right mind believes in hypnotism? Prof. SK*****
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 23:54:52 -0400 From: "Prof. SK" Subject: Re: Human Nature--evil or good To: LibProfs <LibProfs-L@genius.ucsd.edu> Message text written by "Prof. ME" > Hey, that's great. Schumaker says other folks make things up because > they can't face reality. But everything that Schumaker dislikes is an illusion; > everything (presumably) that he likes is for real. What a prodigiously > useful epistemological tool. Sounds more like psychologizing to me--which is not epistemological but can be useful or interesting. He is probably right about religion. Supernatural ideas are clearly false so probably people do pretend to believe in it out of some escape mechanism, dread of mortality, etc. Even if there is a God, probably many people believe in Him for the wrong reasons, wouldn't you say? But I think it is a category mistake to apply this kind of reasoning to *normative* views. Prof. SK*****
From: "Prof. ME"
To: <LibProfs-L@genius.ucsd.edu>
Subject: Re: Human Nature--evil or good
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 1999 14:43:13 -0700
I concede that my original answer to Frederick Mann, aka Upgrade!, was
a little flip. It may be that Schumaker is actually facing and dealing with a
problem which, in its many guises, well deserves attention. Schumaker, I
gather, believes that religion (and, I would wager, tradition and a number
of other non-"rational" endeavors) has no legitimate truth claim to make.
Indeed, he seems to regard religion (etc.) as pathological per se,
notwithstanding his apparent desire to found a religion (does he tip his
hat to his fellow-citoyens?). And if he starts there, sure of that premise,
then it makes little sense to try to distinguish among religions (etc.), let
alone to try to work through their truth claims, or to explore what sorts of
inquiries using what sorts of tools would be appropriate. Within that
limitation, the impulse to religion is erroneous ("reality-denying") and
invites explanation. Similarities between religion, hypnosis, and "other"
pathologies would bear contemplation. (For that matter, even those inclined
to take seriously the possibility that one or another non-"rational"
endeavor might be able to make legitimate truth claims could profitably
contemplate those similarities, if only to explain, for example, heresy
[however defined].)
I found these two blurbs at Prometheus <http://www.prometheusbooks.com>:
'Wings of Illusion'
<http://www.prometheusbooks.com/site/catalog/book_740.html>:
Wings of Illusion offers a unique and disquieting perspective on paranormal
belief, including religious belief. Schumaker points out that reality-defying
beliefs represent one of the few truly universal elements of human culture.
Even during the present period, when many traditional beliefs are being
weakened, very few people live without some form of paranormal belief.
The object of this study is to trace the psychological origins of the
paranormal and to consider the implications of the prevalence of
paranormal belief for the future development of humanity.
The author's conception of the paranormal differs substantially from the way
in which this term has been used by previous authors. The book is not an
attempt to document the existence of forces beyond those of nature; on
the contrary, it regards belief in such forces as illusory. Given the illusory
character of such beliefs, the author seeks to pose and answer the
question: Why are paranormal beliefs so common, what functions do they
serve, and what "price" do we pay for such beliefs? In discussing this issue,
Schumaker is able to cast new light upon a range of psychological issues
that would appear to have nothing to do directly with notions of the
paranormal, such as suggestibility and various kinds of "mental disorders."
He also analyzes the implications of his interpretation for current forms of
Western therapy.
The broad-ranging concerns of this book, and the challenging nature of
the thesis it develops, should bring it to the attention of a wide audience.
Professionals in psychology, the study of religion, anthropology, and
sociology will find this work of importance to them. But it should also
interest everyone concerned with seeking to understand the human
condition in an age of crisis.
'The Corruption of Reality'
<http://www.prometheusbooks.com/site/catalog/book_585.html>:
This groundbreaking volume examines our sometimes strained grasp of
reality and sheds new light on three subject areas that continue to fascinate
researchers: religion, hypnosis and psychopathology.
The Corruption of Reality challenges many of the ideas in all three
disciplines and paves the way for an exciting, far-reaching and unified
theory of conscious and unconscious behavior. Schumaker argues that,
despite their apparent differences, religion, hypnosis, and psychopathology
are all expressions of the unique human ability to modify and regulate
reality in ways that ultimately serve the individual and society. In turn,
these
same behaviors can be traced to the brain's remarkable capacity to process
information along multiple pathways, thus allowing the person to manipulate
reality in strategic directions aimed at improved coping. He includes a
historical and cross-cultural analysis showing how reality reconstruction
takes place, and outlines the shortcomings of current psychotherapeutic
approaches as well as the promising trends toward a spiritualization of
psychotherapy.
"Rigorously argued, this book challenges traditional ideas and paves the
way for a far-reaching unified theory of conscious and unconscious
behavior." -- CHAOS!
"Schumaker has taken complex material and made it accessible to the
lay-person. Readers of any religious, or non-religious, persuasion will
find this book worthwhile, enlightening reading." -- Amarillo News-Globe
"Hoping for something better for our society, Schumaker offers ideas to
revitalize our sick Western culture, one of which proposes a new religion
embodying current knowledge about our peculiar personal/global
relationship. Controversial? Sure, but just about every new idea is
controversial at the outset. There's a lot for an open mind to consider
here." -- Hypnotherapy Today
"Schumaker's views and findings on the roles of ritual and perception in
our lives and in our views of reality are fascinating." -- Booklist
Prof. ME
*****
To: LibProfs-L@genius.ucsd.edu>
From: Upgrade! (Frederick Mann)
Subject: Re: Human Nature--evil or good
At 02:43 PM 8/28/99 -0700, "Prof. ME" wrote:
>I concede that my original answer to Frederick Mann, aka Upgrade!, was
>a little flip. It may be that Schumaker is actually facing and dealing with a
>problem which, in its many guises, well deserves attention. Schumaker, I
>gather, believes that religion (and, I would wager, tradition and a number
>of other non-"rational" endeavors) has no legitimate truth claim to make.
>Indeed, he seems to regard religion (etc.) as pathological per se,
>notwithstanding his apparent desire to found a religion (does he tip his
>hat to his fellow-citoyens?).
On the contrary, Schumaker cites extensive research studies that indicate
the benefits of certain religious beliefs. The research even distinguishes
between the comparative benefits between various types of religious and
other paranormal beliefs. He also points out the costs of various beliefs.
Part of Schumaker's thesis is that in our earlier evolution paranormal
(including religious) belief was essential for human survival. But we may
now have reached a point where some of these beliefs are more burden
than benefit. He also covers how some of these beliefs result in "man's
inhumanity to man."
>And if he starts there, sure of that premise, then it makes little sense
>to try to distinguish among religions (etc.), let alone to try to work through
>their truth claims, or to explore what sorts of inquiries using what sorts
>of tools would be appropriate. Within that limitation, the impulse to
>religion is erroneous ("reality-denying") and invites explanation.
>Similarities between religion, hypnosis, and "other" pathologies would
>bear contemplation. (For that matter, even those inclined to take
>seriously the possibility that one or another non-"rational" endeavor
>might be able to make legitimate truth claims could profitably
>contemplate those similarities, if only to explain, for example, heresy
>[however defined].)
I think Schumaker takes it for granted that there's no point to examining
religious "truth claims." He focuses on the pragmatic consequences of
paranormal/religious beliefs. Although I haven't yet finished reading
'Corruption,' I suspect he advocates some form of paranormal/religious
belief system (though an escape into unreality) with beneficial consequences
that far outweigh harmful consequences. He probably still regards some
form of paranormal/religious belief system as essential for human survival.
In my opinion, Schumaker has made a great breakthrough in understanding
human nature. He has identified essential aspects of human nature, brain
functioning, and behavior -- in the most illuminating way -- not available
elsewhere, as far as I know.
I appreciate your looking further and finding the Prometheus blurbs.
They are of considerable value to me.
Frederick Mann
*****
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 01:12:14 -0400 From: "Prof. SK" Subject: Re: Human Nature--evil or good To: LibProfs <LibProfs-L@genius.ucsd.edu> Message text written by Upgrade!: >Part of Schumaker's thesis is that in our earlier evolution paranormal >(including religious) belief was essential for human survival. But we may >now have reached a point where some of these beliefs are more burden >than benefit. He also covers how some of these beliefs result in "man's >inhumanity to man." This seems to assume individuals can choose their beliefs. E.g., if you show me that the burdens of a given belief outweigh the benefits, I can choose to "drop" the belief. But you cannot by act of will choose to believe other than what you do. I could not believe the earth revolves around the moon instead of the sun even if you paid me a million dollars to do this. I'd want to, but would not be able to--because I *do not* believe this. >I think Schumaker takes it for granted that there's no point to examining >religious "truth claims." He focuses on the pragmatic consequences of >paranormal/religious beliefs. How positivistic of him. Of course, taking this very viewpoint, Schumaker cannot even advocate that his own system's claims are true or that there is any point to asking whether it is true. We can only wonder about the pragmatic consequences of holding Schumakerian beliefs. Of course, one consequence is that one will be a positivist, and thus one will be incorrect in correctly identifying and understanding many aspects about reality. One will thus be less satisfied and less successful in life than one otherwise would, because both satisfaction and success at mastering reality are achieved by true views not false ones. >Although I haven't yet finished reading 'Corruption,' I suspect he >advocates some form of paranormal/religious belief system (though >an escape into unreality) with beneficial consequences that far >outweigh harmful consequences. It makes no sense to "advocate" a belief system unless one believes it to be true. Prof SK*****
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 08:21:10 -0700 To: LibProfs-L@genius.ucsd.edu From: Upgrade! (Frederick Mann) At 01:12 AM 8/29/99 -0400, "Prof. SK" wrote: >But you cannot by act of will choose to believe other than what you >do. I could not believe the earth revolves around the moon instead >of the sun even if you paid me a million dollars to do this. I'd want to, >but would not be able to--because I *do not* believe this. Are you implying that humans in general don't have the ability to compare a number of competing beliefs, based on psychological/ demographic research indicating the relative merits/demerits of each in terms of emotional and physical health, financial success, happiness, etc. of the adherents of each belief? In other words, is it possible for me to form at least some of my beliefs on the basis: If I believe such and such, and act accordingly, I will increase my probability of success? Are you implying that we don't have free will when it comes to choosing beliefs? >It makes no sense to "advocate" a belief system unless one >believes it to be true. Have you considered that the notion of "truth" may be problematic? You write or speak some words you claim accurately "represent" some other aspect of the universe. (Hayek's question: How is it possible for one part of the universe to represent another part?) Is it possible for humans to choose their beliefs based on utility? Can we test beliefs in terms of the results produced when we act according to them, and choose the best-result-producing beliefs? Frederick Mann*****
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 18:06:10 -0400 From: Prof. SK Subject: Re: Human Nature--evil or good To: LibProfs <LibProfs-L@genius.ucsd.edu> I am not sure where you draw the line. Once one has a belief, I do think it is impossible to simply change the believe "at will." One could have the goal of believing what one currently believes to be false and work to gradually brainwash oneself, I suppose. And certainly, someone open to the truth and open to new evidence or theories can change his mind. But even this is not within his control, it seems to me. You can choose to open your eyes and look, but if you do you can't help but form a certain judgment about the case. Do you disagree with this? Certainly you do not think beliefs can be changed willy-nilly? Moreover, I think what you describe is more applicable to the causal domain, that is, to natural phenomena governed by cause and effect. But axioms (a priori laws) applicable e.g. to the teleological domain--no, I would not consider success, advantages, etc. in "measuring" or "testing" a given proposition to determine its truth. However one is always open in a sense to hearing a flaw in one's theory or to learning one was previously wrong. Prof. SK*****
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 15:53:40 -0700 To: LibProfs-L@genius.ucsd.edu From: Upgrade! (Frederick Mann) Subject: Toward a Theory of "Truth" (was: Re: more on free will, beliefs, and Human Nature) At 11:47 AM 8/30/99 -0500, Prof. JN wrote: >In some exchanges, such as one between Prof. SK and Frederick >Mann, the question of belief-formation arose. Prof. SK, perfectly >correctly, maintains that one cannot just choose to believe a proposition >one regards as false. His position is logically correct, notice: for to >believe a proposition is to attach truth to it, that is, to believe it is to >regard it as true. You can do this on the basis of inadequate evidence, >certainly (indeed, it is essentially impossible not to, if our standards >of evidence are stringent enough); but you cannot say, "This, which I >know is false, is nevertheless, my belief." To say this is just to raise >the question what on earth the speaker is talking about. Consider three domains: (1) The obvoius physical (2) The not-so-obvious physical (3) The metaphysical Maybe the concept of "truth" is most useful and powerful in the "obvious physical" domain. The earth revolves about the sun. The cat is on the mat. If I step into the path of an oncoming bus, I get flattened. Such statements are easily physically verifiable/falsifiable. Connections between cause and effect tend to be immediate and easily observed. Now consider the following Alexa <http://www.alexa.com/> traffic rankings on 30 August, 1999 (the lower the ranking number, the higher the traffic - Yahoo is #1): Cato Institute <http://www.cato.org/> #17,404 (links in 9,402) BuildFreedom > #17,430 (links in 459) Reason Magazine <http://www.reason.com/> #23,989 (links in 4,254) Free-Market.Net <http://www.free-market.net/> #24,307 (links in 2,776) Advocates for Self-Government <http://www.self-gov.org/> #33,151 (links in 4,309) National Libertarian Party <http://www.lp.org/> #32,950 (links in 6,564) Libertarian.org <http://www.libertarian.org/> #209,942, (links in 1,118) (The higher the ranking number, the lower the traffic.) "Links in" represents the Alexa count of the number of other sites with links to the respective site. What is the "truth" about why BuildFreedom is doing so well in terms of traffic compared to other major freedom sites? Even though we have so few other sites linked to us? I invite you to visit BuildFreedom and discern the "truth" about why BuildFreedom gets so many visitors! For another example, consider humans who drink cow's milk. What might the consequences be? Because of differences in metabolism, some humans are said to be "lactose-intolerant" -- cases where bad consequences manifest quickly. But what if some bad consequences -- maybe auto-immune and degenerative diseases -- only become evident after drinking cow's milk for 20, 30, or 50 years? How does anyone establish the "truth?" How useful or powerful is anyone's "truth?" (See The No Milk Page <http://www.panix.com/~nomilk/>.) [Note: A distinction needs to be made between fresh/raw milk and processed/pasteurized milk -- see #TL09: How to Achieve Superhealth.] I suggest that the concept of "truth" is less useful and powerful the further we move away from the "obvious-physical" domain. In the "not-so-obvious" physical domain we are better off choosing our beliefs based on testing and research. What if, when used over the entire spectrum of domains, the concept of "truth" has been a primary source of human destructive behavior (evil)? See Dr. Michael Hewitt-Gleeson's 'Software for Your Brain' at <http://www.thinkers.com/>. As you move away from the obvious-physical domain, it becomes more difficult to establish the "truth" of statements, because they aren't so easily verifiable/falsifiable. I suggest that outside the obvious-physical domain, it tends to work better to drop the true/false dichotomy and switch to the "best-utility" method of choosing beliefs. The "theory of evolution" is another example from the not-so-obvious physical domain. (Though some may claim that like "creationism" it belongs to the metaphysical domain.) Except maybe for a few solipsist types, nobody argues about "the cat on the mat." Not so for "evolution/creationism." I propose that we choose our belief, here, based on which theory is the most useful and has the best explanatory power. (I suggest we don't even think about true/false, here, because who knows when someone might come up with a theory with even greater explanatory power?) One of the major problems with the "truth" concept is that it tends to close the mind to more useful information. I contend that my meta-belief system, of which this post forms part, provides me with considerable advantages. It allows me to identify and integrate new and better information, and apply it to improve the quality of my behavior and the concomitant consequences. For example, my dietary knowledge is superior to that of most, so I don't get ill or sick, and I won my state senior olympics 5K run for my age group despite little effort to get fit. In the area of freedom, my meta-belief system has enabled me to choose some most useful beliefs that result in actions which provide me with extraordinary "freedom in an unfree world." For an introduction to going way beyond Harry Browne, see #FFP05: Harry Browne's Freedom Principles. Frederick Mann*****
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 19:16:14 -0400 From: Prof. BC To: LibProfs-L@genius.ucsd.edu Subject: free will and beliefs I believe this was originally said by Prof. JN: >In some exchanges, such as one between Prof. SK and Frederick >Mann, the question of belief-formation arose. Prof. SK, perfectly >correctly, maintains that one cannot just choose to believe a proposition >one regards as false. His position is logically correct, notice: for to >believe a proposition is to attach truth to it, that is, to believe it is to >regard it as true. You can do this on the basis of inadequate evidence, >certainly (indeed, it is essentially impossible not to, if our standards >of evidence are stringent enough); but you cannot say, "This, which I >know is false, is nevertheless, my belief." To say this is just to raise >the question what on earth the speaker is talking about. I've noticed that philosophers often say this, but I think this whole argument reflects a seriously over-intellectualized view of how people acquire beliefs. No one is thinking "I know this is false, but I choose to believe it." That is one step too many. Rather, they simply choose to believe it. If you analyzed their thinking, it would come down to something like: "I know this to be true, and I believe it, even though I have exerted no effort to actually think about the issue or gather evidence, and may even have a lot of contrary evidence." If you find this psychologically implausible, just introspect into your last debate on a topic you care about. Perhaps I am just a bad person, but I often find that in the middle of an argument, a voice in my head says: "This person should just shut up and accept that I'm right. I'm not listening anymore." It requires an act of self-discipline to ignore that voice, and give the other side a fair hearing. And the decision to exert that self-discipline or not is a paradigmatic case of a free choice. I confess that I've spent a lot of time developing economic models of belief formation on the assumption that people can choose their beliefs (see my papers on "rational irrationality" on my Academic Economics page). But I just don't see what's so psychologically implausible about this assumption. Tertullian's "I believe because it is absurd" captures most people's attitude toward their cherished beliefs quite well.
"To be honest, I don't quite understand why you're so upset by
what Karnavalov says. After all, it's perfectly absurd."
"That's exactly right, it's absurd," agreed the marshal. "But the
point is, as history demonstrates, it is absurd ideas, to be more
precise, idiotic ideas that have the best chance of winning the
mass's minds." -- Vladimir Voinovich ('Moscow 2042')Prof. BC*****
[The papers referred to above (archived here) are extremely important for understanding certain aspects of the unreality imperative: * Rational Ignorance vs. Rational Irrationality * The Logic of Collective Belief * Rational Irrationality: A Framework for the Neoclassical-Behavioral Debate * Rational Irrationality and the Microfoundations of Political Failure A most important aspect of the unreality imperative is what I call "the economics of irrationality," inspired by Prof. BC's papers.]
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 17:46:15 -0700 To: LibProfs-L@genius.ucsd.edu From: Upgrade! (Frederick Mann) Subject: Re: free will and beliefs Let me really stick out my neck and give some beliefs that many on this list might consider absurd. I believe that my personal metabolism is such that it would be absurd for me to eat cooked food. So I eat all my food raw, including meat! I believe that eating cooked and processed food would compromise my immune system. I believe that for most of the evolutionary past of my ancestors they ate raw food as they found it in nature, including raw meat. I believe that my ancestors, at least those who survived the longest, developed mechanisms to cope with salmonella, trichinosis, listeria, toxoplasmosis, etc. I believe that my body has inherited these mechanisms, therefore I can eat raw chicken, raw pork, and other raw meat without fear. I believe that I can improve on nature, so I spend about $400-$500 a month on supplements, such as vitamin C, etc. I believe that because of my dietary beliefs and practices, I'm vastly healthier than I would otherwise be, and the probability is high that I'll live much longer with a much higher quality of life, than I otherwise would. I believe that there are many others whose metabolisms are such that they would benefit from adopting my dietary beliefs. I grew up in a cooked-food culture. I believe that most people in this culture have no idea of the chemistry that occurs when they cook food, nor of the biochemistry (I was introduced to raw food by a biochemist) that occurs in their bodies when they eat cooked food, nor aware of the consequences of said biochemistry. I believe that most cooked-food eaters are slaves of their culture, to the extent that if they were presented with overwhelming evidence that they would be much better off eating raw food, that they would not be able to change their dietary beliefs and behaviors. Do I know that any of my dietary beliefs are "true?" No. However, I do know that after acting in accordance with them for 13 years, the results have been phenomenally beneficial. My dietary beliefs are superbly useful to me. Frederick Mann*****
[See #TL09: How to Achieve Superhealth.]
From: "Prof. TM" To: LibProfs-L@genius.ucsd.edu Subject: Raw Meat Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 23:05:05 -0400 There's this wonderful phenomenon known as the placebo effect. If you believe that something is beneficial to health it turns out to be. If you like to eat raw meat and your GI tract has the capacity to deal with raw meat, that's nice. But it's a belief that's anecdotal, based on an experience of one and may apply to no one else in the known universe. By the way, the fact that you can eat raw meat and live a healthy life says a lot more about meat preparation and handling in Western countries in the latter health of the 20th century, than it does about your immune system. If you got away with eating meat from free living pigs in a country lacking refrigeration I would really marvel. Prof. EM*****
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 23:36:14 -0400 From: Prof. SK Subject: Re: free will and beliefs To: LibProfs <LibProfs-L@genius.ucsd.edu> I believe you are a wacko. I mean, the longevity, cryogenic, pyramidic power wacko type. But thanks to my libertarianness, you are allowed to be a wacko in my world. Prof. SK*****
To: LibProfs-L@genius.ucsd.edu From: Upgrade! (Frederick Mann) Subject: Re: Raw Meat At 11:05 PM 8/30/99 -0400, "Prof. EM" wrote: >There's this wonderful phenomenon known as the placebo >effect. If you believe that something is beneficial to health it >turns out to be. If you like to eat raw meat and your GI tract >has the capacity to deal with raw meat, that's nice. But it's >a belief that's anecdotal, based on an experience of one >and may apply to no one else in the known universe. There are tens of thousands of people in the world who eat all their food raw. There are around 100 books on the topic and probably a dozen or more websites. Among these people, there are probably between ten and fifteen thousand who eat raw meat. Frederick Mann*****
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 08:56:49 -0700 To: libprofs-l@genius.ucsd.edu From: Upgrade! (Frederick Mann) Subject: The Straw Man There's a form of argument I've often come across on mailing lists: Person 1 proposes A. Person 2 then proclaims B, implying that person 1 thinks or says B; sometimes accusing person 1 outright of thinking or saying B -- when there's little or no relationship between B and A. Person 2 then proclaims that B is silly, false, wrong, mistaken, bad, absurd, preposterous, etc.; therefore what person 1 proposed is silly, false, wrong, mistaken, bad, absurd, preposterous, etc. Case (1) in point: At 05:32 PM 8/27/99 -0700, "Prof. ME" wrote: >Hey, that's great. Schumaker says other folks make things up >because they can't face reality. But everything that Schumaker >dislikes is an illusion; everything (presumably) that he likes is for >real. What a prodigiously useful epistemological tool. "But everything that Schumaker dislikes is an illusion; everything (presumably) that he likes is for real." represents B, above. Case (2) in point: On Mon, 30 Aug 1999 23:36:14 -0400 , Prof. SK wrote: >I believe you are a wacko. I mean, the longevity, cryogenic, >pyramidic power wacko type. Apart from the childish ad hominem, I've said nothing on this list about "cryogenics" or "pyramidic power" on this list. Linking these bogeymen to me represents B, above. This is called the straw-man fallacy. BTW, in 'The Corruption of Reality,' Schumaker thoroughly covers the issue, citing relevant research, of how different parts of the brain can hold contrary beliefs. Frederick Mann*****
From: "Prof. AS" To: LibProfs List <libprofs-l@genius.ucsd.edu> Subject: RE: The Straw Man Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 12:44:09 -0400 Yes, it's called "straw man." A straw man is not a real man although it looks like one, and is easy to knock over. "Straw man argument" is when you attribute a bad argument to someone and then indignantly reject it, but where that really wasn't the person's position in the first place. Prof. AS*****
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 15:39:01 -0400 From: "Prof. SK" To: LibProfs List <libprofs-l@genius.ucsd.edu> Subject: Cranks? Upgrade wrote: >I believe there are two basic issues when confronted with "different >knowledge": >(1) On the one hand, most "different knowledge" (of which there's a >great deal) tends to be worse than the knowledge one already has >and therefore needs to be rejected. >(2) On the other hand, the potentially most beneficial knowledge >usually tends to be most different from one's current knowledge, >therefore, most people protective of their current knowledge, tend >to reject the knowledge potentially most beneficial to them. > >Maybe this is an aspect of what I call the "unreality imperative." > >"Different knowledge" can be very threatening. For example, if I'm >correct that most people would be vastly healthier by eating raw >food, it implies that whoever has been eating cooked food all their >lives might have been doing something unhealthy and *unreal* >-- even self-destructive -- all their lives. This may be too threatening >for many to contemplate. Cognitive dissonance? > >Given that most "different knowledge" tends to be hobbyhorses >of cranks, the most "comfortable" out is to simply denounce all >purveyors of information that is "too different" as cranks and to >reject their "different knowledge" out of hand. > >Maybe a key aspect of the "unreality imperative" is placing more >emphasis on protecting current knowledge than on acquiring >new knowledge. > >So people on a list discuss "human nature." Are they interested >in learning more about human nature, or are they more interested >in protecting their current knowledge? If someone suggests that >they read certain books containing (in his opinion) the most >advanced information on human nature, are they interested in >checking out these books, or are they more interested in finding >any "reason" (or straw man) they can dream up to reject the >books without looking at them? I am always suspicious of health nuts, apart from the issue of whether their theories are half-baked or not (as Mann's clearly are--well, no, they're not baked at all). They are just too... into themselves or something. But that's just me. But anytime I'm at lunch or something and I'm with someone who only drinks ice water and eats a salad, my suspicions go off. I wouldn't want to be on a desert island with them, they might eat me if they had to. Survival is so important, you know. There seems to be a fringe-nutcase crowd on the borders of the libertarian movement, like these longevity and life extension types. The Deepak Chopra ageless body/timeless mind types. And then you have the assorted hippies and dope smokers and swingers. I even ran into one of these lunatic Galambosians one time. Don't know why that is. Friggin' weirdos. Makes me wonder what the hell I'm doing associated with this crowd of mixed nuts. I wonder how many libertarians with a normal job in the real world and with little time to devote to "building freedom" or other utopian or pyramid schemes like Atlantis or Oceania prefer the company of normal non-libertarians, e.g., at a dinner party, to the company of libertarians? But let us suppose counterfactually that Mr. Mann is right that we should live like cave dwellers and eat raw rabbits to live a year or so longer. Who wants to? We all take risks with long term and short term health to enjoy life more while we are living it. There's nothing wrong with such a trade off. So I don't give a damn if eating raw liver is better for me than cooked, I enjoy the latter and will go on eating it. It's the same with cigaret or cigar smoking, or with drinking, or eating fatty foods instead of celery stalks. Plus, my wife would divorce me I started this loony cultish behavior, so that settles that. Of course I guess you will tell me now how Harry Browne's book about freedom tells you not to get married or something libertine/modal like that. Prof. SK*****
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 13:55:07 -0700 To: libprofs-l@genius.ucsd.edu From: Upgrade! (Frederick Mann) Subject: Re: Cranks? At 03:39 PM 8/31/99 -0400, "Prof. SK" wrote: >I am always suspicious of health nuts, apart from the issue of >whether their theories are half-baked or not (as Mann's clearly >are--well, no, they're not baked at all). They are just too ... into >themselves or something. What logic is there in the above? Does it address any issue that's been raised? The ad hominem attack intensifies? Could this interaction further our investigation into human nature? What is Prof. SK demonstrating here? >But that's just me. But anytime I'm at lunch or something and I'm >with someone who only drinks ice water and eats a salad, my >suspicions go off. I wouldn't want to be on a desert island with >them, they might eat me if they had to. Survival is so important, >you know. The "cannibalism" straw man? >There seems to be a fringe-nutcase crowd on the borders of the >libertarian movement, like these longevity and life extension types. >The Deepak Chopra ageless body/timeless mind types. And then >you have the assorted hippies and dope smokers and swingers. >I even ran into one of these lunatic Galambosians one time. Don't >know why that is. Friggin' weirdos. Makes me wonder what the >hell I'm doing associated with this crowd of mixed nuts. More ad hominem, straw men! What sets off a normally rational person so that he starts unleashing as above? Does this tell us anything about human nature? >I wonder how many libertarians with a normal job in the real world >and with little time to devote to "building freedom" or other utopian >or pyramid schemes like Atlantis or Oceania prefer the company of >normal non-libertarians, e.g. at a dinner party, to the company of >libertiarans? > >But let us suppose counterfactually that Mr. Mann is right that we >should live like cave dwellers and eat raw rabbits to live a year or >so longer. More straw man. I haven't suggested the above. If you assert "counterfactually," do you have substantiating facts for that assertion? >Who wants to? We all take risks with long term and short term >health to enjoy life more while we are living it. There's nothing >wrong with such a trade off. Finally, a reasonable argument. What if eating as I do is as enjoyable or more enjoyable? >So I don't give a damn if eating raw liver is better for me than cooked, >I enjoy the latter and will go on eating it. It's the same with cigaret or >cigar smoking, or with drinking, or eating fatty foods instead of celery >stalks. Is something essential about human nature being revealed here? Does the above amount to, "I don't give a damn about self-destruction?" I wouldn't suggest that anyone on this list would ever initiate violence against another. However, in the general population (not committed to the non-violence principle), could there be an "I don't give a damn about self-destruction" attitude that's a prelude to, "I don't give a damn about destroying others?" (Part of the unreality imperative?) >Plus, my wife would divorce me I started this loony cultish behavior, >so that settles that. Another reasonable argument, and a problem for some raw-food eaters. Maybe if you both studied the available information, and did an experiment for a few months... though your family, friends, and associates would almost certainly consider you crazy -- a definite cost -- the increased health and happiness -- maybe lasting 20-30 years longer -- would outweigh the cost. >Of course I guess you will tell me now how Harry Browne's book >about freedom tells you not to get married or something libertine/ >modal like that. You guess wrong. As the French say, "A chaq'un son gout" (sp?) (To each his taste!) There are definite costs involved with thinking and behaving in ways that deviate from "cultural norms." In earlier times, deviants were killed outright or kicked out of the tribe, often leading to the quick death of the outcasts. The situations of many individuals (and families) are such that the costs of certain "deviant behaviors" they might consider would outweigh the benefits. There are also alternatives to the all-or-nothing approach. Some people eat a certain way at home, but in the presence of outsiders they pretend to be just like them. There are all kinds of things one can do partially to gain partial benefits, while minimizing the costs. Frederick Mann*****
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 17:11:01 -0400 From: "Prof. SK" Subject: Re: Cranks? To: <libprofs-l@genius.ucsd.edu> Message text written by Upgrade! >>I am always suspicious of health nuts, apart from the issue of >>whether their theories are half-baked or not (as Mann's clearly >>are--well, no, they're not baked at all). They are just too ... into >>themselves or something. >Could this interaction further our investigation into human nature? >What is Prof. SK demonstrating here? That I have learned to be suspicious of certain character types. >>Who wants to? We all take risks with long term and short term >>health to enjoy life more while we are living it. There's nothing >>wrong with such a trade off. >Finally, a reasonable argument. What if eating as I do is as >enjoyable or more enjoyable? Hey, you can eat dog crap as far as I'm concerned if that creams your twinkie. Or you can be an oxygenarian. Yeah, those guys are real advanced. >>So I don't give a damn if eating raw liver is better for me than >>cooked, I enjoy the latter and will go on eating it. It's the same >>with cigaret or cigar smoking, or with drinking, or eating fatty >>foods instead of celery stalks. >Is something essential about human nature being revealed here? Always. >Does the above amount to, "I don't give a damn about self-destruction?" No, it just recognizes that tradeoffs are inevitable. You cannot live without realizing it. So one should not be obsessed with maximizing one narrow parameter of life at the expense of the others that will suffer. >I wouldn't suggest that anyone on this list would ever initiate violence >against another. However, in the general population (not committed >to the non-violence principle), could there be an "I don't give a damn >about self-destruction" attitude that's a prelude to, "I don't give a damn >about destroying others?" (Part of the unreality imperative?) It's more, I don't mind taking the risk to shorten my life somewhat if it makes life more pleasurable now. There are tradeoffs. >>Plus, my wife would divorce me I started this loony cultish behavior, >>so that settles that. >Another reasonable argument, and a problem for some raw-food >eaters. Maybe if you both studied the available information, and did >an experiment for a few months... though your family, friends, and >associates would almost certainly consider you crazy -- a definite >cost -- the increased health and happiness -- maybe lasting 20-30 >years longer -- would outweigh the cost. Yeah, 20-30 years, right. (Every sane person raise your eyebrows and nod in polite agreement.) And if you stick pins in your skin and wear a crystal, you can add maybe another 5. >There are definite costs involved with thinking and behaving in ways >that deviate from "cultural norms." In earlier times, deviants were killed >outright or kicked out of the tribe, often leading to the quick death of >the outcasts. Hey, and that might shorten that 20-30 year increase! Prof. SK*****
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 20:08:30 -0700 To: LibProfs-L@genius.ucsd.edu From: Upgrade! (Frederick Mann) Subject: Counter-Intelligence (was Re: Human Nature--evil or good) At 11:57 PM 8/27/99 -0400, "Prof. SK" wrote: Message text written by Upgrade! >>Human beings, utilizing their intelligence, having recognized their >>"counter-intelligence" (as Schumaker calls it), and having become >>aware of "cultural hypnotism," can distinguish, at least to some >>extent, between reality and illusion. It has little to do with Schumaker's >>personal "likes" and "dislikes." >> >>I suggest you look in the mirror and repeat aloud your last two >>sentences above. After ten times or so, you should be able to >>grant them the respect (or contempt, if applicable) they deserve.< > >Okay, contempt. The concept "counter-intelligence" is counter-intelligent. Schumaker claims that human nature is paradoxical in that we are creatures of opposites. The same person can behave in a highly intelligent manner on some occasions, while behaving stupidly on other occasions. In 'The Corruption of Reality,' Schumaker backs up the possibility of such opposite behavior by citing relevant brain research. He claims we have both intelligence and "counter-intelligence" (stupidity circuits?) At 03:39 PM 8/31/99 -0400, "Prof. SK" wrote: >I am always suspicious of health nuts, apart from the issue of whether >their theories are half-baked or not (as Mann's clearly are--well, no, >they're not baked at all). They are just too ... into themselves or >something. But that's just me. But anytime I'm at lunch or something >and I'm with someone who only drinks ice water and eats a salad, my >suspicions go off. I wouldn't want to be on a desert island with them, >they might eat me if they had to. Survival is so important, you know. > >There seems to be a fringe-nutcase crowd on the borders of the libertarian >movement, like these longevity and life extension types. The Deepak Chopra >ageless body/timeless mind types. And then you have the assorted hippies >and dope smokers and swingers. I even ran into one of these lunatic >Galambosians one time. Don't know why that is. Friggin' weirdos. Makes >me wonder what the hell I'm doing associated with this crowd of mixed nuts. >I wonder how many libertarians with a normal job in the real world and >with little time to devote to "building freedom" or other utopian or >pyramid schemes like Atlantis or Oceania prefer the company of normal >non-libertarians, e.g., at a dinner party, to the company of libertiarans? > >But let us suppose counterfactually that Mr. Mann is right that we should >live like cave dwellers and eat raw rabbits to live a year or so longer. >Who wants to? We all take risks with long term and short term health to >enjoy life more while we are living it. There's nothing wrong with such a >trade off. So I don't give a damn if eating raw liver is better for me >than cooked, I enjoy the latter and will go on eating it. It's the same >with cigaret or cigar smoking, or with drinking, or eating fatty foods >instead of celery stalks. At 05:11 PM 8/31/99 -0400, "Prof. SK" wrote: >Hey, you can eat dog crap as far as I'm concerned if that creams your >twinkie. Or you can be an oxygenarian. Yeah, those guys are real >advanced. How much of the above was written by Prof. SK's intelligence, and how much by his counter-intelligence? Frederick Mann*****
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 20:24:01 -0700 To: libprofs-l@genius.ucsd.edu From: Upgrade! (Frederick Mann) Subject: Re: Cranks? At 09:27 PM 8/31/99 -0700, "Prof. ME" wrote: >Why is the novelty of a theory any guide to its value? This is a good question. Novelty by itself is of course no guide to the value of a theory. Suppose that out of every 100 new theories proposed one survives the "test of time" -- like Newton's theories of motion applied to the "intermediate domain" (excluding the very small and very large). Suppose we examine 100 such successful theories, and we can find a way to assign to each theory both a novelty rating and a value in terms of human benefits resulting from the theory. If there's a correlation between novelty and value, then the principle holds: The novelty of successful theories are a guide to their value. Can any scientist illuminate this issue? Frederick Mann*****
From: "Prof. ME" To: <libprofs-l@genius.ucsd.edu> Subject: Re: Cranks? Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 21:27:24 -0700 > (1) On the one hand, most "different knowledge" (of which there's a > great deal) tends to be worse than the knowledge one already has > and therefore needs to be rejected. > (2) On the other hand, the potentially most beneficial knowledge > usually tends to be most different from one's current knowledge, > therefore, most people protective of their current knowledge, tend > to reject the knowledge potentially most beneficial to them. Can someone explain how one can assess whether "the potentially most beneficial knowledge usually tends to be most different from one's current knowledge"? What does "tends to" mean, for example? What does "potentially" mean -- and how, other than a prior commitment to preferring weird stuff, would one know the *potential* of any seriously different scheme? Why, say, would eating beef raw, rather than maggots cooked, be the obviously potentially-most-beneficial alternative to ordinary American fare -- which, of course, is to be put behind us because, well, it's so ordinary. And if it's not *obviously* preferable, how does one know which to try? So many loony tunes, so little time. Mind you, nothing that I've said should be taken to mean that no alternative to ordinary American fare *could possibly be* better in some reasonably objective sense (longer life, fewer distressing diseases along the way), or even semi-objective way (I like the taste and texture of pate de foie gras, and to hell with you cholesterol- avoiders -- and, by the way, where's my cigar?). When I added bilberry to my morning vitamin-and-supplement tray, for example, it was on the theory that it couldn't hurt (well, I hoped it wouldn't), and the stories were not outrageous. So I tried it. To my astonishment -- no placebo effect here -- my vision, not so much in my good eye as in the eye which had been half-destroyed by a quasi-stroke and subsequent laser surgery, improved. Coincidence perhaps, although the retinal surgeon had not mentioned any possibility of spontaneous improvement. But, on the Upgrade! theory, that was not really a significant challenge to the ordinary ways, so, I suppose, it didn't really happen. Why is the novelty of a theory any guide to its value? Prof. ME*****
[Note: The important question is: Why is the novelty of a *successful* theory any guide to its value? Unsuccessful theories have no value irrespective of their novelty.] Date: Wed, 01 Sep 1999 11:57:06 -0700 To: libprofs-l@genius.ucsd.edu From: Upgrade! (Frederick Mann) Subject: Re: Novelty and Theory At 10:26 AM 9/1/99 -0500, Prof. JN wrote: >If old theories are known to be inadequate, then *by definition* >novel theories are required. The only theories that *can* be >considered seriously are new ones, therefore. So on the one >hand the correlation between novelty and being worthy of >investigation is extremely high. > >...[T]his background question of being above some threshold >of epistemic credibility... On thinking some more about this, it intuitively seems to me that if we were to survey successful theories, such as: 1. Humans can farm instead of being hunters & scavengers; 2. The wheel can make movement easier; 3. A ship can be designed that sails into the wind by zig-zagging; 4. Machines can be built to do work; 5. Bug theory of disease (wash your hands); 6. Heavier-than-air machines can be made to fly; 7. Wires can be used to communicate over long distances; 8. Thinking machines can be built to process information; 9. Etc., that the theories which resulted in the greatest benefits were those which brought about the greatest changes in human behavior. It also intuitively seems to me that the greater the novelty of a theory, provided it has sufficient epistemic credibility, the greater the changes in human behavior and benefits that result from it. See A.N. Whitehead's definition of novelty <http://levity.com/eschaton/novelty.html>. (The McMenna Novelty Theory seems to me to lack epistemic credibility, though it may provide some insights about our likely future. Overall, it seems like an expression resulting from the unreality imperative!) In my opinion, Prof. JN has identified a key factor: epistemic credibility. About 30 years before Lister and Pasteur succeeded in persuading doctors to disinfect their hands and instruments, the disinfection theory had epistemic credibility to Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis. In the 1840s puerperal fever typically caused a 10-30% mortality rate in maternity hospitals throughout Europe. Semmelweis reduced the mortality rate in the division of the obstetric clinic where he worked in the General Hospital of Vienna from 18 percent to 1 percent. But he failed to convince his colleagues and superiors. Instead of listening to him, and disinfecting their hands, they hounded, persecuted, and fired him -- for daring to suggest that they wash their hands properly. In the autumn of 1860, after the dismissal of Semmelweis, in the same ward where he had demonstrated how to virtually eradicate childbed fever, 35 out of 101 patients died. In a book published in 1861 Semmelweis presented his statistics and findings. He sent copies to medical societies and to leading obstetricians in Germany, France, and England. Despite his copious and undisputed statistics, he was completely ignored. (See 'Betrayers of the Truth: Fraud and Deceit in the Halls of Science' by William Broad & Nicholas Wade (Simon & Schuster, NY; 1982). The disinfection theory had obvious epistemic credibility to Semmelweis, but not to his colleagues. This suggests a crucial quality: the ability to measure or judge the epistemic credibility of a proposed theory. We need some kind of "epistemic credibility meter." A crude attempt: "It's too good to be true." "By washing your hands, you're going to reduce childbed fever from 18% to 1%? Yeah, right!" Given that among the chaffstacks of new theories there are bound to be a few pearls, how do you get the swine to quickly recognize them? Frederick Mann*****
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 1999 16:20:48 -0400 From: Prof. BC To: libprofs-l@genius.ucsd.edu Subject: Re: Novelty and Theory Prof. JN wrote: > BTW, there are heaps of wonderful more recent examples of a > somewhat comparable kind, such as the sad history of DDT, > which was expunged from the gardens, meadows, swamps, > and forests of all Americans, first, and then of the whole world, > by the U.S. Congress under the inspiration of Rachel Carson's > mythological treatise, 'Silent Spring.' Her theory, that birds were > being killed by DDT, was quite testable, and thus had prima facie > credibility -- so much so that people in positions of political power > had not the least interest in actually testing it (it was, and is, > absolutely false). As a result, it is estimated that several millions > lives, especially in places like Ceylon (as it then was) were lost > to malaria. > >Environmentalism generally thrives on theories in the same >class, to our long-time impoverishment. (Read all about it in Dixie >Lee Ray's 'Trashing the Planet' -- not all the claims in that book >are true, but most are extremely well documented in the relevant >scientific literature in her bibliography.) Query: I've heard this claim before. And while I'm extremely pessimistic about the rationality of the political process, it still seems incredible to me that a government would let millions die of malaria because Western greens are worried about birds. Does anyone know more details about DDT bans in countries with severe malaria problems? Are the Ceylonese [Shri Lankans] all in denial, or what? Prof. BC*****
[Editor: See: * When Politics Kills: Malaria and the DDT Story * Greens vs. the World's Poor * Bad Environmental and Resource Scares (Julian Simon) * Save Children From Malaria Campaign * DDT Updated * Government Death Machines.] Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 15:31:25 -0500 To: libprofs-l@genius.ucsd.edu From: Prof. JN Subject: Re: Novelty and Theory Frederick Mann's example of Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis is utterly wonderful, and I am grateful to him for supplying it. I should note that epistemic credibility is not, and was not meant as, a subjective property. Semmelweis' statistics are prima facie totally relevant to the subject at hand, and it's pretty obvious that his colleagues weren't interested in mere facts. What establishes an account's credibility is certainly its capacity to be tested independently against the phenomena being explained, and Semmelweis' theory rates tops in that respect. Prof. JN*****
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 1999 15:15:49 -0700 To: libprofs-l@genius.ucsd.edu From: Upgrade! (Frederick Mann) Subject: Re: Novelty and Theory It's not that simple. The Semmelweis theory had objective epistemic credibility. But he couldn't persuade his colleagues to become aware of that. When I talk about an "epistemic credibility meter," I'm referring to a method, technique, or faculty that could have been provided to Semmelweis' colleagues to enable them to discern the epistemic credibility of the theory. Because they didn't have an "epistemic credibility meter," they couldn't measure the epistemic credibility of the theory. Note that this theory applies to what I've called the "obvious-physical domain." Suppose that libertarianism as a theory has high epistemic credibility. Most (if not all) people on this list could provide all kinds of arguments, facts, and figures to demonstrate that. But most likely, nobody on this list is in a position to test the theory. Also, it applies to the "not-so-obvious physical domain." So in the long run it may be much more difficult for people generally to discern the epistemic credibility of libertarianism than in the case of the Semmelweis theory. Another important distinction is that the benefits of the Semmelweis theory can be demonstrated on an individual basis. In general, libertarians can't implement libertarianism in their personal lives and demonstrate the personal benefits and make these benefits obvious to non-libertarians. In the case of someone like myself, who largely lives free -- having implemented "practical libertarianism" -- if I were to tell non-libertarians face-to-face what I've done, some would probably regard me as a "selfish cheat" and snitch on me! So, what I call level-2 freedom (living free in unfree world) as a theory has high epistemic credibility, but it's difficult even for most libertarians to recognize this. [Note: See Respecting Levels of Freedom.] "Cultural resistance" may also be an important factor. Non-Libertarians may manifest extreme cultural resistance to libertarianism. Similarly, most libertarians may experience cultural resistance to level-2 freedom. (Schumaker: Most people are slaves of culture.) Semmelweis' colleagues may also have experienced cultural resistance. Now consider the raw-food theory. There are of the order of 100 books on it, and at least a dozen websites. There are tens of thousands of raw-food eaters -- maybe hundreds of thousands. There are many recorded case histories. There are many clinics where people can get guidance. The basic theory has simple logic to it. Anyone can personally test the theory and observe the phenomenal benefits. Raw-food restaurants are springing up all over -- in Las Vegas (of all places!) there's one called "Raw Truth." For the sake of argument, assuming that raw-food theory has high objective epistemic credibility, how do you overcome cultural resistance so people can measure and discern the credibility? How can you provide people with an epistemic credibility meter? In the case of DDT, the theory with low epistemic credibility beat the theory with high epistemic credibility. To what extent is the fact that most people don't have good epistemic credibility meters a factor? (BTW, Schumaker says a great deal about suggestibility.) Of course, when theories are chosen by people with coercive political power, different parameters apply. Nevertheless, large numbers of people can put pressure on politicians to choose theories with high epistemic credibility. I say there's an urgent need to provide a better epistemic credibility meter! Frederick Mann*****
From: "Prof. EM" Subject: RE: Novelty and Theory To: <libprofs-l@genius.ucsd.edu> Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 00:10:48 -0400 I am sad to say that Prof. JN's post re malaria is true. World-wide deaths resulting from malaria are on the order of 10,000,000 (although I would have to check to get the most recent estimate). The number of cases and deaths has increased since the banning of DDT. Although DDT may have some harmful effects in birds (the data are unclear) there is no convincing data that it is harmful to humans. (I have heard Bruce Ames give a talk on this.) However it is banned. It would be interesting to consider how effective such a ban would be if malaria were a problem in Western countries, i.e., if we or our children were at risk. Prof. EM*****
Date: Fri, 03 Sep 1999 17:10:01 -0700 To: "'libprofs-l@genius.ucsd.edu'" <libprofs-l@genius.ucsd.edu> From: Upgrade! (Frederick Mann) Subject: Semmelweis Reflex (was Raw Meat) Some general comments. Regarding recent postings, I initially posted a message about Schumaker's books because I got the impression that some people on the list wanted to know more about human nature. I indicated that I would write a report: 'The Unreality Imperative: Most Fundamental Human Problem.' Then, during interactions with Prof. SK, I realized that some useful material was being generated for my report. I hope to generate some more. I believe the term "Semmelweis reflex" was coined by Robert Anton Wilson to refer to the rejection of information without inspection -- see my recent post about Semmelweis' discovery and how it was ignored for 30 years. Given that every day we all come across many times the information we have time to inspect, it's inevitable that we'll reject a great deal without inspection -- particularly if it seems as preposterous as washing your hands before operating (to Semmelweiss' colleagues) or eating raw meat (to people in the cooked-food culture)! At 11:05 PM 8/30/99 -0400, "Prof. EM" wrote: >But it's a belief that's anecdotal, based on an experience >of one and may apply to no one else in the known universe. From this it seems that up to this point, you hadn't come across other raw-meat eaters besides myself. I then pointed out that there were a few thousand more. At 07:59 PM 9/2/99 -0400, "Prof. EM" wrote: >The fact that there are 10,000 to 15,000 people that eat raw >meat in no way backs up the claims regarding improved health >or immune functioning. As far as I know, nobody on this list has claimed the contrary to the above. >To back up such a claim, raw-meat eaters would have to be >compared to conventional eaters in terms of frequency of >different diseases, overall health, longevity and this study >would need to be done in large enough numbers to draw >some statistically significant conclusions. Do you know that the above hasn't been done? >Otherwise the idea that eating of raw meat is somehow >healthful remains in the category of lore or what you seem >to refer to as "alternative knowledge." I doubt that I've used the term "alternative knowledge" on this list. >Now although I am trained as a scientist I am also one >generation away from peasant stock and I was exposed >to a fair amount of lore and I am not averse to applying >lore to specific situations. Of course I do this with a >significant proviso: the lore prescription can't be >associated with any harm and I should have some >either personal experience or some suggestive data >that it might to some good. Have you heard of Aajonus Vonderplanitz who uses raw meat as "medicine" to treat a host of diseases? >I have prescribed onion poultices for sprains (personal >experience), cod liver oil for peripheral vascular disease >(epidemiologic data) and primrose oil for diabetic >connective tissue disorders (rave reviews from a >few patients that used it) and soy supplements for >menopausal symptoms (reports from patients and >some data in the literature). > >I consider myself open minded about non-traditional >therapies but find that I am not at all compelled by the >raw meat theory. It seems to me that you know practically nothing about "the raw meat theory," that you've not even looked at one book on it, nor even interviewed one raw-meat eater. So how can a scientist be "not at all compelled" by something he knows practically nothing about. Isn't this similar to Semmelweis' colleagues rejecting his theory without inspection? >As I said, I will use testimonials if the product is without >potentially bad side effects. Raw meat consumption is >associated with infection with enteropathogenic E.Coli >infections, salmonella, toxoplasmosis, trichinosis -- to >name the most common. > >The risk of toxoplasmosis to pregnant women is >significant and indeed I have a family member who >has complications resulting from congenital toxo. >Both salmonella and trichinosis can be lethal. So I >don't consider raw meat consumption a habit that >has no risk of harm. A further risk is blindness to children of women with toxoplasmosis. (General advice to raw eaters is that they shouldn't touch raw meat during the first six months of eating raw -- wait for the immune system to "normalize.") >Secondly the rationale, that eating raw meat is healthy >because our ancestors ate raw meat is suspect. It is >likely that early humans were hunter and gatherers so >before fire we have to assume that they ate whatever >they caught raw. > >However there are alternatives to cooking, including >salting and drying, both of which serve to preserve >meat and kill pathogens. So what isn't clear is how >many years ago human beings gave up the raw >consumption of meat. Let's be very conservative >and say that humans have cooked meat for 5,000 >years. Some anthropologists claim 200,000 years! >Well 5,000 years represents about 250 generations >of humans. Even if one assumes that early humans >developed some genetic attributes that favored those >who ate *raw* meat after 250 generations of eating >cooked meat those attributes would be long gone. >Indeed, the average modern human would be quite >adapted to eating cooked meat, especially in view of >the potential pathogens in meat. Tell that to a vegetarian! It's conceivable to me that humans have adapted to various degrees, and that some have adapted to eating cooked food, including cooked meat. I'm most definitely one of those who haven't adapted to eating cooked food (with the possible exception of a few items such as onions, scallops, and garlic heated for a few minutes). >Now if one objects to eating cooked meat because >of various theoretical concerns related to toxic products >accumulating within meat during cooking (there's a >reasonable likelihood that this happens on the barby >and with deep frying but there's no evidence that this >happens with roasting)... You mean you haven't heard of the evidence! I bet if you do some research you'll find plenty of evidence. I suspect you know practically nothing of the actual chemical changes that take place when food is cooked (including roasting meat), and practically nothing about the differences between the biochemistry that occurs when humans eat cooked food, compared to the biochemistry when they eat raw food. >Why eat meat at all? Vegetarians are perfectly healthy. Your standards of "perfectly healthy" may be rather low. I've heard of vegetarians who got breast cancer, and even some who died in their 40s or 50s from cancer, heart disease, etc. [Note: Vegetarian Linda Mccartney is a case in point.] Given different blood types and different metabolisms, it seems reasonable to me that some people don't need meat for perfect health. How would you identify such people? It so happens that my body needs meat. >Finally when it comes to my own personal lore, like I said >I'm one generation away from peasanthood and I know for >a fact that my grandmother never heard of E. coli, let alone >toxoplasmosis. Part of her lore, transmitted to my mother >was to never, ever eat raw meat (this was about as strong >a stricture as the one about never marrying your first cousin). Have we arrived at the nitty-gritty? The cultural taboo to which you're a slave? Like Semmelweis' colleagues to whom it was taboo to wash their hands before operating? >Indeed, the grandparental generation did the opposite of >eating raw meat -- they ate all of their meat VERY WELL >DONE. My father who has lived in the U.S. for almost 50 >years has never eaten a piece of meat other than VERY >WELL DONE. And these eaters of meat overcooked to >the texture of shoe leather lived well into their ninth and >tenth decades. It's possible that they had indeed adapted to cooked meat. It's also possible that they would have lived considerably longer if they had eaten only raw, and that at age 100 they would still have run up the mountain faster than the typical 50-year old of today! (Provided they continued exercising vigorously all their lives.) >So basically while you might justify raw meat eating and >have what you consider very rational reasons for raw >meat eating it's basically lore. Seeing that you know relatively little about the subject, and have not perused the literature, this appears similar to Semmelweis' colleagues claiming that to wash your hands before operating is "basically lore." >It is possible that there are some good effects but they >are unsubstatiated except through personal experience. When it comes to good health effects, what's more convincing to the individual than personal experience -- particularly if supported by the similar experiences of thousands of others -- while many of the cooked food eaters around them suffer from obesity, arthritis, diabetes... and die from heart disease, strokes, cancer...? >And there is significant risk of a negative side effect. Consider the possibility that (provided proper raw-food procedures are followed) the risks of negative side effects might be considerably greater from cooked meat than from raw. Frederick Mann*****
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 20:33:55 -0400 From: Prof. SK Subject: Semmelweis Reflex (was Raw Meat) To: LibProfs <LibProfs-L@genius.ucsd.edu> We all know there are cranks and wackos out there. It is useful to identify them ahead of time--or to adopt methods that are pretty good at this. Now when you claim that your little raw meat fetish will add 20-30 years to human life, this is clearly absurd, and you can safely be classified as a crank, wacko, weirdo -- basically one of those monomaniacs you run into at a cocktail party that you go along with until you escape from their clutches. If you said add 2 or 3 years, well, that's a little more reasonable of a claim, but of course then not exciting enough to spawn a cult. Clearly, if your little raw meat fetish really added 30 years to human life it would be clearly known. It is clearly not clearly known, and it of course is not true. So the obvious conclusions follow. You have made it easy to dismiss you as a lunatic crank. Just a little FYI in case you want to fine-tune your spiel for fresh audiences in the future. Prof. SK*****
Date: Fri, 03 Sep 1999 20:04:48 -0700 To: LibProfs-L@genius.ucsd.edu From: Upgrade! (Frederick Mann) Subject: Re: Semmelweis Reflex (was Raw Meat) My claims are related to raw food (not forgetting supplements and exercise). I've made no claims for "your little raw meat fetish." Seeing that you've not addressed any of the issues in the post you responded to, I presume you're incapable of contesting any of its contents. Your "argument" that "if your little raw meat fetish really added 30 years to human life it would be clearly known," is precisely the same that Semmelweiss' colleagues would have used if they had said, "If your claim that washing our hands before delivering babies will reduce deaths from 30% to 1% were true, it would be clearly known." In any case, I'll use the contributions from "Prof. SK" in my report on the unreality imperative to bolster the credibility of some of the Schumaker claims about counter-intelligence, culture, etc. you've disputed. Though you may think me sarcastic, I assure you I'm sincere when I say that I love your contributions and regard them as exceptionally valuable for what they portray about certain aspects of human nature as described by Schumaker! I look forward to what you have to say next! Frederick Mann*****
From: "Prof. EM" To: "'libprofs-l@genius.ucsd.edu'" <libprofs-l@genius.ucsd.edu> Subject: RE: Semmelweis Reflex (was Raw Meat) Date: Sat, 4 Sep 1999 14:17:59 -0400 This is silly. I don't reject your claims regarding raw meat without examining them. I examined them based on what I know both as a physician scientist and as a lay person. As I've already written, I prescribe alternative therapies. The problem with your contentions is that there is no data. This is a general problem with most alternative medicine. One may gain knowledge from unconventional. That's fine. I've occasionally gained knowledge from unconventional sources myself. But unless I prove validate them using conventional techniques the knowledge is idiosyncratic and anecdotal. So if one wants to make expansive claims about raw meat one is obligated to subject the claims to scientific scrutiny. For example I believe that a diet of raw fruits and vegetables and cooked grains would significantly extend life when compared to a standard Western diet. This is based on data that has been subjected to scientific scrutiny, although the original claims and observations may have originated in the alternative arena. However I don't believe, because there is no data, that steamed vegetables confer any less health benefit than raw vegetables. Also grains, which are very healthy, are not really suitable to ingestion raw. So in fact complete abstinence from meat is healthy. Now as to raw meat, I can think of a lot of reasons as to why ingesting raw meat would be bad, basically related to the various infectious organisms that meat harbors. You have not addressed this issue. Nor have you addressed the fact that up until this century meat processing was such that it was not only possible, but very likely that the meat would have various unsavory organisms associated with it. In contrast I can't make any connections as to why raw meat would be healthy. There's no particular cultural history for eating raw meat, other than raw fish (which falls into different category) by Asian cultures. So as I said and which you again failed to address 250 generations of people are more than enough for any benefit that raw meat might have had to have been lost. You talk about delusions related to culture yet you fail to see that in the absence of having your views about meat substantiated scientifically you are working with information that might be valid, but that might also be invalid. You are certainly allowed to do so, and if you limit yourself to the observation that raw meat seems to be good for you that's fine. If you try to proselytize I'm afraid that you become the very thing that you condemn. As I said I have some personal beliefs related to my own alternative knowledge, but as far as I'm concerned they're just beliefs, applicable to me alone and I would no way presume to convince anyone else unless I was interested in getting data. Prof. EM*****
Date: Mon, 06 Sep 1999 15:36:13 -0700 To: libprofs-l@genius.ucsd.edu From: Upgrade! (Frederick Mann) Subject: RE: Semmelweis Reflex (was Raw Meat) Based on what's been posted and issues you've failed to address, the following seem likely to me: 1. You've not examined even one of the 100 or so raw-food books in existence. 2. You've never visited any raw-food clinic, nor examined their records. 3. As a physician scientist, you've never examined or interviewed a raw-food eater. 4. You know very little about the chemical changes that take place when food is cooked (or otherwise heated). You know very little about the differences between the biochemistry that occurs when cooked food is eaten, compared to the biochemistry related to raw food. You've not examined the relevant literature, including writings of physicians and biochemists. >Now as to raw meat, I can think of a lot of reasons as >to why ingesting raw meat would be bad, basically >related to the various infectious organisms that meat >harbors. You have not addressed this issue. 5. I did address the issue. I indicated that because our ancestors ate raw meat, human bodies (with "normalized" immune systems) have developed mechanisms to deal with "bugs." I provided you with the link for further information. You apparently have not examined the material at this link. >In contrast I can't make any connections as to why raw >meat would be healthy. 6. That's because you haven't examined the relevant data. Here are some more links: * Raw-Food Directory [Note: In the original email I provided a list of about a dozen links. These have now been included in the Raw-Food Directory which has more than 50 entries. And Some of these sites have more links to other raw-food sites.] >So as I said and which you again failed to address 250 generations >of people are more than enough for any benefit that raw meat might >have had to have been lost. 7. You have no idea how many generations it would take for humans to adapt to cooked food. Your "250 generations" is a number you plucked out of thin air with no scientific backing. 8. You have no idea how to determine whether a particular individual needs meat or not. 9. You have no idea of the function of the sense of smell in determining proper diet. 10. Your cultural taboo against eating raw meat (of which you're a slave), has prevented you from examining the data. Frederick Mann*****
From: "Prof. EM" To: libprofs-l@genius.ucsd.edu Subject: RE: Semmelweis Reflex (was Raw Meat) Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 23:14:11 -0400 I searched both the web and referenced medical literature on the subject of raw meat. I can't draw any conclusions from the material on the web as none of it met any criteria that I consider sound. The medical literature, which is much looser and broader than you might think, and contains references to things like chromium supplements, chelating agents, garlic and cod liver oil and yogurt as dietary supplements had absolutely no information on raw meat. Now you're asking me to assume an opportunity cost in order to be convinced about your point. I'm open to lots of unconventional ideas, but I can't assume the opportunity cost for pursuing all of them. A novel and unconventional idea may be fine or it may be garbage -- there are too many ideas and too little time. As to raw food eaters, no I haven't examined or interviewed anyone who eats exclusively raw meat. Since I do a dietary history on all of my patients and since I've encountered just about every kind of diet from vegans to people who shun vegetables I must conclude that there are very few people out there who eat raw meat so it is unlikely that I will ever encounter them. Again if I were passionately interested in the subject I might go looking, but there's an opportunity cost and as I have no particular reason to believe that eating raw meat is of value (as opposed to garlic or cod liver oil or yogurt), I choose not to try and chase down raw meat eaters. As to the chemical changes involved in cooking, I was a chemist before I was a doctor and I'm fully aware of what cooking does to food. Indeed one of the reasons I find the your arguments unpersuasive is that different cooking methods do different things to food and you seem to make no distinctions. As to your claim about our ancestors and raw meat consumption, it is tenuous at best. We don't know how much, if any, meat our ancestors ate. Whatever meat they ate was of vastly different composition that what is currently available. Whatever evolution might have occurred was not selected for in the last 5,000 years when meat consumed was largely cooked. Now basically we are at an impasse. I can't be convinced by your claims -- I'm not saying that your claims are not valid, it is possible that they are valid, but at this time they are unsubstantiated. You can accept this as an evaluation and consider ways in which raw meat eaters might try and substantiate their claims and gain popularity. Or you can call me names and invoke all kinds of close minded and irrelevant historical paradigms. As long as you are free to eat raw food and I'm free to eat cooked food we can each satisfy our culinary desires and think that the other has odd and or close minded ideas. Prof. EM*****
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 22:42:47 -0700 (PDT) From: Prof. JM To: LibProfs-L@genius.ucsd.edu Subject: Re: Semmelweis Reflex (was Raw Meat) I find this thread interesting, but I don't quite see the connection to the list-theme of libertarianism... can anyone enlighten me? I hope no one is trying to pass legislation to force some group of people to eat all cooked food, all raw food, raw meat, etc. Perhaps there's a connection in that while trying to convince people to adopt a libertarian philosophy, we often get instead from them a Semmelweis Reflex... Just to put Mr. Mann's credibility in context, let me just point out again that he has claimed that his approach can add 20-30 years to life. Well, such a claim may not automatically be absurd. For instance, the work of Dr. Roy Walford would seem to indicate that a strict "high nutrient low calorie" dietary regimen started early in life (say early 20's) may well add 20-40 years or more to one's maximum lifespan. For more info, see: www.Walford.com. Prof. JM*****
[Note: A study by a research team headed by Nadia Belloc and Lester Breslow has indicated that by following certain healthy lifestyle habits, individuals can increase their life expectancy by more than 10 years. Note than "life span" refers to the maximum length of human life. Because a few people have lived to about 125, we can take that as "maximum life span." In contrast, "life expectancy" refers to how long an individual can expect to live. By choosing and following certain healthy lifestyle habits, individuals can increase their life expectancy closer to 125 years. You can find many references to the Belloc-Breslow study by searching the Internet for +Belloc +Breslow.]
Date: Tue, 07 Sep 1999 10:09:48 -0700 To: LibProfs-L@genius.ucsd.edu From: Upgrade! (Frederick Mann) Subject: Re: Semmelweis Reflex (was Raw Meat) This thread resulted indirectly from a discussion about human nature. I drew attention to the two breakthrough books of John F. Schumaker. During some subsequent discussion, the topic of absurd beliefs came up. On an impulse, I revealed some aspects of my diet, which I expected everyone on this list would find absurd. (Normally, I only discuss my diet privately or on one of my own mailing lists.) I also indicated that I would be writing a report on "The Unreality Imperative," being an extension of what Schumaker calls "The Paranormal Belief Imperative." As I hinted several posts ago, my purpose has become to generate material for my report, because in my opinion some correspondents on this list have admirably demonstrated some of Schumaker's claims. There was also a post in which I made a connection between the Semmelweis reflex to libertarianism and the rejection of other theories, including raw-food theory. One of my endeavors is building a core group of highly freedom- oriented people who are also superhealthy, long-lived, and who enjoy an exceptionally high physical, emotional, and intellectual quality of life. If libertarian types are much healthier and live much longer, they may be able to dramatically improve their effectiveness in expanding freedom. In most mailing lists there is a kind of "culture." In general, the subscribers to any particular list are people with "answers" for certain issues. (Sometimes there are different "camps" related to certain issues -- a "culture" is seldom homogeneous in all respects.) In general, trying to promote anything "outlandish" to a particular culture doesn't work. The beauty of the Internet is that you can put your "outlandish" material on a website and attract people looking for answers. This is my basic formula for creating an expanding network of like-minded people. Part of the formula is also to have "levels" of information, because some information may not be palatable to some people in the network. So I have a number of mailing lists for different "levels." So far, I haven't revealed many details of my approach. It includes: 1. Eating only raw food, including raw meat; with a few exceptions, no processed or prepared food. 2. Twelve meals a week, lunch and dinner on weekdays, fast on Sundays. 3. Taking a wide range of supplements. 4. Vigorous exercise at least three times a week. I assume that maximum theoretical human lifespan is about 125 years, because a few people live that long. I expect that, following my approach, many more people will not only live that long, but also enjoy superhealth and be able to "run up the mountain" when they're 100 years old. Frederick Mann*****
Date: Tue, 07 Sep 1999 12:02:05 -0700 To: libprofs-l@genius.ucsd.edu From: Upgrade! (Frederick Mann) Subject: RE: Semmelweis Reflex (was Raw Meat) At 11:14 PM 9/6/99 -0400, "Prof. EM" wrote: >I searched both the web and referenced medical literature >on the subject of raw meat. I can't draw any conclusions >from the material on the web as none of it met any criteria >that I consider sound. This seems to indicate that you ignored the links I provided. >Now you're asking me to assume an opportunity cost in >order to be convinced about your point. I'm open to lots of >unconventional ideas, but I can't assume the opportunity >cost for pursuing all of them. A novel and unconventional >idea may be fine or it may be garbage -- there are too >many ideas and too little time. This is a valid consideration. It also raises the issue discussed earlier: the "epistemic credibility meter" -- how does one quickly decide whether it's worth further investigating a particular theory? When I first heard of raw-food theory, it immediately made sense to me -- it had high "epistemic credibility" -- and I spent hundreds of hours perusing the literature, meeting other raw-food eaters, visiting raw-food clinics, etc. >Now basically we are at an impasse. I can't be convinced >by your claims -- I'm not saying that your claims are not >valid, it is possible that they are valid, but at this time they >are unsubstantiated. Seeing that you've examined little more than 0% of the available data (which may be outside "referenced medical literature," as was the Semmelweis data in his time) I find your "unsubstantiated" claim interesting. You seem to think that for something to be substantiated, it must be so by the "medical authorities" of the day. I suggest we leave it on the basis that my claims might be valid but because of opportunity cost they're not worth your time to investigate. Frederick Mann*****
[Note: Prof. EM is part of the medical establishment -- a professor at a leading university with the "stature" of Princeton, Yale, etc. I'm not suggesting that he would deliberately deceive people or keep them in the dark. But his bread is buttered on a particular side. What threats would his university receive (not to speak of grants withdrawn), were he to "do a Semmelweis?" See:
Disclaimer - Copyright - Contact
Online: buildfreedom.org - terrorcrat.com - mind-trek.com