20 Mainstream Nutrition Myths that Most People Believe (Even though they've been Prov

[creative]

Here you will find many successful accounts of employing this ancient practise, i.e. not a new age thing at all - it just got repackaged for our times.

Secret Stories :: Official Web Site of The Secret

 

[GotGarlic]

You'll notice that quote started with a quote from the Bible. I know this is an ancient idea. That's not relevant to the question of whether it works. Liars, cheaters, thieves and fakers of all kinds are ancient archetypes because they have been around for millennia as well.

That's why the scientific method was developed - to prove or disprove a hypothesis by rigorous experimental design and testing and eliminating confirmation bias as much as possible. It's not perfect, since people aren't perfect, but it's much more accurate than believing something because it's been around for a long time.

 

[GotGarlic]

Here you will find many successful accounts of employing this ancient practise, i.e. not a new age thing at all - it just got repackaged for our times.

Secret Stories :: Official Web Site of The Secret

1. Anecdotal evidence doesn't prove anything. It may provide a place to start looking for a hypothesis, but most of the people who write in support of something like that are self-selected. The ones who got nothing out of it will either blame themselves or just not bother to write in. And the author certainly isn't going to publish any complaints.

2. Sites whose primary objective is to sell me something are not valid sources of information, imo.

 

[creative]

Ah yes GG - I forgot about your heavy leaning towards science. That explains a lot!

By the way, anecdotal evidence may not prove anything to you (hard to get experiences wired up in a lab I think you will find) but may still have occurred, i.e. be real! I am sure your life is full of anecdotes..... Are you implying they are all accounts of pure fabrication?

 

[GotGarlic]

Ah yes GG - I forgot about your heavy leaning towards science. That explains a lot!

By the way, anecdotal evidence may not prove anything to you (hard to get experiences wired up in a lab I think you will find) but may still have occurred, i.e. be real! I am sure your life is full of anecdotes..... Are you implying they are all accounts of pure fabrication?

I have a heavy leaning toward facts and logic.

I didn't say anecdotes weren't experience, and I didn't say they were fabricated. You're now displaying the common logical fallacy called a straw-man argument - accusing me of saying things I didn't say in an attempt to strengthen your own position.

I said anecdotes don't prove the validity of a specific hypothesis and I explained why. Without knowing how many people tried something, how many succeeded, how many failed, and what else they were doing, you can't know that X worked for them. You can *believe* it. But you can't *know* it.

If you knew that 1 million people bought that book and tried the procedure, and that 1,000 of them got what they wanted and wrote to her, would you feel confident in telling people that you know it works?

 

[Roll_Bones]

"Government" isn't one big monolithic thing. Most of the people who work in government have nothing to do with elections or policies; they just do their jobs, year after year, like other people do their jobs. That includes teachers and scientists and air traffic controllers and police and firefighters and park rangers and on and on.

Funny that you avoid national news and watch local news. I mostly stopped watching local news 15 or so years ago because it's nothing but death and destruction, shootings and fires and crime. I will watch the weather report and that's about it.

However, I often watch the Today show in the morning and NBC Nightly News in the evening. Cable news is way too frantic for my liking. I only watch it if something major happens, like the shooting in Ottawa today. When I was on the board of the local League of Women Voters, reading a daily newspaper was one of the expectations of board members - so we would be informed on current events.

Nice people don't necessarily have the knowledge they seem to Just because someone believes something strongly doesn't make it true.

Somewhere in all these written words, I would be willing to bet, we have common ground.
I can take a lesson from a professor or the guy on the corner with a beer in a bag.
Its not always the source. Its the quality of the information and the ability to put that information to use.

 

[GotGarlic]

Somewhere in all these written words, I would be willing to bet, we have common ground.
I can take a lesson from a professor or the guy on the corner with a beer in a bag.
Its not always the source. Its the quality of the information and the ability to put that information to use.

Yes. When it comes to something like Ebola, I'll take the word of the director of the Centers for Disease Control before almost anyone else. Except maybe for the infectious-disease expert I know personally who works at the medical school where I used to work

We all use shortcuts to decide which sources have the information quality we want, though. From what I learned working at a medical school with physician and scientist researchers, and dealing with a long-term chronic medical condition requiring interactions with many many health-care providers, I believe that most of them have people's best interests at heart. They want to cure, or if that's not possible, improve quality of life, for their patients, and researchers want to help cure disease. Many of them have a personal reason for doing what they do - a family history or some other specific motivation. The people you read about who lie and cheat are outliers, imo.

 

[PrincessFiona60]

Who are you going to believe?

Those who want to sell you the truth?

or

Those who want to tell you the truth?

 

[GotGarlic]

PF, thank you for summing up my wordiness so succinctly

 

[CharlieD]

I don't know what to believe anymore. As I mentioned on another thread, I was just diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes. When I visited the dietitian, she gave me the play by play on what foods I should be eating, etc.

I then told her I had been pretty much following those exact guidelines for the last 8 years, and yet here I was in her office getting advice on how to treat my disease.

Her only comment was "Well then keep up the good work."

I have the same problem and the Same story here with the nutritionist. I can maybe understand cholesterol problem, but sugar i just don't get it.

 

[creative]

I have a heavy leaning toward facts and logic.

I didn't say anecdotes weren't experience, and I didn't say they were fabricated. You're now displaying the common logical fallacy called a straw-man argument - accusing me of saying things I didn't say in an attempt to strengthen your own position.

Not at all GG...it is yourself that is falsely interpreting that apparently I am accusing you of saying things. If you read my post more carefully you will see that I was asking you a question and asking you if you were implying...

Never mind - it is abundantly clear that you are far from receptive to this issue. Not everything is amenable to scientific testing yet still exists. For instance, science can merely reduce love to chemicals. A poor analysis for this vast, wonderful experience wouldn't you say?

 

[Addie]

And I know where you can buy a pair of Copper socks. The Copper bracelet didn't work, so lets try this. Maybe if we wish hard enough?

 

[creative]

Copper works effectively on some but not others it seems. (Senses a major bashing of alternative health coming up).

 

[Silversage]

Wow! Has this thread taken a turn to the kooky!

 

[creative]

Wow! Has this thread taken a turn to the kooky!

Yes. Apologies to TATTRAT. Perhaps the mods could edit it?

 

[Addie]

Copper works effectively on some but not others it seems. (Senses a major bashing of alternative health coming up).

You will never get a bashing from me. And if I feel inclined to say something to you, I will always do it privately.

 

[Addie]

I don't need studies to tell me how to eat. Common sense is what leads me. When I leave that behind, I get into trouble.

When I get into trouble, I don't feel very good. Physically and emotionally. I know I screwed up with my diet.

 

[GotGarlic]

Not at all GG...it is yourself that is falsely interpreting that apparently I am accusing you of saying things. If you read my post more carefully you will see that I was asking you a question and asking you if you were implying...

Never mind - it is abundantly clear that you are far from receptive to this issue. Not everything is amenable to scientific testing yet still exists. For instance, science can merely reduce love to chemicals. A poor analysis for this vast, wonderful experience wouldn't you say?

You can characterize it however you want, but it's pretty clear that the intent of your question was to disparage my earlier statements; you were not seriously asking for clarification. That doesn't advance your argument at all, which in any case consists of a series of logical fallacies.

I'm open to new ideas and ways of doing things, but I don't start believing things that have no rational basis just because it's been around a long time, someone has sold a lot of books about it and some people think it worked for them.

P.S. I guess you haven't heard about the amazing things they're doing with MRI scans these days. The reason for pursuing this kind of understanding is to help people suffering from clinical depression to experience love again. A worthy goal, wouldn't you say?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/your-brain-in-love-graphsci/

 

[creative]

I'm open to new ideas and ways of doing things, but I don't start believing things that have no rational basis just because it's been around a long time, someone has sold a lot of books about it and some people think it worked for them.

P.S. I guess you haven't heard about the amazing things they're doing with MRI scans these days. The reason for pursuing this kind of understanding is to help people suffering from clinical depression to experience love again. A worthy goal, wouldn't you say?

Your Brain in Love - Scientific American

Well lots of things have no rational basis, e.g. love...so do you not believe in this?

Your link left me cold...yes the areas of the brain can be pinpointed for precise emotions and yet they do not define/describe the experience of love which was my point. If someone said they had a wonderful steak and chips...to recognise that this is composed of complete amino acids and carbohydrates misses the mark.

Limitations of Science

 

[GotGarlic]

I don't agree that love has no rational basis and I'm aware that science has limitations. We have art to define the experience of love

I think we've talked this out enough. I always appreciate the opportunity to try to understand better the thought process of people who disagree with me, so thank you for that.