 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Nutrition / August 2005Let's Accept That Our Knowledge Is Incomplete
Our knowledge of nutrition and health is necessarily incomplete. We are learning. We are evolving. None of the systems of health are going to encompass all of the minutiae of health. We should not expect them too. I do not understand why instead of pooling our knowledge and supplementing one another's knowledge there is so much trying to discredit the next one because they do not know everything. How silly! I follow Natural Hygiene in a modified way. I do not accept all of the principles and I do not practice all of the principles that I do accept because I am Human and make "terrible mistakes" like have slice of pizza sometimes. You know what? So does everyone who follows Natural Hygiene. I allow for the fact that others can provide information that I do not have. In fact, that is why I came here. The spirit of discrediting people here in toto because they cannot present a perfect system is unrealistic. Expecting perfection is a form of abuse. Learning does not occur in an atmosphere of abuse. Let's start playing nice and some real learning may start to occur here. Unless, of course, there are those here whose vested interest it is that learning will not occur. VP This is why a better understanding of what "science" actually is can be helpful. At present, there is no general theory of health as is there is a general theory of relativity, for example. As I've tried to show many times, there is overwhelming evidence to support the Harman hypothesis at this point in time (free radical damage). I will be the first to add that it's important to make sure you have enough nutrients, and in the correct form. However, there are some claims about "essential" nutrients that not only contradict the oxidative stress hypothesis of chronic disease causation, but also do not have real scientific evidence to support them. The "essential fatty acid" claim might be the most egregious instance of this, because the one experiment used to support it was done in 1930, before all the vitamins were known, and without proper controls. In that experiment, the different kinds of polyunsaturates were not tested, yet today we are told that omega 3 and 6 PUFAs are "essential," when the original experiment (which nobody has bothered to repeat and do correctly) did not test to see if the omega 9 derived PUFAs could do the same as the others, only more safely. I have examined the studies that have been conducted, and it is clear that this highly likely to be the case. If you, or anyone else, needs help understanding something or needs citations from the literature, you can always just ask me. Try doing your own research first, for example on pubmed.com, because the best way to really understand something is to work through it yourself. Fortunately, I have been aided by excellent mentors, and so am trying to return the favor by posting here. > This is why a better understanding of what "science" actually is can be > helpful. At present, there is no general theory of health as is there > is a general theory of relativity, for example. what an amazingly pointless comparison. > As I've tried to show > many times, there is overwhelming evidence to support the Harman [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > others, only more safely. I have examined the studies that have been > conducted, and it is clear that this highly likely to be the case. This is only because all the literature on w3's you read IS from 1930. There have been plenty of great studies on the essentiality of w3 fatty acids since, and people posted them numerous times- you just play blind and deaf.. thats all. > If you, or anyone else, needs help understanding something or needs > citations from the literature, you can always just ask me. Try doing > your own research first, for example on pubmed.com, because the best > way to really understand something is to work through it yourself. > Fortunately, I have been aided by excellent mentors, and so am trying > to return the favor by posting here. there we again have the mysterious "mentors".. better not mention a name, otherwise people would know that you make something like ("I read a newsletter by Ray Peat") sound like you went to his house to take lectures every day. "what an amazingly pointless comparison.", MMu says glibly and probably with little understanding of either Relativity or Nutrition. I thought it a rather good comparison, particularly since I know that the Theory of Relativity will be supplanted with a theory more exacting one day, even as Relativity is more exacting than Newton's theory of gravitation and so supplanted it. Relativity is the darling of the day. Such is the case with all scientific theories. They come and go, much like fashion models. The principles of health that work work in every generation and are not supplanted. That is the difference between truth and theory. While I do not thumb my nose at science, having been a student of physics I know its limitations all too well. > "what an amazingly pointless comparison.", MMu says glibly and probably > with little understanding of either Relativity or Nutrition. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > day. Such is the case with all scientific theories. They come and go, > much like fashion models. The general theory of relativity is a mathematical model, come up by one person (more or less), spawned out of a small ammount of published experimental data (and the special theory of relativity). The "general theory of health" is (or rather would be) a multi-disciplinary mixture of physiology, biochemistry, nutrition, epidemiology, sociology, psychology and many more, worked on by thousands of people with myriads of experiments. If you think the complexity levels of these is pretty much the same, great.. you'd better stick to physics then though. > The principles of health that work work in every generation and are not > supplanted. That is the difference between truth and theory. > > While I do not thumb my nose at science, having been a student of > physics I know its limitations all too well. Monte, Sharing knowledge is a form of intimacy. When you try to force what you think you know on another you are engaging in the equivalent of sexual harrassment on the mental plane. Just state your case as well, respectfully and as modestly, as you can. That's all you can do. The rest is up to the next one to respond or not to. VP |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.