It seems I stepped into a fresh cowpatty of a FML dietary argument that
has been taking place while I have been in Europe. I read the three
most recent FMLs, saw the trend, and backed away from reading any
more. From what I could see in the last three FMLS, we have a case of
protracted contradictory argument punctuated by little new information
and even less insightful debate on the real issues. I recognize that my
words here might be interpreted as belittling to all those involved and
they are decidedly not meant to be that way. They ARE highly critical,
but not meant to be personal or condescending, and I sincerely hope the
participants understand the difference. Nonetheless, I shall say them.
I see little improvement in this latest argumentative installment from
most preceding ones. In one corner, there is the argument that an
evolutionary diet is a "hypothesis." which is a rather shallow point of
view considering the evidence for the appropriateness of the diet is
supported by millennia of dietary adaptation (at the genetic adaptation
level), and that a kibble diet has -- at best -- a few decades of
support (at the environmental adaptation level). This side never
concedes a point nor supports one, instead arguing the "horse with
blinders argument" that everything is hypothetical and one side is in
parity with the other. They rely on negative evidence, veterinary
anecdotes, non-empirical data, and the publication of a lot of poorly
related references where abstracts are used to "prove points" the
papers themselves rarely address. In many cases, there are procedural
problems in the papers which are fatal flaws towards the particular
argument they are used to support.
In the other corner are those who parrot the same themes over and over
about the wholesomeness of the raw diet without actually arguing
specific empirical evidence. The "natural" diet is better, but why?
Ferrets are carnivores "who need flesh," but why? It is no wonder the
opposing viewpoint can withstand the overwhelming onslaught of evidence
and fact: there is none. It is as if this side has the shotgun, but
forgot to load it before aiming at the pleasingly plump pheasant posing
on the pole.
Both sides of the argument come up extremely short, which is partially
why so many people on the FML -- including me -- are bored with the
endless rhetoric. How many times can you read the same thing before you
turn off the listening part of your brain? Sad to say, it seems to me
that no one is longer listening, which is why so many people are asking
the noise be shut off.
And here I am, stuck in a perplexing situation. Should I add to a
debate where no one -- other than a few participants -- are listening?
I work rather hard on a difficult issue, spending a lot of time
reading papers and books to refresh my educative memory, obtaining new
references and reading them, critically dissecting the arguments of
each paper for procedural errors and fatal flaws, reading refresher
papers and reviews to understand the material, composing a paper,
asking experts to review it, and then chopping it to pieces so it can
fit on the FML. Do I want to make that effort when I know few will
read it or even care it was posted? More important, do I want to take
sides in an ideological debate?
Make no mistake here; this is NOT the type of debate where the
interests of the ferrets are coming first. It is an ideological debate,
where one particular pet paradigm is resisting another. This is not a
friendly discussion where the long-term health of the ferret supersedes
that of personal belief systems, or where talk can lead to a compromise
that will help the ferret. No, it is an argument that allows no
concessions from the opposition; it is a fight FOR a particular
paradigm. You can see this yourself: each time a good point is made
one side or the other (or both) ignore it, discount it, or say it is
flawed. There are no compromises, there is no discussion, there are no
concessions. There is only endless contradiction without resolution
which only reminds me of the Argument Clinic skit by Monty Python. I
don't want any part of it.
I propose that BIll end the debate here and now. If Bill agrees (or
when it does finally happen), THEN I will take a few weeks to a month
rewrite my "Dietary 101" series to bring it up to date with current
knowledge, give better references, and a fair pro and con discussion of
many of the dietary issues that are continuously brought up but never
really discussed. Because of multiple episodes of past plagiarism, I
usually do not post references any more, forcing the plagiarist to do
their own homework, but in this instance, I'll post names and dates in
the "(Church 2007)" format. That way, people can look them up on their
own. I think that after nearly a month of contradictions, people
reading the FML are ready for a break, and I honestly do not wish to
take the time and effort to post on a hard and complicated issue
without knowing people will be ready to read the posts.
Bob C talktobobc at yahoo.com
[Posted in FML 5433]
|
