4. "Ferrets have to eat every four hours to met their metabolic rate."
 
Well, it might be true if they had a higher metabolic rate, which they
do not.  It is true that ferrets that eat kibble want to eat every four
hours of so, but that is a result of the way highly refined, processed
carbohydrates impact blood sugar levels.  That type of eating is an
environmental adaptation, not a need.  Ferrets, such as mine that eat
chicken and whole prey, can get by just fine eating a couple of times a
day.  I feed mine at 12-hour intervals, and I have five years of blood
glucose and glucose/protein urine level data that prove without a doubt
the diet does not harm them.
 
Some people claim the propensity of ferrets to hide food allows wild
animals access to foods about every hour hours, but that suggestion is
just a "what if" story.  Sure, some might, but what about the ones that
don't have an established larder?  A lot is made of the occasional
polecat den stuffed with eels or frogs, but it is rarely mentioned that
most polecat dens do not contain significant amounts of stored animals.
 
5. "Ferrets could have evolved a tolerance to carbohydrates in kibble
during their recent captivity."
 
The corollary to this one is that ferrets have evolved intolerance
to high protein levels during recent captivity.  Both statements are
suppositional ideas that result from supposing, rather than being based
on evidence or facts.  Suppositional ideas are great to toss around with
other grad students when you are tossing a few back, but in terms of them
being true, well, as I said, they are just suppositional ideas.  They
carry no weight, and they have little or no value unless you can show
solid, supportable evidence that they might be true.
 
One of the oft-mentioned concerns regarding the links between highly
processed carbohydrates in kibble and insulinoma is that many of them
have not been directly proved in the ferret.  You might even recall the
phrase, "stacked hypotheses," used to suggest the argument is weak
because it relies on a sequence of hypotheses to make the point.  First
of all, there is nothing wrong with "stacked hypotheses" as long as they
are correct.  For example, evolution, genetics, and medicine (including
veterinary medicine) are more-or-less completely supported by "stacked
hypotheses." The fact that Einstein's Theory of Relativity is supported
by "stacked hypotheses" does not prevent an atomic weapon from exploding.
ANY hypotheses, stacked or otherwise, that cannot be falsified can be
accepted, and any that can be falsified can be rejected.  The problem
here is one of consistency.  Is it ok to offer suppositional statements
as viable alternative hypotheses without also offering data or research
that backs up the claims, while at the same time attacking data supported
statements because of "stacked hypotheses", even though no data or
research is being offered to falsify the idea?  This is the equivalent of
"smoke and mirrors" in scientific debate; there is no refuting substance,
only supposition.  It is valueless.
 
There's the thing.  ALL science is built on "stacked hypotheses"; they
all rely on the works and ideas of others before them.  As new ideas and
facts are added to the mix, someone might go back, retest older ideas,
and perhaps find them wrong, but that doesn't in the slightest bit mean
the new ideas are not based on "stacked hypotheses." It is one thing to
show a conclusion is based on a faulty idea, and another thing altogether
to suggest that because a conclusion is based on a series of ideas, it
must be faulty.  Where is the proof that falsifies the idea?  As for
suppositional ideas, well, if anecdotal evidence is valueless, it at
least shows there might be a relationship; suppositional ideas don't even
have that much value.  However, I am open-minded, and if someone shows a
suppositional idea has merit by presenting demonstrable evidence, I will
accept it.  All they have to do is prove it.
 
I could add more myths, but these few should be more than enough to spice
up your conversations at the symposium.  Please, you don't have to be
mean or rude, just keep to the facts, and request evidence for specific
statements.  Above all, WRITE down the answers; don't rely on your memory
if you want to discuss what was said at a later date.
 
Bob C  [log in to unmask]
 
"Of course there are boys and boys, and Lord knows I was never narrow.
But this was the parson's son from an adjoining village, a red-headed boy
and as common a little beast as ever stepped.  He cultivated ferretshis
only good point; and it was evidently through the medium of this art that
he was basely supplanting me, for her head was bent absorbedly over
something he carried in his hands." --Kenneth Grahame.  1898 Dream Days.
[Posted in FML issue 4861]