Here is the gist of what I believe to be the problem with most scientific arguments on this forum.
First of all they seem to be an attempt to prove oneself right, not prove oneself wrong. Yes, one of the primary tenets of science is that if you have a theory, or what you believe to be a fact based assessment, your first inclination ought to be to prove it wrong, not to play fill-in-the-gap science, which is nothing more than a bias+science to support that bias.
This is not aimed at paleolithic dieters specifically, it is aimed at pretty much everyone here. Whether paleo, vegan, vegetarian, atkins, zone or whatever susan summers is pushing these days.
What this leads to, by and large, is an almost outright dismissal of the role epigenetic expression plays in modern dietary choices. Why? Because all 'facts' mentioned are mentioned on the assumed basis of "this is how we evolved" or "this is how we are best suited to live or "this is best for the environment, so it must be best for us". Right? Wrong!
So it is my belief that if we all took our diet of choice or whatever diet we are convinced of and threw all information about it out the window for a moment in favor of proving it wrong, then what would remain in the end, regardless of ones biased disposition, must be the truth. Yes?
Your thoughts?
Edited by caliban, 07 June 2013 - 12:52 AM.
title