<div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 11:08 AM, Harvey Newstrom <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mail@harveynewstrom.com">mail@harveynewstrom.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote style="margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-width: 1px; border-left-style: solid;" class="gmail_quote">
<div class="im">Max More <<a href="mailto:max@maxmore.com">max@maxmore.com</a>> wrote,<br>
</div><div class="im">> Your claims of pseudoscience are deeply disappointing and, frankly, shameful.<br>
<br>
</div>Seriously? You are disappointed in me and I should feel ashamed? What<br>
are you, my mother?</blockquote><div> </div><div><font size="3" face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><font size="3">No. You
mother may have said you should be ashamed of something without a sensible
basis (I can guess what), but I’m responding to your repeated condescending,
superior attitude. If you had stuck to facts and specific points instead of
being condescending, I wouldn’t have been pissed off enough to say that. Instead,
you repeatedly accuse those sympathetic to Taubes’ writing and paleo ideas (or
to some of them) as being pseudoscientific. </font></span></p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><font size="3"> </font></span></p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><font size="3">So, yes, you
should be ashamed of repeating throwing accusations of pseudoscience at people
who are long-term critical thinkers and understand scientific method, and who
have been able to question and change their own long-held views. It would be
easy to respond in kind, to attack your motives, and your wholesale dismissal
of every part of Taubes’ book, among other things, but it wouldn’t be
productive.</font></span></p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><font size="3"> </font></span></p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><font size="3">If it were
someone else saying this, someone who I don’t know and who doesn’t know me well,
it wouldn’t be a big deal. But as it is, it is.</font></span></p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><font size="3"> </font></span></p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><font size="3">This approach
is particularly irritating when you make false claims, such as about Atkins’
heart attack, but won’t acknowledge error on an easily verifiable point. </font></span></p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><font size="3"> </font></span></p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><font size="3">Constantly
accusing those with a differing view from yours of being pseudoscientific
(especially when those people are actually rather sophisticated in their
understanding of science and methodology) reminds me of those who constantly go
on about cognitive biases, as if simply knowing about them (and assuming no one
else does) means that they are not subject to them.</font></span></p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><font size="3"> </font></span></p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><font size="3">This kind of
approach is symptomatic of a wider problem: people justifying their positions
by reference to real or imagined authorities and consensus. That’s a complete
failure to use critical rationalism.</font></span></p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><font size="3"> </font></span></p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><font size="3">Consensus and
“the science” is far from an infallible guide: The scientific orthodoxy or scientific
consensus previously and wrongly rejected and even ridiculed many advances and
truths. These include the Marquis of Worcester's steam engine, Fulton's steamboat of a century ago, Priestly
on oxygen, the transatlantic steamboat, the stethoscope, numerous other
technical inventions, the causes of infectious disease including Jenner and
smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory, Olive Wendell Holmes and puerperal fever,
and Semmelweiss on sanitary techniques, Dr. Joseph Goldberger’s views of the
causes of pellagra (nutrition, not infection), Alfred Wegener’s theory of
continental drift, and the mistaken authorities on hormone replacement therapy.</font></span></p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><font size="3"> </font></span></p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><font size="3">Of course the
great and powerful force of “the science” have also rightly rejected many
ideas. The point is that a good critical rationalist shouldn’t be comfortable
leaning heavily on the crutch of consensus or “the” science. (There is no such
thing in most disciplines.)</font></span></p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><font size="3"> </font></span></p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><font size="3">> I am
disappointed that nobody here is posting counter-evidence and</font></span></p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><font size="3">> alternative
scientific studies to refute me.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>All I
am getting is</font></span></p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><font size="3">> popular
web sites, diet books, and YouTube videos.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Is this what passes</font></span></p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><font size="3">> for
extropian "science" nowadays?</font></span></p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><font size="3"> </font></span></p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><font size="3">Plenty of the
websites referred to include numerous scientific studies.</font></span></p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><font size="3"> </font></span></p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><font size="3">One Amazon
reviewer noted that “the nutritional establishment has not offered any serious
or substantial rebuttal to this book. Instead, the establishment does what it
always does: it tells people to avoid ‘pseudo-science’ and to trust the
‘experts’ – i.e. the FDA, USDA, NAS, et. al.”</font></span></p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><font size="3"> </font></span></p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><font size="3">By the way, don’t
assume that I agree with everything in Taubes’ books. For instance, I think he
should pay attention to the difference between omega-3 and omega-6, and not
just to macronutrient ratios. I’m also not convinced that you can lose weight
easily just by restricting carbs if that doesn’t also restrict
calories—although I do agree that you can eat more on a low-carb diet without *gaining*
weight, and that it’s easier to maintain weight loss on a lower-carb diet. I
just don’t think you have remotely done him justice.</font></span></p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><font size="3"> </font></span></p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><font size="3">I cannot take
the time right now to go through all your dismissals of Taubes’ (or your other dismissals
of paleo-related views). I will comment only on what seem to me to be very
poorly considered remarks about Taubes on thermodynamics. Those comments show
no evidence of having read what you claim to have read, or else a determination
to ignore what you read.</font></span></p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><font size="3"> </font></span></p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><font size="3">You say:</font></span></p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><font size="3">> He questions
the whole equation of calories in and calories out.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That breaks</font></span></p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><font size="3">> basic
laws of thermodynamics.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>How could
somebody believe in this while</font></span></p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><font size="3">> still
believing in physics?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>How could somebody
believe in this while still</font></span></p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><font size="3">> going to
the gym?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It seems that overturning a
whole area of science would</font></span></p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><font size="3">> have
ripple effects that would invalidated other areas of science as well.”</font></span></p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><font size="3"> </font></span></p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><font size="3">And:</font></span></p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><font size="3">> So we
are ending up rehashing the</font></span></p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><font size="3">> basic
laws of physics to argue against these pseudoscience claims.</font></span></p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><font size="3"> </font></span></p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><font size="3">As J.S.
pointed out, “Taubes spends two entire chapters in "Why We Get Fat"
debunking that specific misinterpretation.” Those chapters are 6 and 7. He also
pointed to an amusing and incisive response on this point:</font></span></p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><font size="3"> </font></span></p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><font size="3"><a href="http://sparkofreason.blogspot.com/2011/01/on-taubes-and-toilets.html">http://sparkofreason.blogspot.com/2011/01/on-taubes-and-toilets.html</a></font></span></p>
<font size="3" face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><font size="3">"One of
our toilets has been acting balky lately. Last night I went to flush it and
nothing happened. I started pondering on the possible causes of this, and had a
brief vision of a bunch of Ph.D's standing around, stroking their chins and
sagely examining the toilet through glasses perched on the ends of their noses.
After a few knowing glances at each other, they pronounced: "From the
First Law of Thermodynamics, we know the problem with your toilet is that, at
some point in the past, less water came in than left!""</font></span></p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><font size="3"> </font></span></p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><font size="3">Taubes’ also
discussed this issue in Good Calories, Bad Calories, especially in Chapter
Seventeen, “Conservation of Energy”, esp. 292-3, 296; also see 309, 348. </font></span></p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><font size="3"> </font></span></p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><font size="3">Nowhere does
Taubes’ deny the first law of thermodynamics. He accepts that “change in energy
stores = Energy intake minus Energy expenditure.” To emphasize this, see p. 74
of Why We Get Fat, where he says: “”Those who consume more calories than they
expend in energy will gain weight.” This is true. It has to be. To get fatter
and heavier, we *have* to overeat. We have to consume more calories than we
expend. That’s a given. But thermodynamics says nothing about why this happens,
*why* we consume more calories than we expend.”</font></span></p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><font size="3"> </font></span></p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><font size="3">What he does
argue is that energy expenditure is not just matter of calories burned from
exercise. The body can “waste” additional calories or can use them more
efficiently (why do you think people on CR are colder and people over-eating
may be sweating?). He also argues that it’s mistaken to assume that an
association (between positive caloric balance and weight gain) means that
positive caloric balance necessarily causes weight gain. It could be (and he
makes a strong case for this) that a change in energy stores causes a positive
energy balance. He also disputes the assumption that energy intake and energy
expenditure are independent variables.</font></span></p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><font size="3"> </font></span></p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><font size="3">Taubes’
presents a tremendous amount of excellent evidence that undermines the simple “calories
in, calories out” view, but you apparently just ignore it all. Sweeping it all
aside (no matter how well referenced in the scientific literature) as “pseudoscience”,
is easier than dealing with the specific explanations. </font></span></p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><font size="3"> </font></span></p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><font size="3">> Unless I
totally misunderstood Taubes, I believe this is exactly what he</font></span></p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><font size="3">> is
saying.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The whole premise of "Good
calories, Bad calories" is that</font></span></p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><font size="3">> carb
calories make you fat no matter how few you eat, and that fat</font></span></p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><font size="3">> calories
won't make you fat no matter how many you eat.</font></span></p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><font size="3"> </font></span></p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><font size="3">You totally
misunderstood Taubes.</font></span></p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><font size="3"> </font></span></p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><font size="3">I will be
unable to respond to this discussion any further this week, and probably not
until the middle of next week.</font></span></p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><font size="3"> </font></span></p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><font size="3">--- Max</font></span></p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div> </div><div> <br clear="all"><br>-- <br></div></div><div>Max More</div><div>Strategic Philosopher</div><div>Co-founder, Extropy Institute</div><div>CEO, Alcor Life Extension Foundation</div><div>7895 E. Acoma Dr # 110</div>
<div>Scottsdale, AZ 85260</div><div>877/462-5267 ext 113</div><br>