Quote:
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea
Ah, the ole' you don't know science ad hom/ logical fallacy. That's odd, usually vegans criticize that book.
|
Speaking of logical fallacies... let's go over a couple...
Quote:
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea
My niece is a registered dietician. I don't have to go reading reams of scientific research. There's all kinds anyway, when it comes to food and nutrition and plenty of it contradicts other studies. There's lo fat, paleo such as Atkins, the Zone, Macro and on and on and on.
|
This one is called appeal to authority. You're ignoring reams of scientific research to satisfy your confirmation bias. You ignore the totality of scientific knowledge of the subject in favor of the outlying opinion of one person who's opinion you agree with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea
What I know is the list for my blood type, matches the list from my blood work by my allergy doctor. I don't rely on the book for one profile but as part of more factors including genetics. Plus, I feel better.
|
This fallacy is called False Cause.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea
BTW your beloved NIH turned out to be wrong about parabens now that they're being removed from products for being found in biopsies of folks with skin and breast cancer. There was an article in the WSJ about it. Your trusted sources are still on the ole' saturated fat is dangerous for you, when inflammation is now considered more of a health factor for heart issues. They're not always right either. And doctors barely study nutrition—if at all.
|
This one is a bit of Gambler's Fallacy and a bit of Ad Hominem. You think that because science was wrong about parabens(which itself is an incorrect statement), or saturated fat (also wrong), that they will be wrong about everything.
You are a poor critical thinker, convinced that you're the opposite. It's really a shame. Entertaining though....