Cave Man Reasoning

stupid

 

 

 

 

 

 

The human species has evolved a considerable amount over its history, particularly in areas of technology.  Modern technology in particular is truly wondrous, the fact that I can compose this article sitting in my office here and people from all over the world can read it only a few moments later is really a marvel.

This has taken a great deal of ingenuity, and involve technical matters far beyond the understanding of the average person.  You would think though that with all this technological advancement, the quality of our reasoning at this point in our evolution would be at least adequate, at least not terrible, but sadly that is not the case.

Technology often involves very sophisticated reasoning patterns, using logic in a real sense, but when it comes to practical matters, such logic or reason very often is absent or very poor.

A great deal of this can be explained by the fact that we as humans are emotionally driven creatures, and when it comes to technology, we can become detached from it enough to construct the most logical of arguments, in fields of computer programming or engineering or what have you, but our biases and other emotions just get in the way too much when it comes to personal or practical matters and we are really still back in the days of the cave man here for the most part.

So grunting often substitutes for reasoning, and there are of course various types of grunts, the most notable of which are grunts in favor and grunts of disfavor.  This grunting actually influences even science far more than people realize, and health science in particular is very influenced by biases, some of them based upon belief systems and others upon economic gain.

Some of the errors that are made are quite egregious and simple minded, but it doesn't matter, provided that you have suspended your faculties enough.  This just isn't committed on the mainstream side of things either, the alternative view can often commit the same mistakes, they still have their axes to grind, although they are often different axes.

There are lots of examples of this but the vilification of fructose is a pretty good one.  So let's look at what happens when we give people fructose.  Wow, look at that, it causes fatty liver.  We know this because the evidence is right there, these folks consumed large amounts of fructose, and their livers got fatter so to speak.

If you are against fructose, then this will surely have you slamming your pitchforks in unison, and this is exactly what happens when people like Dr. Robert Lustig give their talks. Fructose is worse than glucose, we need to stay well clear of it, we have the proof after all, unless of course you want fatty liver and a bunch of other stuff that comes with this.

This looks like an open and shut case and when you look at the material that is presented, the presenters sure think so, but they don't tell you the whole story of course.

When we look to test out a scientific hypothesis, it's quite important to control for the variable that we are looking to measure, but if we have axes to grind, and we almost always do, it's pretty easy to overlook this essential component of the study.

So we may ask, did they control for other variables in these so called fructose studies?  For instance, did they increase the calories of the subjects as well as the fructose?  That's exactly what they did, and by overfeeding the subjects essentially, this produced the desired effect of fatty liver.

So was it the fructose or the overfeeding?  Well as it turns out, it wasn't the fructose, and it was the overfeeding.  There's good evidence in fact that fructose is superior to glucose overall, especially with diabetes.  Not high fructose corn syrup mind you which is something else and clearly not healthy, although all fructose tends to get thrown in with it.  No one looks at this evidence though, because it does not advance the cause.

So this is a case of very poor reasoning, clearly flawed, and this involves the very basic tenets of the scientific method, although they get conveniently overlooked at times.

There's many more examples though, the so called evidence that damns dietary fat is an even better example actually, it took some real eye shutting to advance that one, but people are often more than willing to close their eyes, and then when these things are advanced by purported scientists, well most people don't even question it.

The evidence for dietary fat causing heart disease has been completely debunked now, with the flaws in the reasoning being clearly pointed out, but no one cares, it still is shamelessly dictated to the people, even though its stupidity has been widely exposed.

It's not even that this has been recently exposed, some of us have been aware of the sham behind this for decades, although back then you had to look a lot harder to find good material that debunked it.

There are a lot of flaws here but a good one to point out is the fact that in cases of cardiovascular disease we will see cholesterol buildup.  So Simon says, well there's cholesterol there, you need to cut down on that.

So that wasn't enough actually, most cholesterol is made by the liver, let's give people drugs to limit the amount of cholesterol a healthy liver makes, even though this is going to negatively impact their health, we'll put up with that though because preventing CVD is important.

As it turns out, this cholesterol buildup is the body's way of dealing with excessive inflammation, a bandage for injured arteries.  No one cares about what causes the inflammation, excessive insulin levels being a major culprit, excessive insulin levels are harmless of course, but let's take away the bandage and let's disrupt the endocrine system and cause all sorts of other negative health consequences to make sure that the bandage doesn't appear if it is needed.

There's a lot more to this story than this and this is just one of several stupid mistakes that have been made here, but we make stupid mistakes all the time, ones that a fairly bright child could figure out given the evidence, but they don't want you to see the evidence.

Opening one's mind is often all it takes these days, and there is lots of good information out there to be had, but only if you are ready for it.

 

Please follow and like us:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *