0

votes

Anyone noticed that Paleohacks is whimsical?

Answered on August 19, 2014
Created June 17, 2012 at 10:41 PM

Not in the unicorn and wizard sense, although there is certainly that too, but the fact that whenever a new piece of research comes out a bunch of proponents seem to immediately crop up to defend it. Even Paleo itself can be seen as the first wave of this; people all over stepping up to defend Taubes et al.

Does anyone else think intellectual dogmatism gets in the way of rational thought? I would image it is the most prevalent among those who haven't found complete success and need faith to keep going forward. The people who have reached 10% body fat and good labs know what works for them; the rest (and I include myself in this) are still searching for El Dorado. Perhaps there are times when our own lack of willpower gets put on the sideline as we shift blame to the ever changing views on nutrition?

03a4ec34751186201a56da298ac843ce

(4100)

on June 18, 2012
at 08:52 PM

Sorry Dualhammers, you're right, I could've said it better and nicer. I'm going for a PET scan tomorrow and just edgy about the outcome.

091423a30c0188fbff51e39397e7e056

(384)

on June 18, 2012
at 02:22 AM

I've met more than a few people on this site who enjoy the misfortune of others; I was genuinely curious rather than trying to insult you Chinaeskmo. It's a good comment, upvote for you.

6426d61a13689f8f651164b10f121d64

(11488)

on June 18, 2012
at 01:08 AM

@Dualhammers, I believe @Chinaeskimo was responding to the title of your question, not the body. The word "whimsical" has positive connotations, so it was probably not the best choice of words for your title. I, for one, do not associate "whimsy" with "intellectual dogmatism." (+1 to @Chinaeskimo for having to endure your negative comment)

091423a30c0188fbff51e39397e7e056

(384)

on June 18, 2012
at 12:10 AM

I listed a lot of negatives about the reality of bias and dogma over rational thought; you like the site for those reasons?

091423a30c0188fbff51e39397e7e056

(384)

on June 17, 2012
at 11:32 PM

Paleo hacks without the human component is just a website; as a place for exchanging ideas, however, we have to be aware of the potential problems.

Eecc48184707bc26bce631485b5b7e34

(4764)

on June 17, 2012
at 11:07 PM

pretty much a human thing rather than anything to do with paleohacks.

Frontpage book

Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!

3 Answers

2
03a4ec34751186201a56da298ac843ce

on June 18, 2012
at 01:25 AM

Sorry if I disappointed you, dualhammers, I didn't realize you had so much invested in my answer.

You said "but the fact that whenever a new piece of research comes out a bunch of proponents seem to immediately crop up to defend it" as if this is somehow an automatic response that takes validity away from the arguments presented. I tend to look at any and all arguments and assess their validity based on content, not pigeon hole it all as "intellectual dogmatism."

I fail to see where shifting blame to changing views on nutrition either a) fits into the scope of the first part of your question or b)has to do with your assertion that defending anything new is only a matter of sophistry concocted to keep the faith for those it is working for.

Let me put this in simple language, since I am a reductionist. Something new comes along. There are people defending the viewpoint. I then look rationally at those arguments and decide if they make sense, or not, based on the content of the argument. There is a lot of this back and forth on paleohacks and that is one of the things I enjoy.

I would suggest you evaluate information based on its content and worry less about the motives attached.

091423a30c0188fbff51e39397e7e056

(384)

on June 18, 2012
at 02:22 AM

I've met more than a few people on this site who enjoy the misfortune of others; I was genuinely curious rather than trying to insult you Chinaeskmo. It's a good comment, upvote for you.

03a4ec34751186201a56da298ac843ce

(4100)

on June 18, 2012
at 08:52 PM

Sorry Dualhammers, you're right, I could've said it better and nicer. I'm going for a PET scan tomorrow and just edgy about the outcome.

2
3ab5e1b9eba22a071f653330b7fc9579

on June 17, 2012
at 11:09 PM

Thats not true....I have a empirical scientific evidence that says so!!! :D

1
03a4ec34751186201a56da298ac843ce

on June 17, 2012
at 11:46 PM

Yes, and this is why I like and joined this site.

6426d61a13689f8f651164b10f121d64

(11488)

on June 18, 2012
at 01:08 AM

@Dualhammers, I believe @Chinaeskimo was responding to the title of your question, not the body. The word "whimsical" has positive connotations, so it was probably not the best choice of words for your title. I, for one, do not associate "whimsy" with "intellectual dogmatism." (+1 to @Chinaeskimo for having to endure your negative comment)

091423a30c0188fbff51e39397e7e056

(384)

on June 18, 2012
at 12:10 AM

I listed a lot of negatives about the reality of bias and dogma over rational thought; you like the site for those reasons?

Answer Question


Get FREE instant access to our
Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!