Clarifying thinking and a gratuitous remonstration

[Guest guest]

Were I to say, " All vegetables are good for you " I would expect list members

to scorn, " Who is this clown? What kind of a mental knuckle dragger could

make such a declaration? From his perch in the sky he knows that all 6,000

or whatever vegetables are 'good' for you? What about fruits that are

commonly considered vegetables and vice versa? Doesn't he realize that the

people on this list aren't trying to learn the proper way to make a

scrapebook, subscribers often make life-altering decisions based on what

they read here? For such a sweeping statement surely he can give us a

science citation. If this is just an opinion can't he just say so. Doesn't

he know how to generalize or qualify? Can't he just say, " The vegetables

that we commonly encounter in Southern California seem to be a constructive

way to improve one's health.'? "

I know for fact that there are lurkers on this list who are scientists and

similar professionals. Why are you so shy or apathetic? Don't you realize

that by active participation on this list you raise the quality of

discourse? Can't you show by example the importance of carefully defining

terms, of giving science citations, or recounting your clinical experience,

along with calm reflections on the implicit assumptions in our shared

premises? Why not comment on the foolishness of 99% of speculation, on the

importance of using 21st century science when revisiting the research and

theories of heros who have been laid to rest? I am thinking of Warburg,

Livingston, Beljanski, Kervran, Beard, or Revici. What about unsung

warriors such as Jules s who worked his whole life to establish the

relationship of the pituitary and cancer?

You know the expression " Bad money drives out good money. " ? I am beginning

to see this everywhere. Bad politics drives out good politics, bad religion

drives out good religion, and so offensively: bad science drives out good

science. You can prove this wrong with your participation.

I don't want sloppy, opinionated thinkers to leave this list. There are few

things more exciting than being able to adjust your thinking when presented

with verifiable data and fresher, clearer visions; or of being able to tear

down tired old mental structures. You don't have to be a medical

professional to be a profound analyst. Look at Joe Castronovo on this list.

If I were to post something goofy on this list, Joe, as my friend, would be

the first to let me know.

One discussion on this list that I would love to see would be on homeopathy.

The participants should be believers who concede that they could be wrong

and unbelievers who also concede that they could be wrong. I would gladly

assume the mantle of an unbeliever who could be wrong.