Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Alan Aragon's Argument against paleo/primal lifestyle (with slide show)

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Neckhammer View Post
    Who knows if "straw man" is the exactly correct term. I think its close enough in most cases though. This one made me lol..." dairy has an acidic rather than alkaline effect on the body and does not protect bone health". Then he goes on to debunk that. I'm like 99% sure that is a straw man. I have literally never come across a reputable paleo/primal source pronouncing that as a consideration for not consuming dairy. Sounds like he's mixing up vegans and paleo to me. But yeah, most this stuff has actually been discussed right on this forum in even more depth IMO.

    Anyway I think this pretty much sums it up.... seems he mighta read this book:

    Is It All Just a “Paleofantasy”? | Mark's Daily Apple
    Yeah, straw man is the right term for debunking an argument nobody's making. This is the case here.
    The Champagne of Beards

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by J. Stanton View Post
      If you really, truly believe that (and aren't just trolling), you've just <plonked> yourself.
      No trolling or “plonking” here, Dawkins is a biologist that also wanted to be a philosophical debunker of religion! Too bad others has already done the debunking so much better 200 years ago, so he was far too late with his shallow criticism! But maybe some bible-belt Americans need a wake-up call though! Sorry for off-topic rant here...
      "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

      - Schopenhauer

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Gorbag View Post
        No trolling or “plonking” here, Dawkins is a biologist that also wanted to be a philosophical debunker of religion! Too bad others has already done the debunking so much better 200 years ago, so he was far too late with his shallow criticism! But maybe some bible-belt Americans need a wake-up call though! Sorry for off-topic rant here...
        Sounds like you're unfamiliar with the full body of Mr. Dawkins's work.
        The Champagne of Beards

        Comment


        • #19
          Yep thats true, I have not read Dawkins complete works in 30+ volumes including all his articles, but I havent read everything of Alan Aragon either...
          "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

          - Schopenhauer

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Gorbag View Post
            Yep thats true, I have not read Dawkins complete works in 30+ volumes including all his articles, but I havent read everything of Alan Aragon either...
            I didn't suggest you read everything he ever wrote, but that you're unfamiliar with the majority of his contributions. Which is implicit in both your statements regarding the matter above.
            The Champagne of Beards

            Comment


            • #21
              What does "the full body of Mr. Dawkins work" usually mean then? I have read enough to see the shallowness in his “debunking”, and Dawkins and Aragon are wasting their time, and so am I…
              "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

              - Schopenhauer

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Gorbag View Post
                What does "the full body of Mr. Dawkins work" usually mean then? I have read enough to see the shallowness in his “debunking”, and Dawkins and Aragon are wasting their time, and so am I…
                Having read something isn't the same thing as being familiar with it. I'm familiar with the Bible, but I haven't read it. I do know some things about its subject matter though.

                I'm pointing out that you're laboring under the false pretense that the entirety of Mr. Dawkins writing are on the subject of disspelling creation myths. In other words, you are talking out of your ass.
                The Champagne of Beards

                Comment


                • #23
                  As usual you don't have a clue about what or whom you are shooting at, since I am also pretty familiar with the God of the philosophers from Aristotle, Aquinas, Descartes et.al., and Dawkins the God delusion is a beyond shallow book…
                  "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

                  - Schopenhauer

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    OK, skimmed through the ppt.

                    1. I didn't know paleo was anti-salt.

                    2. Was amused by the rundown of diet's that all said 'paleo was better for X', with a comment from Alan saying 'not surprising because ....'

                    Some of the comments were just snotty in tone which turned me off. And half of the food he posted would be considered absolutely fine around here. So I don't know what to make of all this.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Gorbag View Post
                      What does "the full body of Mr. Dawkins work" usually mean then? I have read enough to see the shallowness in his “debunking”, and Dawkins and Aragon are wasting their time, and so am I…
                      Dawkins' contributions to the modern evolutionary synthesis are almost entirely from The Selfish Gene and The Extended Phenotype, both of which I summarize in my Recommended Reading list. His other science books are mostly popularizations of existing science.

                      I've not read The God Delusion. It's unfortunate that most people only know him for his atheism, instead of for his important scientific contributions.

                      Meanwhile, let's keep this back on the Alan Aragon track. My take on it: a combination of misrepresentation and strawman. See:
                      http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum...ml#post1288598

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Gorbag View Post
                        As usual you don't have a clue about what or whom you are shooting at, since I am also pretty familiar with the God of the philosophers from Aristotle, Aquinas, Descartes et.al., and Dawkins the God delusion is a beyond shallow book…
                        Your alleged knowledge of Aristotle is irrelevant to your lack of knowledge of Dawkins. The God Delusion is not what you criticized, it was the writer, of whose work you are apparently familiar with a solitary example. The entire concept of memes and memetic selection came out of The Selfish Gene. The man has contributed far more than you give him credit for and you should really keep your uninformed opinions to yourself on the matter.

                        J. Stanton - Yeah, I think the majority of the time people make criticisms of Paleo/Primal, it's an attack on their own false assumptions or occasionally old assertions (like certain early Cordain stuff) that nobody really adheres to anymore, and often in the name of trying to make a name for the self-proclaimed debunker than really informing anyone.

                        I prefer Kurt Harris's archevore principles and Chris Kresser's idea of an ancestrally-informed template better than the idea of a strict diet. The guy who runs this place is pretty dogma-free as well, which is a huge asset when it comes to a field where we truly know so little.

                        And I like your writing. Thanks for coming by and sharing your thoughts.
                        The Champagne of Beards

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Yep, if Dawkins will be remembered for anything in 100 years it's as a biologist, and I have personally read "The selfish gene” and "The blind watchmaker" with great interest, but Dawkins sucks as a philosopher wannabe though, and the God delusion was a joke that just made some irrelevant noise! But let’s go back to Aragon since he is the topic here…
                          "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

                          - Schopenhauer

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Timthetaco View Post
                            I can't find a lot to complain about in the slideshow, though as always, evidence supporting whole grain (or at least wheat) consumption is weak as always, even in comparison to refined grains. I'd be interested to see a trial comparing whole grain and no grain diets, but we're pretty much the only community of people that would really care, so I don't ever expect to see it.

                            As for the negative claim about dairy, that's all Cordain, who I've noticed isn't taken very seriously in the greater paleo community. It's not shocking that Mark Sisson's version of paleo that encourages the intake of fatty meat and whole dairy is more popular than the "official" Cordain version.
                            If cordain's version of paleo isn't taken seriously or accepted, then what the hell is paleo?

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by J. Stanton View Post
                              he's constructing a straw man based on Cordain's version of "paleo" from over ten years ago...one from which even Cordain has evolved.
                              But he isn't. One of the problems that Aragon faces in arguing against the banned foods of the paleo diet is that there is no one universal paleo diet. Some paleo diets are more strict than others. Some limit dairy. Some limit night shades. He's not going to pick apart each and every variation including rob wolf, primal blue print...etc. So instead of constructing an argument against Cordain's paleo diet...he goes through the banned foods one by one as well as the reasoning for banning said foods (or restricting, if your prefer this term). Not all of these foods will be restricted in Primal blueprint but many of them are.

                              You can say that no one argues against milk or nightshade consumption on primal blue print, but what about his arguments against paleo claims for grains, sugars, legumes, omega6/3 ratios...all of which the primal blueprint version of the paleo diet are aligned with.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Forgotmylastusername View Post
                                If cordain's version of paleo isn't taken seriously or accepted, then what the hell is paleo?
                                Whatever we want it to be, apparently. What paleo dieter brags about eating lean meat and avoiding dairy?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X