Convenient and contradictory attitudes toward science and evidence

These issues are addressed in a systematic, documented approach on this site; in particular, the raw/fruitarian "party line" on these issues is discredited. Further, the evidence here is backed up with substantial scientific documentation, which we actively encourage you to check. If you check (enough of) the references cited by extremists, you may find that they are misquoting and/or misrepresenting their sources on critical points.

Consider the impact of the above information on the credibility of those "experts" who promote the raw/fruitarian party line. If they promote false dogma on these issues, can you believe them on other issues?

• Ignoring the extensive evidence from published field observation studies of the great apes, showing that at least a modicum of animal foods are a normal part of most ape diets. Instead, the evidence is rejected on the grounds that the extremist believes the apes are "in error," the behavior is "maladaptive," or other flimsy, logically invalid rationalizations are given. Who knows better what is the natural diet of the apes: the wild apes eating animal foods to survive, or an irrational dietary extremist whose reason is clouded by idealistic dogma?

• Rejecting evolution as a scientific theory and adopting creationism, solely because evolution (and the fossil record covering millions of years of evidence) shows that humans are natural omnivores/faunivores, and have been omnivores/faunivores ever since the inception of the human genus, Homo, over two million years ago. Adopting creationism for sincere spiritual reasons (i.e., not related to dietary dogma) could perhaps be regarded as legitimate in some sense when limited to the sphere of religion; however, adopting it solely because evolution debunks your dietary dogma is a form of intellectual dishonesty.

• Those who reject the published, peer-reviewed scientific research of Victor Herbert, M.D., simply because they disagree with Herbert's political efforts against alternative diets and medicine. Even if one disagrees with Herbert's politics and goals, his research should be evaluated independently of his political views. (Herbert has published several significant papers on vitamin B-12, a topic of great interest to vegans.)

• The dietary proponent who demands hard scientific proof (as a debating tactic) when only anecdotal evidence is available (e.g., when others criticize the diet), while accepting as scientific fact (and, in effect, as "holy gospel" as well) some of the unscientific nonsense promoted by "experts" of the past--e.g., T.C. Fry claiming wheatgrass juice is toxic, Herbert Shelton claiming that cooking makes all minerals inorganic, Herbert Shelton claiming all spices are toxic, etc. (The dishonest debating style of a fruitarian "expert" who uses this tactic is discussed in a later section of this paper.)

• Extremists who selectively quote scientific research papers out of context, or misrepresent the results of research, to promote their diets. The raw and veg*n communities have the dubious (but mostly appropriate) reputation of tolerating and (in the case of certain extremists) promoting crank science and junk science. An interesting exercise one can perform is to examine the references cited in the rawist writings. You will find that the references fall into a number of categories, as follows:
  • References to other rawist books (non-scientific, of course). The point here is that much rawist "research" consists of a small group of people quoting each other in a logically circular fashion.

  • References to newspapers, magazines, popular books; i.e., citations that are not peer-reviewed scientific or professional journals, nor even non-peer-reviewed but otherwise relatively well-informed publications by legitimate scientists.

  • References to peer-reviewed, scientific journals. Such citations are scarce, but are worth checking when they appear, because you may find, if the writer is an extremist, that he/she has misrepresented or misinterpreted the material in the cited paper.

  The primary point of the above list is that much of the available writings on raw diets consist of individuals referencing each other in circular fashion, or are based on non-technical sources. Further, when actual references to scientific journals are provided, you may be surprised to find that even in these instances the material is being misused, particularly if the writer is a hardened fanatic.

  Consistent pattern of misuse an important consideration. Finally, a note of caution here: there is a certain level of subjectivity inherent in language. Thus, a few instances of a person appearing to misinterpret research papers is not proof the person is deliberately misusing the material. Instead, you need to observe a long-term pattern of misuse before drawing conclusions that the writer might be an extremist or otherwise untrustworthy. Of course, whenever such a pattern of misuse is present, it points to one or more of two or three things: intellectual dishonesty; chronic sloppiness and lack of due diligence (which often goes hand-in-hand with intellectual dishonesty); or serious prejudice on the part of the "expert."

Logical gaps, internal contradictions, and leaps of faith

Needless to say, the above "logic" is really inconsistent nonsense. Even chimps use tools; should we humans voluntarily take ourselves lower than the chimps? The naked ape hypothesis, presented as self-evident or "revealed truth" by some, is so ridiculous that it might be hilarious, except that some people actually believe it. (By the way, naked apes without tools are not limited to eating only fruits and leaves: one can collect a wide variety of animal products--eggs, insects, snails, etc.--in that manner.)

The extremist view of human intellect is similar to their view of science--use it when it helps to promote dietary dogma, ignore it at other times. Again, this reflects an underlying lack of rigor in failing to pause and think through the evidence and logic behind their views, and thus a parallel lack of credibility.

• Some promote the idea that sweet fruit is the "ideal" food for humans because it is supposedly very similar to human mother's milk.
  
  This is of course nonsense; the nutritional composition of milk and sweet fruit are quite different. (See the article Fruit Is Not Like Mother's Milk on this site for a comprehensive analysis and breakdown of the nutritional components of both.)

  The credibility issue is relevant here on simple logical grounds when those promoting such crackpot mal-nutritional theories turn around and denounce all milk (except for human mother's milk) as unnatural and a bad food. Why? Consider the logic here: If a food is supposed to be good because its composition is like human mother's milk, then goat's milk, or even cow's milk, are better foods than fruit, as their composition is "closer" to human milk than is fruit. Conversely, if these other animals' milk is unnatural and bad, then sweet fruit is even worse because it is even less like mother's milk. Here, simple common sense and logic show how poorly thought-out this lopsided theory is--another reason to question the credibility of those promoting it.

  
  

• In the case of protein (and perhaps fat/starch as well), one can find crank science: crackpot nutritional theories alleging to prove that these items are "toxic" or harmful.
  
  Meanwhile, there are such things as essential fatty acids, and essential amino acids, the lack of which are known to cause deficiency diseases and symptoms. Consider the credibility of any extremist who tells you that almost everyone on the planet (except them and their followers) has a diet that is mostly "toxic" foods, and that food components scientifically proven to be nutritional requirements are supposedly "toxic."

  
  

• One can find "passionate" rawists claiming that the world's problems are caused by cooked-food consumption, and that if we all become raw vegans, there will be world peace, health, and happiness.
  
  Hmmm... world peace, health, and happiness--all will come from what we put on our lunch plate? That's an awful lot to expect from what is on your lunch plate!

  If you have any doubts regarding the above, ask yourself: Was World War II an argument over, say, the recipes for egg salad and rice pudding? Has there ever been a war fought specifically over cooked food (vs. raw)? Do people rob, rape, or murder other people specifically because they eat cooked food? The answer to each of the preceding questions is a very clear "no." Is it really even believable on a more indirect level that the cooking of foods might affect the mentality of human beings to such a degree that those eating cooked foods would somehow be psychologically more warlike than those eating nothing but raw foods?

  In sharp contrast to such unsupported suppositions, and the more peaceful cooked-food eaters actually encountered online, this writer has been the target of hostile, vicious personal attacks (and threats) by allegedly "compassionate" vegan/raw-fooders. If anything, the extensive personal experience of this writer (with extremists) suggests that following a 100% raw vegan diet may make one less peaceful, and more hateful and aggressive. So much for claims of a new, raw "Garden of Eden."

  To summarize: How credible are those who claim the world will become an Eden if only we all become (100%) raw vegans? The question is particularly relevant to individuals and groups who have a negative, hostile, aggressive style.

  
  

• How credible are claims that nature will ABSOLUTELY follow the simplistic dogma and bogus "laws of nature" promoted by the dietary extremist?
  
  Nature is not limited to the narrow, absolute, simplistic models promoted by so-called "experts," who are often nothing more than idealistic dietary promoters in denial of reality. Nature does not care what we think of it, or what our models or "laws" say: Nature simply IS, and it is not bound by our simplistic ideas and delusions. Nature also does not care how "nice" or "logical" our theories appear to be. Logic alone cannot prove a theory; theories about nature must also agree with evidence--that is, reality.

  Don't you think that dietary advocates who claim to know everything about nature--that nature is limited to, and perfectly explained by, their delusions of simplistic absolutist "laws"--are merely expressing their own extraordinary arrogance and ignorance? Nature has many mysteries--that much is obvious to those who are not deluded by simplistic, idealistic dietary dogma. We obviously do not (not yet, at least, and not for the foreseeable future) perfectly understand nature, or its "laws." If, then, science is still continuing to plumb the unknown, how much less so can oversimplistic, dogmatic pronouncements about nature adequately reflect its operation?

  
  

• Some "experts" make unrealistic claims about their diets: That it will bring perfect health, a perfect body, and/or will cure any/all diseases, and so on. Are such claims credible, or simply incredible?
  
  Ask the proponent to give you a clear, testable, non-trivial definition of perfect health/perfect body (which, by the way, should be interesting in and of itself). Now for a way to test the credibility of those who make such claims: Ask them to sign a legally binding contract, as follows: You agree to follow their diet for a period of say, 3 years. At the end of that time, if you have perfect health/body, and/or your illness is cured, you will pay a fee of $1,000. However, if at the end of that time, you are not cured, or you don't have perfect health, then the "expert" is legally obligated to pay you $1,000.

  Such a dietary promoter will probably refuse such a contract, making the excuse that they cannot verify your compliance with the diet. But, of course, the same concern applies to them. Raw-food advocates, particularly the fruitarian wing, are notorious for not following the diet they promote, for binge-eating, and for the questionable honesty of certain extremists. If such individuals are as absolutely certain about the efficacy of the diet as they say they are, they should be happy to make an easy $1,000. But they won't, because even in their deep denial, they know that the diet they promote, when put into practice in the real world, often does not work "as advertised," which the refusal to risk paying a meaningful penalty if the diet fails, reveals.

  
  

• Does the proponent claim his or her diet is based on, or uses, "eternal health principles"?
  
  If so, ask the advocate for a list of these eternal principles. Is there any scientific proof for at least some of them, or do they have, in effect, the status of revealed principles that are supposedly "self-evident"? If they are revealed principles, are they presented explicitly as religion (potentially legitimate, at least when confined to that level) or as science (not legitimate)? A "health science" is different from a religion that has diet or health teachings. If the extremist cannot tell the difference between the two, what does that suggest about his/her credibility?

  
  

• Does the dietary "expert" retreat into convoluted pseudo-reason to support their claims?
  
  This is readily apparent when an obvious explanation--the diet does not work as well as claimed--is a realistic answer under the circumstances. Meanwhile, the "expert" will come up with fanciful explanations which may contain some surface logic for why it does not work, but which break down when examined for the plausibility and probability that good alternate explanations must have. (Examples of this phenomenon are given below, under the discussion regarding how extremists react when told their ideal diet does not work.)

Back to Frank Talk by Long-Time Insiders
Back to Psychology of Idealistic Diets