It is about time that we start seriously questioning our cultural attitudes toward eating. I was watching a monkey yesterday, and his behavior was much more realistic. I would like to see some community of thinkers analytically discuss what the dietary needs of a human really are. I suggest that for most people a great deal of their calories may be used by parasitic organisms in their intestines including E. coli. Then they would require another portion of those calories to deal with those organisms. This could account for a significant percentage of total dietary intake.
Or the scientific papers, because dissenting voices can't make it past peer review and scientists being generally above average in intelligence know this so would tend to not bother attempting to publish a career ending paper.
Proving the rest of the scientific community wrong is about the best career move you can make. Scientific history is full of examples, indeed, the whole scientific process relies on it. Science establishes a consensus, until there is sufficient evidence against it,
If nobody brought up anything against the current scientific consensus, science would never move anywhere. Your tinfoil hat ideas about how science work just undermine your whole credibility.
We call them quarks instead of aces because some guy feared for his job.
It took years to get the mass of the electron right because no one wanted to contradict Milikin.
Einstein didn't like the idea that the Universe was expanding, so he "fixed" relativity with the cosmological constant which he called his worst blunder of all time.
Scientists don't like to say what will cost them money to say, and they don't like what goes against the ideas they are accustomed to.
Scientists are not perfect by a long shot.
Slashdot Mirror
It is about time that we start seriously questioning our cultural attitudes toward eating. I was watching a monkey yesterday, and his behavior was much more realistic.
I would like to see some community of thinkers analytically discuss what the dietary needs of a human really are.
I suggest that for most people a great deal of their calories may be used by parasitic organisms in their intestines including E. coli. Then they would require another portion of those calories to deal with those organisms. This could account for a significant percentage of total dietary intake.
Or the scientific papers, because dissenting voices can't make it past peer review and scientists being generally above average in intelligence know this so would tend to not bother attempting to publish a career ending paper. Proving the rest of the scientific community wrong is about the best career move you can make. Scientific history is full of examples, indeed, the whole scientific process relies on it. Science establishes a consensus, until there is sufficient evidence against it, If nobody brought up anything against the current scientific consensus, science would never move anywhere. Your tinfoil hat ideas about how science work just undermine your whole credibility. We call them quarks instead of aces because some guy feared for his job. It took years to get the mass of the electron right because no one wanted to contradict Milikin. Einstein didn't like the idea that the Universe was expanding, so he "fixed" relativity with the cosmological constant which he called his worst blunder of all time. Scientists don't like to say what will cost them money to say, and they don't like what goes against the ideas they are accustomed to. Scientists are not perfect by a long shot.