View Single Post
Old 01-01-2018, 04:04 AM   #38
TwoSwords
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 456
TwoSwords makes people happy simply by logging inTwoSwords makes people happy simply by logging inTwoSwords makes people happy simply by logging inTwoSwords makes people happy simply by logging inTwoSwords makes people happy simply by logging inTwoSwords makes people happy simply by logging inTwoSwords makes people happy simply by logging inTwoSwords makes people happy simply by logging in
Default

Well, I've certainly been enjoying this debate, and I hope you have as well. Now, it's pretty obvious that this discussion has become one about evidence, but before I go back to look at the evidence challenges that I put forth, and see how they've fared, I want to correct one major misconception that I've noticed cropping up throughout this last reply.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HereticFA View Post
But to fully disregard all the studies for the reasons you've stated makes it hard to take you seriously.
It seems that, for some reason, you think that my response indicates that I'm disregarding a large number of studies when I make my determinations. However, no. That's incorrect. I will disregard an individual study if it makes a clear, logical mistake, and I provided a list of common mistakes that such studies make.

However, up to now, I have not discounted the contents of any studies, because it hasn't been necessary to. You simply haven't presented any. All you did was point me in the general direction of a huge library, then tell me to find it myself, and that's simply not how this works. If you have a claim that you want to advance, the burden of proving that claim falls on you; not me. If you have found even one study that provides clear evidence of any of the things you've said, well, go ahead and tell me about it. Who knows? I might agree. We'll never know whether I'll consider the evidence sound or not, unless some is actually presented.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HereticFA View Post
You would be much more helpful if you cited studies and specific points within those studies where you believed there were problems.
Because that would free you from having to do the work of supporting your own position, in theory. However, I do my own research and support my own position, and normally, it's the requirement of each person to do likewise. So, when you say...

Quote:
Originally Posted by HereticFA View Post
Or you could just accept that you are attracted to an aspect of human physiology that has been shown to cause many people with those characteristics of extremely elevated avoirdupois to have poor health outcomes.
Of course I could. That option is entirely open to me, except that this has not, in fact, been shown. If it were shown, that's probably the tack I'd take, but it hasn't been.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HereticFA View Post
So, you not only want your draw your own conclusions, but you want your own facts as well since you said earlier that you completely discount all the existing scientific studies contained within Medscape, NIH, NAS, et al due to their use of statistics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HereticFA View Post
No health related study will be complete without statistics. (And someone's anecdotal evidence is simply an uncollected datapoint still waiting for the right study or as seed for a hypothesis.)
When you use the term "your own facts," you seem not to be understanding my objections to certain fact-claims. My point wasn't that the use of statistics was the problem, but rather, that statistics themselves are not facts. Facts are proven truths, and those cannot be gleaned through mere statistics, without context or proper interpretation.

As far as anecdotal evidence being an uncollected datapoint, I certainly agree. That's why I don't consider it strong evidence either, by itself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HereticFA View Post
You can't have scientific proofs without the use of statistics if you're dealing with populations.
In point of fact, science can't deal with "populations," at all, because a "population" is not a real thing. It's only a large collection of individual people. Science can study each member of a group of people, and from that, gather data, which can later be used to draw logical conclusions, but to make assumptions about an abstract thing like a "population" on the basis of an unrelated field like science is not, itself, science.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HereticFA View Post
As for the strict application of "logic" as an arbiter of proof, at best that's simply the basis for the formation of a hypothesis. But without supplementing that hypothesis with data and statistical analysis, all you've done is write high level fiction constrained by your prejudices and your imagination.
That's wrong. In fact, it's only incorrect or inadequate logic that leads to falsehoods, and as with science, there are firm rules to govern what makes a syllogism valid, and what makes it invalid (namely, the rules of inference and the logical fallacies.)

By contrast, when science is isolated from logic, there's nothing to stop scientists from gathering data, then making assumptions about what that data implies, which are not, in any way implied by that data. Those who claim they have no need for philosophy are the ones most likely to be deceived by it. For example...

Quote:
Originally Posted by HereticFA View Post
We can identify disease and death with at least two of our senses so your statement is demonstrably wrong.
We can identify disease and death, yes. However, it's one thing to identify a dead person, and another to identify why and how they died. The former can be determined by the senses, but the latter requires logical thought, at the very least, scientific study at the most, and even then, what causes one person to die may not be the same cause of another person's death. Frequently, people just assume a cause-and-effect relationship, despite there being no evidence that such a relationship exists, because they've noticed a commonality that they can't otherwise explain. For instance...

Quote:
Originally Posted by HereticFA View Post
In some medical issues, specifically diabetes, sufficient weight loss has been shown to relieve the disease. The only variables are what constitutes "sufficient weight loss" and how much relief can occur. In my wife it took losing over 150 lbs to see noticeable relief. But she had very brittle diabetes and was insulin dependent, with wild swings in BG levels that were very hard to regulate. Now with a 220 lb weight loss she's able to regulate her BG level pretty well. Others fared much better with less than a 100 pound weight loss necessary to get off oral meds for their diabetes.
Over a long period of time (and, I presume, healthy activity,) your wife obtained healthier biomarkers. That is a basic piece of scientific data. However, when you say that the healthy biomarkers were caused by her weight loss, you make an unwarranted assumption. As you've said before, scientists still don't know how weight effects health, so unless there's no other factor that could have explained her good health, it's not justified to rush to this conclusion. A while back, I had health issues of a blood pressure-related variety. I made two changes in my behavior; reducing my intake of refined sugars and exercising more, and my biomarkers resolved themselves. Throughout that process, my total weight loss amounted to four much-missed pounds. Yet, my health improved. When you can explain why, we'll be ready to talk about whether the "obesity causes bad health" message is adequate to explain the facts.

Indeed, you seem to acknowledge that there are other, unrelated factors that effect the health of fat people, and which should, therefore, be taken into account, when you say...

Quote:
Originally Posted by HereticFA View Post
I personally find a big, round "moon face" to be very attractive. But I also know that's a sign of Cushing's Syndrome. It doesn't stop my preference. But it helps me understand what other issues that person may be experiencing. (It also helped me notice that so many WLS post-ops still had their moon face after weight loss, indicating the underlying issue that made them fat hadn't really been addressed and may explain some of their continued health problems.)
The only problem is that you're not applying this same line of reasoning to the general assumption that fatness causes poor health, in isolation from other factors.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HereticFA View Post
But in the end, the actual truth is that for a significant percentage of the people you find the most attractive, you will live to witness their demise. Some may be lovers or friends, others will be faces you remember from fat related events or online communities. The one thing you notice is that they all died early, over twenty years earlier than the average age of 78 or so.
"Over 20 years earlier than 78" is 57. I knew a woman at a previous job who was very obese (600 or so pounds,) and over 60 years old. My obese aunt died only recently at the ripe, old age of 80. Therefore, this statement of yours is not "the actual truth," but rather, is a falsehood.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HereticFA View Post
So we finally reach the reason for your desperation to maintain your cognitive dissonance.
I already gave the reason why I'm choosy in selecting other people's conclusions as valid vs invalid. I believe in objective truth. To accuse me of having ulterior motives for selecting some truths over others is yet another Ad Hominem fallacy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HereticFA View Post
I hope you can achieve your weight gain goals you alluded to in earlier posts. Maybe then you will better understand why people's reactions to and acceptance of fatness is as varied as their personal experiences and health outcomes.
Unlikely.

Now, with respect to the 18 challenges I advanced, challenges 1 and 11 are to do with the mistreatment of fat people on the assumption that they are in poor health. I addressed these issues from a moral perspective, and the only responses I can recall were based on incorrect assumptions that my moral concerns were sentimental.

Challenge 3 hasn't been adequately responded to, with the conclusion just sort of being assumed, even in this last reply, and that's only question begging.

On challenges 6 and 7, you basically conceded the point, by admitting that doctors don't know the relationship between fatness and poor health. On challenge 9, you used the term "food addiction" in a way I've never heard it used, to refer to a group of people I've never heard of before.

Challenges 12, 13, 14 and 15 were answered from the incorrect assumption that "fat hate" and "weight loss" are one and the same, and frequently, there were other confusions as well, such as not taking note of the word "succeed" in number 15, so no strong counter-arguments have been advanced against those points.

Challenge 16 was answered only by citing the methods that some people use to keep weight off, which was not an actual answer to the question. Challenge 17 was responded to by a suggestion that people who lose weight feel better afterwards, but no evidence was advanced to support this view.

As for challenges 2, 4, 5, 8, 10 and 18, these have never been responded to in this discussion to any significant degree, and so even if all of my arguments failed, I still think we would have plenty of good reasons to doubt that fatness is the cause of poor health.
TwoSwords is offline   Reply With Quote