that is quite a list.  add to it one of the most common errors --- confirmation bias, wherein one ignores any evidence contrary to one's supposition and only looks for conforming evidence. It is not exactly a fallacy,  but it is a flaw in one's thinking.

2 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

that is quite a list.  add to it one of the most common errors --- confirmation bias, wherein one ignores any evidence contrary to one's supposition and only looks for conforming evidence. It is not exactly a fallacy,  but it is a flaw in one's thinking.

One example of confirmation bias, which in this case you and most people probably would regard as correct thinking, is a case of a woman who got rid of a tumor by a 24 day fast. She went back to the doctor who diagnosed the tumor and he confirmed that the tumor was gone. But he was (like most doctors) opposed to fasting and thought it was a stupid thing to do and refused to believe that the tumor autolyzed. He said it was a mix up.

Here we have a conflict between a fact and a theory. The fact was the tumor autolyzed during the fast. The theory was tumors can't autolyze. Ordinarily facts trump theories; facts rule, theories serve; in any conflict between a fact and a theory, the theory is wrong.

Perhaps this was an exception, where the fact was false and the medical theory contrary to the fact was true.

13 hours ago, jts said:

One example of confirmation bias, which in this case you and most people probably would regard as correct thinking, is a case of a woman who got rid of a tumor by a 24 day fast. She went back to the doctor who diagnosed the tumor and he confirmed that the tumor was gone. But he was (like most doctors) opposed to fasting and thought it was a stupid thing to do and refused to believe that the tumor autolyzed. He said it was a mix up.

Here we have a conflict between a fact and a theory. The fact was the tumor autolyzed during the fast. The theory was tumors can't autolyze. Ordinarily facts trump theories; facts rule, theories serve; in any conflict between a fact and a theory, the theory is wrong.

Perhaps this was an exception, where the fact was false and the medical theory contrary to the fact was true.

 

autolyzed during the fast.

The fallacy  is post hoc ergo propter hoc.   After this  hence because of this.   Tumors have "mysteriously" disappeared  following events other than fasts.  if a tumor  decompose  very quickly  it could be do to a biochemical process that is simply not understood.  Lots of "mysterious" things happen in the world but no one believes it is due to magic

By the way,  what about all those people who fasted but their tumors grew large and killed them?

Our best scientific theories are far from complete.  They do not predict everything  that happens.  They do not even retrodict (i.e. explain) everything that happens.  Physical and chemical science is a work in progress.  Even our fanciest fundamental physics does not explain all of the known interactions of matter and energy.  We do not yet have a working  quantum theory for gravitation.  As a result our best physics  is in two major pieces.  The piece that accounts for gravitation  and the piece that accounts for the rest.   And the piece that accounts for gravitation has not yet come to terms with "dark" matter and "dark"  energy.  "dark" is a term meaning I don't know what the fuck it is.   

21 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

autolyzed during the fast.

The fallacy  is post hoc ergo propter hoc.   After this  hence because of this.   Tumors have "mysteriously" disappeared  following events other than fasts.  if a tumor  decompose  very quickly  it could be do to a biochemical process that is simply not understood.  Lots of "mysterious" things happen in the world but no one believes it is due to magic

If you read the story carefully you will see that the doctor refused to believe that the tumor vanished, due to fasting or any other cause. His theory that tumors can't (sometimes) autolyze was wrong. A single example to the contrary is enough to refute a generalization.

I do not regard autolysis of a tumor as mysterious or due to magic.

1 hour ago, BaalChatzaf said:

autolyzed during the fast.

The fallacy  is post hoc ergo propter hoc.   After this  hence because of this.   Tumors have "mysteriously" disappeared  following events other than fasts.  if a tumor  decompose  very quickly  it could be do to a biochemical process that is simply not understood.  Lots of "mysterious" things happen in the world but no one believes it is due to magic

By the way,  what about all those people who fasted but their tumors grew large and killed them?

Our best scientific theories are far from complete.  They do not predict everything  that happens.  They do not even retrodict (i.e. explain) everything that happens.  Physical and chemical science is a work in progress.  Even our fanciest fundamental physics does not explain all of the known interactions of matter and energy.  We do not yet have a working  quantum theory for gravitation.  As a result our best physics  is in two major pieces.  The piece that accounts for gravitation  and the piece that accounts for the rest.   And the piece that accounts for gravitation has not yet come to terms with "dark" matter and "dark"  energy.  "dark" is a term meaning I don't know what the fuck it is.   

It's more correct to say this is anecdotal evidence. As such it suggests a possible avenue of study and inquiry. It's an open-ended question but saying it's fallacious (post ergo propter hoc) closes the door. Logic can be too delimited and delimiting and should be carefully used; it doesn't provide data. It helps evaluate data and conclusions from data.

--Brant

I'm glad no one believes in magic (huh?)

1 hour ago, BaalChatzaf said:

autolyzed during the fast.

The fallacy  is post hoc ergo propter hoc.   After this  hence because of this.   Tumors have "mysteriously" disappeared  following events other than fasts.  if a tumor  decompose  very quickly  it could be do to a biochemical process that is simply not understood.  Lots of "mysterious" things happen in the world but no one believes it is due to magic

To investigate into whether it is just coincidence that the tumor vanished during the fast, ask 2 questions. What is the probability of the tumor vanishing or at least shrinking substantially during a fast of 20-40 days done under proper conditions? Shelton in his chapter on autolysis of tumors makes it sound like the probability with easy tumors is near certainty. What is the probability of this happening during any given span of 20-40 days of normal eating? Rare.

If it is just coincidence, the probability of autolysis would be the same for 20-40 days of normal eating and 20-40 days of fasting.

To you, how tumors autolyze is a mystery. But why it happens and why it does not happen is understood. I explained in other threads.

Tumors autolyze during a fast (when they do) the same way the tail of a tadpole autolyzes. The body has the ability to intelligently consume its own structures as a food source, making a distinction between expendable tissue and nonexpendable tissue.

The tail of a tadpole autolyzes. It is consumed as a food source. Sometimes the same happens to a tumor during a fast. If there is no need for the tumor to be there (no excess, no deficiency, no imbalance, no nothing) and it's not cancer, the body thinks "what the %$#@ for do I need that!?" and consumes it as a food source. Like a tadpole's tail.

6 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

It's more correct to say this is anecdotal evidence. As such it suggests a possible avenue of study and inquiry. It's an open-ended question but saying it's fallacious (post ergo propter hoc) closes the door. Logic can be too delimited and delimiting and should be carefully used; it doesn't provide data. It helps evaluate data and conclusions from data.

--Brant

I'm glad no one believes in magic (huh?)

A question raised is often a good thing.  A question begged is most often a bad thing.

6 hours ago, jts said:

 

I do not regard autolysis of a tumor as mysterious or due to magic.

 

Neither do I.  Anything that happens in this world is due to physical causes....

What combination of these fallacies makes someone believe the stupidest conspiracy theory ever, the Russia beat Hillary collusion fantasy? All of them? Some of them plus extreme gullibility? None of them necessariliy, just a lack of brainpower and real world adult experience?

"Friends and foes" is a logical fallacy. You can't be a friend and a foe at the same time. "Friends or foes" makes more sense. And I wish people would stop saying, "Cat got your tongue." There has been no recorded instance of a cat biting a tongue out of somebodies mouth. Everybody knows when you say "cat" you are just talking about a "house cat" and not a lion or a tiger. And I wish people would stop saying, "for instance" and "in an instant." It's just crazy talk. 

We can see what Peter is working with, yet even he does not believe the stupidest conspiracy theory ever.

Unless of course Billy no longer believes.

He refuses to say.

59 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

We can see what Peter is working with, yet even he does not believe the stupidest conspiracy theory ever.

Unless of course Billy no longer believes.

He refuses to say.

I coulda been a comedy writer for Jerry Seinfeld I tells ya. "His mudder was a mudder" coulda been thunk of by me. The dark side of the moon is an alien base is the stupid-i-est conspiracy ever, disproved by the first trip around da moon. Gotcha.

See? Even this basket case knew better than to fall for the Russian collusion fantasy.

But, as it stands unretracted and as it was heavily propounded, Billy still believes it apparently.

Well, he is a Billy Goat. I rarely visit Der Billy's Rhineland, because of all the free gruff and TV dinners, that draws crowds.

Drunk–posting all day, huh Peter?

Oh. I get it. But nope, not a drop to drink. Are we messing up Wilhelm's site? I hope not. The lack of infrequent typos is the internet proof of sobriety. Well shucks, you ARE smart enough to have a sense of humor. The OL bylines say no name calling and any comedic references to a frequent contributor must be humorous.

“Well in that case by golly,” and “Watch your step, Buster,” (he said in his best imitation of Jim Carey) I remember the uproar when the 1969 movie “Krakatoa: East of Java” came out. It starred Maximilian Schell, Rossano Brazi, Sal Mineo, Diane Baker, Brian Keith and with “Little Jon” as his son. No one except “Lil Jon” (as he was known on the set) knew the startling secret about the film but he just had to go ahead and blab to a tabloid “The Hollywood Insider.”

During filming but only after he had received his first pay check, he told the reporter: “Krakatoa was actually west of Java!” “Neither the director or producers would listen to him during filming,” he confided between sobs. When the news came out the film lost all chances for an Oscar for direction and “special effects,” and Mao banned it in China for being “lying propaganda from the Imperialist West” and he said it was in no way as good as the movie “The King and I” etcetera, etcetera, etcetera . . . .       

Ok, good. No more cough medicine now, and go take a nap.

2 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

Ok, good. No more cough medicine now, and go take a nap.

That’s the best you got? So, you want to be grossed out? Close your eyes and imagine the following experiences after each suggestion. The idea of eating eel or (fill in the blanks) grosses me out. But I love fried soft shell crab sandwiches, and scrapple perhaps from living on the Eastern Shore. So, do we Amurican’s eat odd food? From my GPS tracker on the internet, here is what grosses out people from other countries. Olive loaf. Jello salad. Chicken and waffles. Grits. Green bean casserole. A donut burger.  "Rocky Mountain oysters: If you can't call something what it actually is (testicles), maybe we shouldn't be eating it." Chicken gizzards. Pickled pigs feet. Deep fried butter balls.

But in the uncivilized world they eat, fried brain sandwich, Escamole: Ant larvae harvested from the roots of the agave plan. Bird’s Nest Soup. Cow’s stomach tacos in Mexico, Cuy or guinea pig in Peru, goats intestines called Buchada in Brazil, bull’s testicles called criadillas in Argentina, live dancing shrimp called goong in Thailand, Kiviak or dead birds stuffed into a dead seal in Greenland, snake soup in China, sheep’s head called Smalahove in Norway. In New Guinea they used to eat humans. 

And Star Trek’s Worf eats gagh which are serpentine worms Klingons prefer to eat live as they try to crawl out of their bowls and then out of their bowels, and you chase it with a slug of blood wine, but don't mix it with whatever you are having. 

5 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

What combination of these fallacies makes someone believe the stupidest conspiracy theory ever, the Russia beat Hillary collusion fantasy? All of them? Some of them plus extreme gullibility? None of them necessariliy, just a lack of brainpower and real world adult experience?

Billy?

On the statement that autolysis of tumors is not well understood.

Most if not all cells of the body have things called lysosomes. When these break open the cell self destructs. Perhaps this is the mechanism of how tumors frequently shrink or go away during a long enough fast. Shelton saw at least hundreds of tumors autolyze during a fast. Shelton writes that he saved hundreds of women from breast surgery. Other doctors have seen tumors autolyze during a fast. Autolysis of tumors is a well known phenomenon to doctors who have experience with fasting. Most people know little or nothing about fasting.

During a fast (water only, no food) the body has no choice but to live on its own tissues after the food in the gut and the glycogen in the liver are used up. The body differentiates between expendable tissue and nonexpendable tissue. Fat is the most expendable; brain and nerve tissue the least expendable; muscle is intermediate. Sometime a tumor is consumed during a long fast as an expendable food source.

There seems to be a competition between fat and tumors for being consumed during a fast. The less fat on the body, the faster the tumor goes away.

The time a tumor takes to go away completely during a fast is highly variable. The average for a breast tumor, says Shelton, is about 3 weeks. The shortest Shelton saw was 3 days. If a tumor is very large it might not be possible to fully autolyze it in one fast and several fasts may be needed.

There are stories, true or false, of tumors going away without fasting. All such stories that I heard of were about some form of nutrition therapy.

Dr. Russell Blaylock says that sometimes the self destruct mechanism of  cell is impaired and therefore the cell can't self destruct even when it should. And sometimes the self destruct mechanism is restored by ... guess what ... nutrition.

To me autolysis of tumors is not all that mysterious. Learning more details might be useful but we have the bird's eye view.

Some so-called experts make rationalist arguments to prove that tumors can't autolyze. Rationalism is a fallacy of reasoning well know to Objectivists. It means arm chair reasoning without looking at the facts.

One rationalistic argument is it is not in the nature of tumors to go away by themselves. This is proved wrong by the fact the sometimes they do.

Another rationalist argument is tumors are caused by impaired DNA and it can't be corrected; therefore tumors can't autolyze. Perhaps tumors are caused by impaired DNA but sometimes they autolyze. Autolysis does not mean the DNA is repaired; it means the tumor goes away.

I hope Alex Trebeck beats his cancer. My brother died from the same thing, pancreatic cancer, a few years ago. 

22 hours ago, Peter said:

"Friends and foes" is a logical fallacy. You can't be a friend and a foe at the same time. "Friends or foes" makes more sense. And 

I really like the poem I guess this comes from:

"My candle burns at both ends,

It will not last the night;

But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends--

It gives a lovely light!"

Edna St. Vincent Millay 1892-1950

(Saw GHS once mention it favorably, too)

I think I am most prone to N1, N4, O4 and O5. 

New cards!

Where is the square for being dumb enough to get sucked into spending over two years supporting a conspiracy theory and coup against a duly-elected President of the United States, believing that our Cold War foe had stolen the election?