• entries
    208
  • comments
    2,430
  • views
    25,846


9 Comments


Recommended Comments

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.

Share this comment


Link to comment
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.

 

Share this comment


Link to comment
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.   

Share this comment


Link to comment
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.

 

Share this comment


Link to comment
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?)

Share this comment


Link to comment
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.

 

Share this comment


Link to comment

 

64247-004-5732ED09.gif

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.

 

Share this comment


Link to comment
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.

Share this comment


Link to comment
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....

Share this comment


Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Add a comment...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...