Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • You have never refuted anything but the claim that you are stable and intelligent.

Topic: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World) (Read 146153 times) previous topic - next topic

Testy Calibrate, superhoop, whiterabbit, Dave Hawkins and 11 Guests are viewing this topic.
  • JonF
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29225
I'm always looking for concise ways to say things so how about this?

NUTRITION IS A MUCH MORE EFFECTIVE "BUTTON" WE CAN PUSH THAN ANY OTHER TO CONTROL CARIES.

In fact, no other "buttons" are necessary if we push that one.
Dave,
Imagine I'm eating a "Price diet" that enriches my saliva minerals.
If I used an antiseptic mouthwash (like Listerine) numerous times a day would you say I'm helping, harming or keeping neutral my teeth health?

Remember that a mouthwash would rinse out all the mineral rich saliva and replace it with a mouthwash system at a mouthwash pH.
"Harming" would be my guess because you are killing bacteria.  Also, those indigenous groups never used Listerine and their teeth were near perfect.
[citation needed]

So all these doctors reports, scientific studies and many many many many many anecdotal accounts from people that say that a mouthwash (alchohol, salt bath, hydrogen peroxide, etc; all antiseptic in strength to kill bacteria) is a GOOD CONTRIBUTOR to oral hygiene; they are all lying?

Why is that Dave?
Not lying. Just operating under an incorrect paradigm.
But you're claiming the results are faked.
"I would never consider my evaluation of his work to be fair minded unless I had actually read his own words." - Dave Hawkins

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29226
Not lying. Just operating under an incorrect paradigm.
Wrong thread.
This goes in the "Self-Righteous Man" thread.
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29227
I wrote

"3) explained his hypothesis clearly - that it's not "cleanliness" or anything else ... it's NUTRITION that controls caries"

 but due to the limitations of our language, this really doesn't capture the complete picture.

 maybe a better way to say it was that price discovered "a big button" to control dental caries much more effectively than any other means being attempted in his day.

NUTRITION

 and he found many indigenous groups which were using this "big button" effectively  with the result of near perfect teeth.

 The contrast between the result  of using this "big button" by "primitive" people versus  The pushing of "many small buttons" by supposedly "advanced" society could not be more vividly illustrated than by the comparison of the LV children versus the Saint Moritz children.
This  is a better way to state prices hypothesis... And that paper is chock-full of evidence supporting this hypothesis

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29228
I'm always looking for concise ways to say things so how about this?

NUTRITION IS A MUCH MORE EFFECTIVE "BUTTON" WE CAN PUSH THAN ANY OTHER TO CONTROL CARIES.

In fact, no other "buttons" are necessary if we push that one.
and here is a more concise way to state his hypothesis

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29229
 again... amply supported in all his writings.

  • Pingu
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29230
It does make you wonder how Dave thinks scientific methodology works.

Or even what scientists do every day.

I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • Pingu
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29231
And of course this statement was amply supported by prices investigations.  and that's what I really mean when I say the price did "good science."

And as I keep asking, but you never respond:

what EVIDENCE in that paper does Price present that supports the HYPOTHESIS
that it's not "cleanliness" or anything else ... it's NUTRITION that controls caries"

?

You agree that his plot of "Native Food Decrease" against "Dental Caries" is not DATA, but simply illustrative of his hypothesis.

Where are the DATA in that paper that support the HYPOTHESIS you think he is testing?


Dave?

Dave?
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29232
In my quest for adequate Vitamin D intake ...

Quote
Since the vitamin D group of activators is absent from nearly all plant products but must be synthesized in animal bodies from the plant foods, where it is largely stored in organs, an adequate source had to be provided. The Indians of the highlands of Peru maintained colonies of guinea pigs which were used in their stews. The ancient burials also show that the guinea pig was a common source of food since mummified bodies of this animal were found. This is significant since of all the animals that are used for experimental work the guinea pig is probably the most efficient in synthesizing vitamin D from plant foods. They are very hardy. They live on a great variety of green plant foods and twigs and are very prolific. They apparently played a very important part in the physical excellence of the ancient cultures.

Forget the rabbits ... let's raise GUINEA PIGS!!!!
I've been telling you this for years.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

  • Pingu
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29233
again... amply supported in all his writings.

Writings don't support a hypothesis, Dave.  Data do.

Where are the DATA in those writings, specifically that piece of writing you thought was "very good science" that support the hypthesis you considered he expressed so clearly?
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • JonF
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29234
I wrote

"3) explained his hypothesis clearly - that it's not "cleanliness" or anything else ... it's NUTRITION that controls caries"

 but due to the limitations of our language, this really doesn't capture the complete picture.

 maybe a better way to say it was that price discovered "a big button" to control dental caries much more effectively than any other means being attempted in his day.

NUTRITION

 and he found many indigenous groups which were using this "big button" effectively  with the result of near perfect teeth.

 The contrast between the result  of using this "big button" by "primitive" people versus  The pushing of "many small buttons" by supposedly "advanced" society could not be more vividly illustrated than by the comparison of the LV children versus the Saint Moritz children.
This  is a better way to state prices hypothesis... And that paper is chock-full of evidence supporting this hypothesis
So tell us what it is.
"I would never consider my evaluation of his work to be fair minded unless I had actually read his own words." - Dave Hawkins

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29235
The contrast between the result  of using this "big button" by "primitive" people versus  The pushing of "many small buttons" by supposedly "advanced" society could not be more vividly illustrated than by the comparison of the LV children versus the Saint Moritz children.
Apparently information doesn't get through to Planet Hawkins.  :(
One more time:
Nutrition is necessarily complex.
It involves scores of separate, individual, nutrients, in essentially an infinity of possible combinations.
It is not one "Big Button".
It's about as far from being one "Big Button" as you can get.
To the extent that there is any one "Big Button" wrt dental caries, it was introduced by Modern Society: concentrated sugar

And, yes, this IS illustrated by the Loetschental vs. St. Moritz kids.
Just not the way you think.
  • Last Edit: December 11, 2017, 10:49:51 AM by VoxRat
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29236
Not lying. Just operating under an incorrect paradigm.
Wrong thread.
This goes in the "Self-Righteous Man" thread.
It should be in the preamble to every Bluffy thread.
Are we there yet?

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29237
again... amply supported in all his writings.

Writings don't support a hypothesis, Dave.  Data do.

Where are the DATA in those writings, specifically that piece of writing you thought was "very good science" that support the hypthesis you considered he expressed so clearly?
Page 872 is chock full of data.  Such as...

"Three groups were found, consisting of 76 individuals with 2144 teeth and without a single tooth having been attacked by dental caries ... "

And so on.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29238
It does make you wonder how Dave thinks scientific methodology works.

Or even what scientists do every day.


I'm going to tell you what food scientists and agriculture scientists do every day ...

1) Drive to the office
2) Drink coffee
3) Read
[3a) Argue online with Dave]
4) Socialize with other office personnel
5) Work on a paper commmissioned by Monsanto or some other paying entity
6) Have lunch
7) Teach a class
8 ) Send some emails about next month's convention on how to make corn produce twice as many bushels per acre
9) Have some more coffee
[9a) Argue online with Dave]
10) Listen to the secretary complaining about the teachers at her kids' school
11) Go home
12) Get paid.
  • Last Edit: December 11, 2017, 11:11:31 AM by Dave Hawkins

  • Pingu
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29239
again... amply supported in all his writings.

Writings don't support a hypothesis, Dave.  Data do.

Where are the DATA in those writings, specifically that piece of writing you thought was "very good science" that support the hypthesis you considered he expressed so clearly?
Page 872 is chock full of data.  Such as...

"Three groups were found, consisting of 76 individuals with 2144 teeth and without a single tooth having been attacked by dental caries ... "

And so on.

Finding a group without dental caries does not show that it was their NUTRITION that prevented their dental caries Dave.


Your claim was that Price's hypothesis was:

Quote from: Dave (not Price, incidentally)
that it's not "cleanliness" or anything else ... it's NUTRITION that controls caries"

Where are the data, in that paper, that support that hypothesis?
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • Pingu
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29240
It does make you wonder how Dave thinks scientific methodology works.

Or even what scientists do every day.


I'm going to tell you what food scientists and agriculture scientists do every day ...

1) Drive to the office
2) Drink coffee
3) Read
4) Socialize with other office personnel
5) Work on a paper commmissioned by Monsanto or some other paying entity
6) Have lunch
7) Teach a class
8) Send some emails about next month convention on how to make corn produce twice as many bushels per acre
9) Have some more coffee
10) Listen to the secretary complaining about the teachers at her kids' school
11) Go home
12) Get paid.

And where is your EVIDENCE for this claim, Dave?
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29241
Nutrition is necessarily complex.
It involves scores of separate, individual, nutrients, in essentially an infinity of possible combinations.
It is not one "Big Button".
For instance: goat milk.
Goat milk is not a "Big Button".
We learned upthread that you'd need to drink at least several liters - up to 25 - just to reach the USRDA of vitamin D.
It seems probable that YOUR diet is vitamin D deficient.
What makes you think it is not?
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • fredbear
  • Militantly Confused
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29242
It does make you wonder how Dave thinks scientific methodology works.

Or even what scientists do every day.


I'm going to tell you what food scientists and agriculture scientists do every day ...

1) Drive to the office
2) Drink coffee
3) Read
4) Socialize with other office personnel
5) Work on a paper commmissioned by Monsanto or some other paying entity
6) Have lunch
7) Teach a class
8) Send some emails about next month convention on how to make corn produce twice as many bushels per acre
9) Have some more coffee
10) Listen to the secretary complaining about the teachers at her kids' school
11) Go home
12) Get paid.

And where is your EVIDENCE for this claim, Dave?
Well if nothing else, this is a fascinating insight into some of Dave's delusions.
"...without considering any evidence at all - that my views are more likely - on average - to be correct.  Because the mainstream is almost always wrong" - Dave Hawkins

  • Pingu
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29243
Hey Dave: here are some data, plotted on a scatterplot:



Each circle represents a country, so, like Price's study, it may suffer from the problem of comparing group data instead of individual data.

But you are happy enough to let that go by with Price, so perhaps you are happy with this too.

As you can see, it plots average sugar consumption per person (horizontal axis) against average number of decayed teeth per person (vertical line).

Not surprisingly, just as Price found, the more sugar in the diet, the greater the incidence of dental caries.

So yes: Price was right: town food (specifically, sugar) rots your teeth.

Two possible hypotheses:
  • Eating lots of sugar means that you won't eat enough of the kind of food that has protective effects on the teeth.
  • Eating lots of sugar means that your teeth are likely to be exposed to a pH of < 5.5 many times a day.

Both are consistent with the data.  However, data showing that FREQUENCY of consumption is even more important that TOTAL sugar consumption are support for the first second hypothesis rather than the second first.

However: YOUR claim (not Price's) is that if your diet contains enough of the essential nutrients, EVEN if you consume lots of sugar in addition. 

And therefore, if you took a sample of people all eating a Price Diet (or nutritional equivalent), but some of whom ate lots of sugar IN ADDITION, you would not see this relationship, right?  There would simply be no dental caries (or very little) in any of them.

Can you point to ANY data that shows this?
  • Last Edit: December 11, 2017, 11:36:52 AM by Pingu
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29244
Both are consistent with the data.  However, data showing that FREQUENCY of consumption is even more important that TOTAL sugar consumption are support for the first hypothesis rather than the second.
Other way 'round, no?
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • Pingu
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29245
Both are consistent with the data.  However, data showing that FREQUENCY of consumption is even more important that TOTAL sugar consumption are support for the first hypothesis rather than the second.
Other way 'round, no?

Yes!  Will fix!  Had forgotten the order I typed them in.
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29246
"Finding a group without dental caries does not show that it was their NUTRITION that prevented their dental caries Dave."

You objected that there is no data.  I responded by showing you the data.

Now you are raising a DIFFERENT objection.  And that objection is easily overcome by noting that Price found MANY groups (data) all of whom had (a) near perfect teeth and (b) no town food

So while you are correct that

"Finding A [single] group without dental caries does not show that it was their NUTRITION that prevented their dental caries Dave"  ...

you need to understand that ...

Finding MANY groupS without dental caries who didn't eat town food DOES show that it was their NUTRITION that prevented their dental caries.

Is there anything else you'd like help with?

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29247
"I have a Darwin-debased mind."

Yes.

Yes, you do.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29248
Quote
And therefore, if you took a sample of people all eating a Price Diet (or nutritional equivalent), but some of whom ate lots of sugar IN ADDITION, you would not see this relationship, right?  There would simply be no dental caries (or very little) in any of them.

Can you point to ANY data that shows this?
Already did.  You poo poohed it.  Remember Price's orphanage kids?  They still ate pancakes and syrup and doughnuts and jam and so on at times OTHER THAN LUNCHTIME.  Yet their caries was completely arrested.

Also, almost every indigenous group Price visited ate starchy foods and sugary foods as part of their diets (fruit, bread, etc).  Yet they had extremely low incidence of caries.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29249
Face it, Pingu ... you simply don't want to face the evidence because of your pet views.