Notices
Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Ad-Hominem attack

  1. #1 Ad-Hominem attack 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    10
    Hello. I'm posting this here and on the psychology forum too as the subject matter may be viewed from both approaches. Thank you.

    What's the problem with people who has the tendency to make ad-hominem attacks? I suffer this kind of "arguments" from my parents. I don't have a nutrition degree, but I've studied the latest theories on metabolic syndrome including "Metabolic Flexibility". Whenever I say that consumption of fructose, white flour and high fructose corn syrup products are terrible for metabolism, leading to a continuum of diseases of civilization and therefore should be avoided, I get attacked. It doesn't matter the studies I may show. Facts don't seem to matter either. Usually they may say: "you're not a doctor", "you don't have experience", or "you're too arrogant, who are you to talk like that". They say that doctors spent a lifetime curing patients and now out of nowhere I came with these "opinions", that eating too much fruit, which they regard as "healthy", is actually harmful. They try to psicologize all the time: like saying: "your thought that theory and knowledge are general laws which are superior to experience reflect that you don't have self condifence or you don't value yourself. I guess that maybe they fell under attack by me because of denying experience and that just by thinking well one can do better than others who did the same thing year after year. I guess that attacking empirical knowledge puts you in a position which is against the majority of people's system of thinking and it's a dangerous position. What do you think? Why does a sentence have different value depending on who says it? Why my studies of scientific research are worthless?!? What is it so hard to understand? Why people have to be so violent when you're trying to actually save them from making mistakes by trying transmit general principles, laws, for them?! They also reject my arguments because i base on theory and experimental research publications, but not on direct experience on the field: "you're not doctor who has worked for 40 years", "the best reputed doctors say the opposite", "you're just basing on words". They think generally that scientific theories are words...

    Thank you very much
    Sebastian


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    My advice would be, don't eat the fruit, sugar, and flour yourself but leave the other people alone.

    It is not an ad hominem argument to question your medical qualifications. Lacking real qualifications, you could be more easily taken in by pseudo-scientific "studies" and quackery.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    10
    You may be right. Perhaps I shouldn't be commanding people what to do. I was just reproducing the newly discovered knowledge. The problem is that i want them to do well and not to let them hurt themselves.
    I thought it was ad hominem as they rejected because i didn't have credentials, instead of listening and looking the truth about the premises independently of the person who said it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    If you are operating in an area where you lack formal qualifications, you need to be extra careful of your facts. For example : while I agree that too much sugar or white flour is not good, I raised my eyebrows at the suggestion that too much fruit is unhealthy. Of course, you did not define 'too much'. However, raw fruit is generally very good for the human body, and 'too much' would have to be pretty extreme to cause much harm.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,191
    when you eat so much fruit it gives you diarrhea, then you have eaten too much fruit.
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by najseba View Post
    You may be right. Perhaps I shouldn't be commanding people what to do. I was just reproducing the newly discovered knowledge. The problem is that i want them to do well and not to let them hurt themselves.
    I thought it was ad hominem as they rejected because i didn't have credentials, instead of listening and looking the truth about the premises independently of the person who said it.
    Maybe you should post some of your information here on the science forum, and see what people think of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    10
    The theory is about Metabolism flexibility. It was published in Nature sometime ago. It shows the mechanism (metabolic syndrome) through which diseases of civilization are developed. Presents a continuum of diseases which may be: obesity, diabetes, alzheimer, etc. It supports the theory of High Fat, Low carbs that it seems to be gaining terrain the last few years. It blames it on fructose. It shows a very complex mechanism and it is very well docummented.
    This is the link:
    Obesity and Energy Balance is the Tail Wagging the Dog
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    The causes of obesity are still somewhat controversial, with weird and wonderful new theories appearing every year. It seems that a number of factors are involved, and any insistence on just one or two is probably doing people a disservice. The idea that we can eat a lot of fat, and lose weight by reducing intake of carbohydrates is probably only half right. That is ; eating lots of fat is fattening, regardless of reduction in carbs.

    The old rule states that we should consume in only moderate amounts, the following:
    Saturated fat
    Sugars
    Salt
    Purified starch.
    As far as I can see, this rule still applies. Too much of any of the above is bad - not just carbs.

    Unsaturated fats are also fattening, but do not seem to carry the burden of ill health that overmuch consuming of saturated fats does.
    Starch in your food appears to be OK, if it is combined with lots of dietary fibre. Only purified starch, like white bread or pasta, potatoes, and white rice is not good.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    I didn't have the patience to read the whole article, but here are a few observations. They start out by criticizing the energy balance, or calorie counting model.
    The scientific study of obesity has been dominated through-out the twentieth century by the concept of energy balance.... As we review below this model cannot explain why weight accumulates persistently in individuals, rather than reaching a plateau when weight gain re-establishes the balance between energyintake and expenditure.
    But then later they admit:
    Thermodynamic theory cannot be wrong, but it is possiblethat it has been wrongly applied in the scientific study of obesity.
    The fact is that calorie counting works to explain perfectly well why people gain weight. Weight accumulates because people eat more calories than they burn up. They don't reach a plateau because they eat more calories than the amount that would keep them at the plateau.

    Certainly this doesn't solve the obesity problem. It is not so easy to just eat less.

    Have the authors found a better way to eat less? I don't think they have. Low carb diets have been and are popular, but from what I have seen, people can't stick to them either.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    10
    Yes. The metabolic flexibility theory is based on distribution, rather than balance.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    One way of getting people to eat less is to increase the amount of protein in the diet. This works because protein has a higher satiety to calorie content ratio. This is, of course, the basis for the Aitkin diet. Lots of lean meat and lots of vegetable protein. To make it work well, it is necessary to keep fats and carbohydrates within reasonable limits, but that is easier when you feel full after eating lots of protein food.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Ad-Hominem attacks
    By najseba in forum Behavior and Psychology
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: September 17th, 2011, 09:30 AM
  2. Science under attack?
    By Golkarian in forum Politics
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: January 21st, 2009, 09:05 AM
  3. Censorship and Ad Hominem Attacks From "Moderators"
    By Total Science in forum Site Feedback
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: November 7th, 2008, 09:55 PM
  4. Spammers attack
    By (In)Sanity in forum Site Feedback
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: March 27th, 2006, 01:09 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •