The idea that any diamond isn’t a blood diamond is a scam, on the part of the people who know, and woo, on the part of the people who’ve been duped.
There’s no way to track diamonds, other than by relying on the people who stand to gain from you buying them. There’s no independent diamond tracking system, and it isn’t possible anyway, because gem-quality diamonds aren’t marked and aren’t chemically traceable, either. You’re relying on diamond suppliers and retailers monitoring their supply chains and they’re going to tell you anything if it gets you to buy a stone.
I agree with all that, and would add psychosomatic effects. People are so desperate for answers and sense of things that they will happily imagine not only ailments, but treatments. Why do I sometimes feel crappy? Must be gluten. My kid looked flush that one time after eating something, must be allergic. And once someone self-diagnoses as one of these things, and determines they’ve a solution (Magnets!!1!), good luck convincing them otherwise.
Add into that people only too willing to sell magnetic anti-gluten and herbal vaccine replacements, and the woo flows
I think in a lot of cases of woo there is probably a little something there that is blown out of proportion. I see it a lot in nutrition. Some studies show the health benefits of a high-vegetable diet and suddenly vegetarianism is the cure for cancer.
oh, you remind me of another one- the whole “super food” thing. Kale is supposed to be a “superfood,” yet nutritionally it’s pretty much the same as plain ol’ spinach.
The fact we each need to decide what to eat a couple times every day, and we crave a certain variety, certainly gives rise to a lot of opportunities to make decisions.
We all understand and agree there are such things as bad diets. As the Grateful Dead said there’s “livin’ on reds, vitamin C, and cocaine.” Just not good for a man.
If there’s a worst, there’s gotta be a best, right? Wrong of course, but that doesn’t stop people from selling and therefore buying on that basis.
I’ve read a lot of nutrition books from The China Study to Good Calories, Bad Calories and while most of them have been eye-opening, some present better research and more plausible claims than others. It seems to me that all of these different nutrition experts are holding onto different parts of the elephant, and claiming their part is the whole elephant. The only recurring theme I’ve picked up from all of them is that processed food is terrible for you, which doesn’t require a nutritional expert to figure out.
I like Michael Pollan’s book In Defense of Food because the message is incredibly moderate and woo-resistant:
**
Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.**
Are you saying it’s a fallacy that whole foods are better for you than processed foods? That’s literally all he means by “eat food.” If that is a fallacy I’m interested in hearing more.
Also, based on his other books I don’t think Pollan’s food orientation “mostly plants” is derived solely from his view of nutrition science. He’s really big on people understanding where their food comes from and pulling it out of their back yard when they can.
Also, I never would argue any nutrition science claim isn’t debatable. But there is a marked difference in tone between Pollan’s “here are some decent health guidelines” and the grandiose claims I’ve read elsewhere. It’s a pretty unassuming read.
Yes. It’s a fallacy to think it’s true without actual evidence. That’s called the naturalistic fallacy: “Natural” things are better than “unnatural”, by some (usually inconsistent!) definitions of those terms, simply by virtue of being “Natural”.
First, the second part is another example of the naturalistic fallacy, and quite dangerous unless your backyard’s actually clean and free of contamination, as farms are.
Second, and more to my point there, nutrition science also gave us diets like Atkins, which is definitely not “mostly vegetable”!
It must be true. I have a wi-fi router and not a single plant has ever sprouted in the room that it’s in. Not only that, but over the past several weeks the trees along the whole street have started losing their leaves! :eek:
I can see launching that argument with regard to natural supplements and organic food and BS like that, but I’ve never heard a criticism of the basic advice “eat whole foods.” And in all the nutrition reading I’ve done ever, the science does point to most processed food as toxic, addictive garbage, if not for its individual content than for its engineered purpose of making people crave more of it. The evidence shows that people who subsist on a diet of this stuff usually suffer for it. So I don’t think it’s a fallacy unless there is a bunch of research I’m not aware of.
I can’t recall exactly, but I think the purpose of Omnivore’s Dilemma was to trace a single meal back to its origins, hence the backyard thing. I don’t remember if it was a device for his book, or a dietary recommendation. He talked way too much about corn, so I stopped reading. His books aren’t really about nutrition science. He’s a journalist. I saw An Eaters Manifesto as a generalization of existing nutrition science combined with his whole philosophy of paying attention to where your food comes from. The latter is only woo if it comes with an unsubstantiated claim of health superiority. It doesn’t. He states it as an ethical or philosophical opinion.
I find nutrition science pretty fascinating but as I pointed out before, there seems to be evidence in support of all kinds of dietary choices. The one commonality in all of these nutrition science books is the whole foods part. I don’t think it’s woo to say people whose diets consist mainly of whole foods are usually healthier than those who subsist on processed food. We have a lot of evidence for that.
Do we have evidence against that? Serious question.
Is that what “processed foods” means now, “refined”? Because it seems that, like “natural”, it’s one of those expressions that mean different things from one writer to another. I’ve seen definitions which included anything that has been cooked or preserved in any way.
I agree that a lot of sold-cooked food has things that really shouldn’t be there but definitions which change with the time of day and phase of the moon are as bad for communication as palm oil cheese is for nutrition.
Well, when I say it, I mean anything that would be regarded as junk food. That’s usually what the writers mean. Food products that contain added sugar, salt, and fat.
All of those, or any? Because, again, I’ve seen articles which counted anything which had either of them added. I think the only reason they didn’t include “has had acids added” is that the writer hadn’t heard of ceviche.
I’m not trying to attack you - but sadly nutrition is a field that’s so full of economic interests, woo and other general crap (something which really, really shouldn’t be part of anybody’s food) that we need to begin any conversation by defining our terms.
There’s a great example of why woo develops there; there’s actually serious research going on as to the benefits of adding charcoal to soil- it appears to have rather a lot of beneficial effects on plant growth, due to things like reducing nutrient leaching and beneficial microbial development.
It’s one of those ‘stopped clock twice a day’ moments that keeps whole woo movements going.
Because the people who aren’t buying into the fallacies have more specific recommendations, like “don’t eat some kinds of fish if you’re pregnant due to mercury levels which could be dangerous to a fetus”: That fish is whole food, in that it’s caught, cut, cooked (usually), and served, but it is still not harmless to a developing brain.
Woo involves the broad pronouncements. Woo is exciting. Reality looks mundane compared to that.
If you have specific complaints about specific foods, make those specific complaints. Saying “processed food” as if it doesn’t involve home-baked bread and ceviche and sushi and tomato soup and Twinkies and apple pie and tofurkey is a horrible confusion of ideas, and confused ideas are a hallmark of woo.
I’m not accusing you of anything here, just adding on: Confusing ethics for reality is confusing “ought” for “is”, and is woo as well. PETA is the premier example: They think people ought not eat meat. They say that meat is unhealthy. Confusing “ought” for “is” and they lie their asses off about pus being in milk and beer being better for children than dairy.
I have evidence for more specific things. That’s how science works.