A book has been written claiming that wheat is the cause of America’s weight problem.
The killer counterexample is Jared Vogel, who lost over two hundred pounds eating wheat every day in Subway sandwiches (as I understand it, even the oat bread Subway serves contains wheat; all of their other breads are wheat).
If he ate wheat every day and merely maintained his weight, that would contradict the thesis of this book, but it might just be an exception to the general rule.
But actually losing over 200 pounds by consuming the putative cause of obesity is a killer counterexample. That simply cannot occur if the thesis is true.
How mad we are may be seen by what percent of people believe the ruse of the bard’s Hamlet.
His ruse = being mad, while pretending to be sane, pretending that he is only pretending to be mad.
They err who think one cannot be mad, while pretending to be sane, while claiming to be pretending to be mad.
The evidence that Hamlet is actually mad begins with his hearing and seeing things that are not real. So many people believe in spirits and ghosts that they do not see this as delusional, but it is. At the start of the play, his entire belief system about the nature of man is as delusional as belief in fairy tales like religion. His delusions extend to his justification for killing Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, dupes of the king, by claiming that they made love to the employment. Insane squared! His best defense for his cruelty to Ophelia is “not guilty by reason of insanity.”
By human standards, my Hamlet, though stressed more severely than the bard’s, is and remains sane – he hears no voices, sees no ghosts, believes not a jot in anything supernatural; before Darwin, he intuits that man is the kissing cousin of the chimp; he believes in nothing that is directly contradicted by reliable evidence, believes in nothing absolutely, and believes only in things to the degree that they are supported by evidence of the most reliable kind.
To be sane in this world is as rare as being honest; ’tis to be one in perhaps ten thousand.
A good man wants to be good; a villain wants to seem so; an unrepentant villain does not care what others think.
To a person of the liberal persuasion an unrepentant villain is “morally ambiguous.”
I hate Yahweh – with a passion. But I forgive 70×7 times the people who created this repulsive, elitist, psychotic god, who teaches us that slavery and genocide are A-OK.
To date, I have found only one thing that I share with this psychotic god –
we both hate whiners. I trust that this does not make me as psycho as Yahweh is.
PS: since Allah is Yahweh on steroids, I hate Allah more. I also forgive the people who outdid the psycho creator of the super-psycho Yahweh.
is a poison that if it does not kill you, it makes you stronger.
Was the medicinal conifer tea of arbor vitae that mysteriously and quickly cured Cartier’s sailors of scurvy and syphilis a Nietzschean medicine?
Compare the story of Mithridates VI, the King of Pontus, who used ever increasing doses of poison to give him immunity to ordinary doses of the poison. He used poison and made it act like a medicine.
Poison: Medicine = two sides of the same coin, as are dying: becoming stronger.
To heal, and in general, to become stronger, one must sometimes almost die. The cure for a malady may well proceed through tremendous torment.
You can forget about illusory causes. If there are contributors, then there cannot possibly be a cause. There may be a driver if less than 50% of the observed effect has been accounted for by the known contributors. Generally, however, being more obvious (harder to conceal), drivers are discovered before contributors.
Rule: as practiced by scientists, words (terms) have ambiguous meanings.
Exception: a handful of rigorously defined terms.
Consider that in science (genuine knowledge) a word (a term) must have the same meaning. Not true in art – art thrives on ambiguity.
Consider the word “cause.”
In these two statements it must mean the same thing.
1. The motion of the cue ball causes the motion of the 8 ball.
2. The cause of death was Salmonella food poisoning.
In statement 1, the word “causes” is close to “completely responsible for.”
It conveys the notions of sufficiency(S), immediacy(I), and necessity(N), SIN for short. This is close to being true: transfer of momentum is not quite instantaneous. Air resistance and the friction of the billiard table contribute to the observed motion. The term “drives” is better – the driver of the effect is primarily responsible for the effect. There cannot be two drivers – if neither is primarily responsible, then they are both contributors to the effect. A contributor is NOT primarily responsible for the effect.
In statement 2, the word cause has a different meaning. It cannot mean what it does in statement 1. Death from Salmonella food poisoning is not even close to immediate. Death is not necessary, as the majority of people survive bouts of Salmonella food poisoning. The Salmonella food poisoning is not sufficient to cause death. The Salmonella challenges our defenses, and those people whose defenses were not up to the challenge succumb. Their weaknesses drive their own deaths. Salmonella was a challenge, a contributor. Personal weaknesses drove the death, and nothing, and I mean nothing, caused their deaths.