And I guess YOUR opinion is informed on this particular subject and thus should prevail over all others?

I predict you are going to be VERY unhappy here, Flex.

Straw man. My opinion is informed to the extent that I realize the laws of thermodynamics are intact. It should not prevail over all others, because most are already in agreement with me. In other words, most people do not deny physical reality. However, my opinion should and does prevail over yours.

I repeat:
What evidence would prove your belief wrong?

The Library of Congress Classification places thermodynamics in subclass QC310.15-319. Happy reading.

Probably not. Debunking crank beliefs is one of my favorite pastimes. Would you disagree with the notion that a person who does not know what a joule is has no business discussing thermodynamics, or any matter of physics, for that matter?

So did you mine. I asked "what's the mechanism that counts calories to determine how much to use?"

Let's play a game of logic. I start.

Proposition A and B can not both be true. The propositions are:

A. All molecules have a different effect on the body.

B. Two or more molecules have the same effect on the body.

The actual and complete proposition is:
(Directly from the other thread linked to in the first post.)


A priori, I have to say that I accept the complete proposition in toto without reserve. I accept it because doing so voids it. The alternative is that I argue against a logical fallacy. That would be a waste of my precious time. However, I give you all the time in the world to try and make both propositions true. Please don't lose yourself.

Actually, your opinion is "No one has the right to an uninformed opinion." There is no straw man. You wrote it.

How proud you must be!


I think everyone should discuss thermodynamics, or any matter of physics, for that matter.

Rethink your strategy if you're under the impression that name calling is going to win you friends or arguments.

Why should a person discuss a matter regarding which they are uninformed? I don't discuss subjects regarding which I am uninformed, of which there are many, such as automobile maintenance, plumbing, or Czech literature.


What name did I call anyone?

A fundamental quality of all scientists is to keep an open mind. It seems we have uncovered the flaw in your method. You are doomed to continue to use the "they must be lying" excuse. Consequently, you have ceased to learn anything new.

To you, whatever those people reported is merely hypotheses. But to them, it is recorded fact through direct first-person observation. Since they gave us no reason to doubt them then we must accept what they say as is. If there is doubt about what they reported, it comes from us, not from them.

Since doubt comes from us, we must poke holes in our own methods to find the flaw. If we find no flaw in our methods, then we can safely conclude that "they must be lying" but not until then. Even then, we can't definitively conclude this unless we test the idea ourselves and prove it false. So tell me, have you tried what those people did (overeat a whole boatload of fat for a month)?

I noticed something about your posts. Most are of the "elaborate" kind. Being a scientist, shouldn't you know about Occam's razor? You seem to want to use highly sophisticated language rather than simple language to explain simple ideas, i.e. "I disagree", "my opinion is the best", "I'm right because I say so", etc. I have nothing against you particular style but please, stop trying to show how "scientifically literate" you are. I mean, speaking of "cutting-through-the-crap" and stuff.

When was that asked? Mine stands, by the way.


How about the option of the same molecule having a different effect on the body? For example, try this experiment:

1. Drink a mole of H2O
2. Inhale a mole of H20

Your two propositions have nothing to do with energy balance, however.


How does accepting a proposition void it?

What evidence would prove your belief wrong?

The purpose of opening one's mind is the same purpose of opening one's mouth: to close it around something solid.


No, not hypotheses; self-reported anecdotal accounts. Bigfood, alien abductions, and Elvis at Burger King also have claimed direct first-person observation.

We have reason to doubt their reports if they are contrary to observed empirical evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If they were to say they saw their best friend at Taco Bell today, we probably would take them at their word. If they said they saw Michael Jackson at Taco Bell today, we would reasonably be doubtful and expect some more evidence.


This is exactly wrong. The burden of proof always lies with the party making an affirmative claim. It is not the case that they are right by default until proven wrong.

While they might be lying, I think the more likely explanation is that it is self-reported anecdotal data with a sample of one and no controls whatsoever.


Occam's Razor has nothing to do with vocabulary. If my vocabulary for some reason rankles you, I suspect you have never read a peer-reviewed journal article, as you will find such language there. The articles don't say "we did some stuff to some junk and things happened."

What language was too "fancy" for you, by the way? "Crap"?

I have to say, I am a bit gobsmacked to see in a discussion of science someone say "stop showing how much you know about science". You would think expertise would be welcomed.

What evidence would prove your belief wrong?

I asked the question in my first post in this thread, which you quoted incidentally but omitted the question in your quote. My two propositions are merely the logical problem of the complete proposition that you omitted (I don't hold it against you since it's a function of the forum "quote" function which omits the quote). If the proposition contains two contradictory statements, i.e. "either or", then accepting it is the same as refuting it: The two contradictory statements void each other therefore the entire proposition can be dismissed as a logical fallacy. In the case of the complete proposition "Keeping protein adequately high and essential fats sufficient, the level of carbohydrate and fat makes little difference.", the first statement implies that the second statement is false therefore cannot be true as a whole.

Incidentally, the competing proposition is:

"Carbohydrate drives insulin drives fat accumulation."

You ask the wrong question. The right question is: Which must be discarded or at the very least questioned, the idea or the fact that contradicts it?

What evidence would prove your belief wrong?

All observation is first-person accounts. What distinguishes between science and anecdotal evidence is the number of witnesses. Furthermore, no two perspectives are exactly the same therefore cannot confirm each other. What binds all this together is our faith. That's it. Either accept the accounts as plausible and test them yourself, or dismiss them outright and forever remain in blissful satisfied ignorance.

I just realized that it's not the wrong question after all. It's exactly the same question, just worded differently. Well, what would prove your belief wrong is if you tested their claims yourself. What would prove my belief wrong is if I started to gain weight, but more specifically grow fat, by continuing to eat zero carb, or if I grew more ill instead of returning to good health by continuing to eat zero carb. Or if anybody else reported either. I must warn you though, if the tendency keeps up, I doubt I'll ever prove my belief wrong.