Everyone is different Part 4, Fallacies and another rant!

Cont'd from Bray et al shows that a calorie *is* a calorie (where weight change is concerned).

The other day, an article about Ruth Frechman appeared in my Facebook News Feed.

See A nutritionist shares pictures of everything she eats in a day

The article (written by an editor, not a dietician) started "If you're trying to eat right, then following the diet of a nutritionist is probably a good start." This infers that everyone should eat the same diet and that diet is what Ruth Frechman ate on that particular day.

Uh, nope! This doesn't follow. The whole article is based on a non sequitur fallacy.

From the reactions on Facebook, you'd think that Ruth Frechman had just admitted to being a serial kitten-murderess. The link to the above article had the following accompanying text:-
"Imagine booking an appointment to see a nutritionist in the hope that it would improve your health and appearance...

And this haggard looking, snack-munching zombie greeted you at her office."
Dismissing someone's knowledge because of their diet and/or appearance is an ad hominem fallacy.

I posted the following status:-
"As I'm unable to leave comments on that News Feed item, I'm sharing it, with the following observations.
1. Dismissing a person's knowledge because of what they look like is an ad hominem fallacy.
2. Insults are scraping the bottom of the debating barrel. Stay classy!
3. The main reason people go to a dietician is because they are fatter than they want to be. If YOUR logic is that a person should look as though they're implementing their weight-loss knowledge and it works, would YOU get weight-loss advice from the man in the blue shirt?
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/sIrXqvtuBo4/maxresdefault.jpg
EDIT: Also https://igcdn-photos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfa1/t51.2885-15/sh0.08/e35/p640x640/11380280_1078302272204224_535077602_n.jpg"

Yesterday, the following post appeared in my News Feed:-
https://www.facebook.com/rannoch.donald/posts/10156093095785104
"In an article worthy of the Onion, Ruth Frechman provides conclusive proof that being a registered dietitian nutritionist means absolutely nothing. But wait...she is the author of that dietary classic "The Food Is My Friend Diet"

The very fact that this person has some degree of qualification and the implied authority that goes along with it suggests that we have reached the apex of nutritional stupidity and ignorance. The fact that Business Insider deem this worth sharing tells us they should stick to what they know.

So, join us as we snack on Popcorn, eat M&Ms, chug down fortified fruit juice, eat Quest bars and chewing gum...

There is an actual meal in there at one point, but it looks decidedly like something you might feed your dog, food is obviously not her friend, it's her fix.

Frechman, by her own account, seems to spend her days stressed, tired and hungry, and feels suitably entitled to share her own brand of self loathing with anyone who will part with the $.

Cut out the static. Learn to cook. Go for a walk. Breathe."

Uh, nope! We don't know how busy Ruth Frechman is, how much free time she has, what facilities she has for preparing meals and what foods she likes to eat. She's criticised for eating treats like popcorn and M&Ms, even though she's slim and apparently in good health.

Here's a link to her book:- http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Food-Is-Friend-Diet/dp/0984597913#reader_0984597913 Go to Page 33 and criticise THAT.

I can only conclude from some of the comments left on the above Facebook post that the world has a lot of judgemental arseholes.

Guest post: Science versus Pseudoscience.

Pseudoscience is so flawed that it cannot be considered legitimate science. Of course it is common to claim that one’s beliefs are scientific, but mostly they are not.

Pseudoscience lacks the true method of science and goes way beyond just a few errors, the methods themselves are so flawed that makes the theory suspicious.

Between the two extremes of science and pseudoscience there is a gray zone, but legitimate science and pseudosciences can still be identified. The denial of this two extremes in the continuum, is a false continuum logical fallacy, or philosophically called the demarcation problem.

Features of Pseudoscience

1. Motivated reasoning

The most prominent feature of this pathological science is working backward from desired results, or motivated reasoning. The result is that they make evidence fit into preconceived notions. They use biased logic and cherry-picked evidence in order to defend a desired conclusion. There’s no concern and effort to prove their own theories wrong.

This relates to the congruence bias, testing one’s own theory by looking for positive evidence and cherry-picked evidence.

2. Burden of proof and confirmation bias

They will only look for confirming evidence, avoid dis-confirming evidence, and may engage in special pleading and shifting the burden of proof.

In confirmation bias, they look for supportive evidence for their own desired conclusions, choosing only the evidence that supports their own theory, irrespective of quality, negative evidence.

3. Anecdotal evidence

Anecdotes are uncontrolled, or ad-hoc observations, and they are not systematic. They rely on confirmation bias and recall bias.

Low-grade evidence is often favored no matter how implausible it may be.

Emotional appeal is another typical tactic among pseudoscientists who try to defend their statements, claiming what people say is more important than actual numbers on paper.

Pseudoscientific belief may even be based upon a single case or observation, preliminary evidence, or even a single anecdote. This is the hasty generalization logical fallacy.

Pseudoscientific principles may also be based upon a philosophical idea, not been empirically tested or developed as a scientific theory.

4. Grandiose claims (Galileo syndrome)

This involves grandiose claims based upon preliminary evidence. Far-reaching claims overturn entire portions of well-established science, using very little research or tiny bits of evidence.

5. Alternative science

In extreme cases, pseudoscience leads to alternative science, all of science is replaced with an alternative version.

6. Absolute claims

Pseudoscientists make bold claims that are often absolute and go way beyond the evidence. Pseudoscientists offer simple answers to complex questions, a theory of everything where one tiny casual source is used to explain the entire universe, if it comes to that.

7. Hostility

Pseudoscientists generally cannot accept criticism and avoid the scientific community. They claim being victim of a conspiracy and stay away from mainstream science and community.

8. Vagueness

Pseudoscientists use vague terms and words to obfuscate, so they can shift the definition around, use it in different ways at different times when it suits them, to confuse others and avoid explaining their point. Vague terms such as “information” or “energy” are often used with no specificity as in a scientific discussion.

9. Stagnation

Pseudosciences fail to progress, and tend to be stagnant. They are ad nauseam trying to establish their theory rather than build a body of evidence for it.

10. Anomaly hunting

Anomaly hunting is yet another common feature in which they search for anomalies trying to establish a conclusion, which does not seek to refute or explore other alternatives.



Nickerson, Raymond. “Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises.” Review of General Psychology 2, no. 2 (1998): 175–220.

Novella, Steven. “Anomaly Hunting.” NeuroLogica Blog. http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/anomaly-hunting

Pigliucci, Massimo. Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science from Bunk. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010

Shermer, Michael, The Borderlands of Science: Where Sense Meets Nonsense. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001.

Gardner, Martin. Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science. Mineola: Dover Publications, 1957
Shermer, Michael. Why People Believe Weird Things. New York: Henry Holt/Times Books, 1997.


For more information on Sérgio Fontinhas, see Big Fitness Project. 

I don't believe it.

And neither should you.

From http://workwithstuartchalmers.com/wp/blog/2012/10/02/banners-broker-it-care/

Well, opinions are like assholes, honey. Everybody's got one and everybody thinks everybody else's stinks. The internet is full of opinions. Why should anyone believe anything they read on the internet?

If a writer has (a) qualification(s) in "A", it means that they know something about "A". It doesn't mean that they know anything about "B", "C"....."Z". However, humans being human, they have biases. Writers write in a biased way. Also, readers read in a biased way. Having (a) qualification(s) means diddly-squat. What does mean something, is backing-up what's written with quality evidence. As I have no formal qualifications in Diet & Nutrition, I try to do that as often as possible. When I don't, it's my opinion.

Many people are intolerant of other people's opinions. No wonder so many "fights" break out on forums, message-boards & blog comments. As a writer's qualifications mean diddly-squat, what's the point in arguing about a writer's qualifications? There isn't one! It's an ad hominem fallacy. Bloggers whose blog contents consist mainly of ad hominems & other fallacies are ass hats.