Should we Inject Skepticism Into The Way of Peat?

[charlie]

I have no problem with changing the thread title. It was just something that popped off my head.

 

[narouz]

I have no problem with changing the thread title. It was just something that popped off my head.

Not necessary, Charlie.
I just wanted to adjust my relationship to it a bit.

 

[4peatssake]

A new thread has sprung up!

I asked Charlie to create a new thread as I didn't want our conversation to derail ttramone's thread.

I would add a word about the title:
it would seem to derive from a poster other than myself.
I don't mean to quibble and I thank Charlie for creating the thread,
but the title does have some unfortunate nuances from which I would like to separate myself.

I'm curious that you wish to separate yourself from the title. What "unfortunate nuances" do you mean?

I don't think it was an easy thing for Charlie to split the thread so it looks like I started it and it is my question - when that's not accurate - but I do think the title does reflect your position on skepticism being a good thing which is where our discussion has gone.

I have been interested in the place of skepticism on a board such as ours.
My preference as a reader, member, poster is that I like to see some skepticism.
I think it strengthens our forum.
Without it, we run the risk of our site becoming something like "The Peat Belief Forum,"
where only true believers are welcome or tolerated.

I don't think skepticism is a requirement for having clear and balanced discussions of Ray's work nor a necessary component to ensure we don't become fanatical believers. I don't have to come at something from a position of doubt to ensure I see it clearly and not fall into a trap. Far better - and much more enjoyable - to come from a position of neutrality, openness and curiousity - in my view.

I have no problem with the way our valiant administrator has handled this issue.

Issue?

So my views about the place of skepticism are not a complaint about this forum.
Rather, one could think of them as a dialog about our mission statement, if we had one.
(Do we? We might for all I know!)

Now back to the title.
Personally, I don't conceive my role as a member to be
"injecting skepticism into the Way of Peat."
I think it is the word "inject" that troubles me a bit.
An injection is usually somewhat painful and artificial.
So...as I say, personally, I'm not all about injecting skepticism.
The way I prefer to phrase it and think of it is:
I believe there is valuable role for skepticism in our Peat inquiries.

I think Charlie got the word "inject" right from the horse's mouth, Narouz.

Skepticism is my hobbyhorse, and it is not focused upon you, 4peat. Nor ttramone or any individual poster.
I just think it is healthy to have some skepticism about our experiences with Peating.
Because I have that kind of impulse,
I'm afraid I turn up like rain at a lot of Peat Parties.

Is it really so shocking and heretical and wrong to inject that skeptical stream of thought
into some of the many Peat-Lovin' threads!?

I think it would be smart for us to sortuv have some respect
for the unwashed 99.99% non-Peatians of the world
and to at least try to be able to "talk the same language" they do--about food.
Not that we would believe what they believe.
Just that we would know how to communicate with them.
That might inject a bit of doubt into PeatWorld,
but maybe that's a good thing.

 

[narouz]

4peatssake-

As I say, I'm not complaining about the title or wanting to change it.

I just wanted to say that my preferred way of expressing my interests in
skepticism, myself, Peat, and this forum
would not as a "Skepticism Injector."

I mean, it's not terrible and I can live with it.

I would just prefer to label my interests in the subject
a little less painfully when i comes to something kinduv bold and fixed like a thread title.

 

[charlie]

 

[4peatssake]

OH man, that's hysterical.

He's better than Grumpy Cat!!!

 

[narouz]

Skepticism and the Person and Ideas of Dr. Peat.

Because this thread had its strange birth--
a kind of textual C-section --
from another thread,
and because it therefore begins "in medias res" and is somewhat confusing,
I wanted to reframe some central issues which have arisen
and post them separately so they're more easily focused upon.
As it is there is a big glob of related but somewhat different questions and issues
clotted together in a rather confusing way.

One of those has to do with skepticism and the person and ideas of Dr. Peat.
I've culled a few salient quotes.

Skepticism and the Person and Ideas of Dr. Peat

I wrote:

"Peat is very skeptical himself, and urges others to be."

4peatssake replied:

"Where does he say that? Or is that your assumption?
There is an enormous difference between truth and doubt/skepticism.
The energy of doubt is very low and Peat has very high energy. I do not view him as a skeptic. To me he is a truth seeker. He speaks and advocates for truth. Hallelujah I say!?"

I replied by pointing the poster to this quote from Peat...

"You are less likely to do the wrong thing if you believe that ‘the authorities are always wrong,’ because then you will begin to question their assumptions, evaluate their evidence, and examine their reasoning.”

...and I asked:

"You don't think that expresses a valuing of skepticism?"

To which 4peatssake replied:

No. His advice is based on evidence, what he discovered going on within the scientific community - what he has found to be true. So he is letting everyone know there are things terribly wrong within the scientific community so we don't have to re-"peat" his efforts to discover this truth as a starting point, unless we wish to of course.
He does not carry with him an energy of doubt - he questions and researches but he appears very much in balance as he does so. I do not pick up an air of suspicion in his work - he speaks plainly (well, as plainly as a scientist does, ) He is refreshingly free from negativity and his capacity to give is astonishing.
He may have spent years head butting "authority," trying to work within the system - now I see a man determined to bring forth the truth and set right some terrible wrongs. I thank him.

------------

A few observations on this exchange.

I do agree with the poster's view that Peat seems to be a man
"determined to bring forth the truth and set right some terrible wrongs. I thank him."
And I likewise feel grateful to him.

On the other hand, I see Peat and his work differently when it comes to these responses:
"He does not carry with him an energy of doubt."
"He is refreshingly free from negativity."
"The energy of doubt is very low and Peat has very high energy. I do not view him as a skeptic."

First, I would distinguish "negativity" and low energy levels from a skeptical outlook.
True, Dr. Peat does not generally come across--in his writings and interviews and videos--
as "low energy" or dull or glum or negative.
Those descriptors aren't related to the characteristic of skepticism I am talking about.

Maybe a defining of terms would be helpful.
From Merriam-Webster:

Definition of SKEPTICISM

1: an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object
2a : the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain
b : the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism characteristic of skeptics
3: doubt concerning basic religious principles (as immortality, providence, and revelation)

If we look back at the quote from Peat,
I think we will see such a skepticism pretty thoroughly displayed.
I've provided a bit fuller version of that quote:

“A scientific attitude is of great importance, but we must recognize that science has absolutely nothing to do with the ‘consensus of the authorities.’ You are less likely to do the wrong thing if you believe that ‘the authorities are always wrong,’ because then you will begin to question their assumptions, evaluate their evidence, and examine their reasoning.”

I would go so far as to say that skepticism is a hallmark of Peat's worldview and of his scientific work.

Furthermore, Peat has recommended numerous times
that his readers apply that same skepticism toward "authorities"
and--importantly--to his own work.
While we as "Peatians" like sometimes to go a bit warm and fuzzy about him
("He is refreshingly free from negativity and his capacity to give is astonishing,"...
"To me he is a truth seeker. He speaks and advocates for truth. Hallelujah I say!"),
he would not encourage that kind of embellishment, I feel pretty sure.

To me, there is nothing contradictory about being a truth speaker and being a skeptic.
To my mind, I can't think of a person I consider a truth speaker who has not also been a skeptic.
Another way of saying it would be,
for a person to get to a position of truth,
they first must travel the road of skepticism.
Moreover, I don't see the Arrival at Truth as a static, final position:
the way I see Peat, for instance, in this regard
is that he is a truth speaker and--at the same time--a skeptic.
They are simultaneous ways of being.
If you were to ask Peat something like...
"Dr. Peat, are you glad now to have finally arrived at the truth,
so you don't have to doubt anything anymore?"
...well, I don't even think I have to supply what I think his answer would be.

Peat is all about overturning and debunking
the romantic, the mythologized, the orthodox.
To do so, he had to be thoroughly rooted in a skeptical way of approaching the world and science.

To bring this discussion back to where it started,
clumsily I confess (for my part),
in a more specific discussion of diet and (shall we say) happiness or (perhaps) satisfaction, etc:
One will notice, I think, how absent from Peat's discussion of his diet
are descriptors of the selling point variety.
One almost never hears him make remarks about his food recommendations like:
"Oh, you'll just love my diet! It is the most delicious ever!"
or
"My dietary recommendations can't be topped for variety!"
or
"Once you get back in touch with your instinctual appetites, you'll feel how satisfying my diet is!"
or
"Actually, my diet has better variety, because it has less variety! The lack of variety becomes the most exalted transformation of variety!"

Those kinds of romanticizing, mythologizing spins are things that, in my view,
we tend to add--explicitly or implicitly.

It is a small point, and a tiresome one for some (I'm sorry! ) I know.
But I think it is worth making
because it goes to the heart of the much larger, more general subject of Peat's skepticism.

If you consider the nature of most web forums--
where you have membership and you belong
and you have a charismatic person you follow
or a a sports team you are fanatical about...
it is unsurprising that, at those forums, an "injection" (ouch!) of skepticism
will likely be greeted unsympathetically
("Hey all you Cleveland Browns fans here on the forum! I've come to post that the Browns suck!!")

So...I'm not surprised my various introductions of skeptical notes here
have sometimes been greeted with less than open arms.
But, because this is a different, rare kind of forum--
because it is a Peat forum, and Peat is such a rare and different guy,
and because he is such a profoundly skeptical guy--
I do have some hopes that a skeptical approach
might fare better here.

 

[kiran]

skeptic_cat.jpg

 

[narouz]

You just wait--I'll get you back for that!

 

[narouz]

It's kinduv weird to look for instances of skepticism in Peat's writings,
because it is hard to find anything that is not skeptical
or that did not derive from a skeptical outlook.

But anyhow...for consideration:

from "Academic authoritarians, language, metaphor, animals, & science"
http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/au ... ians.shtml

When a famous professor went on a lecture tour popularizing and affirming the scientific truth and importance of those publications, and asserting that all human actions and knowledge, language, work, art, and belief, are specified and determined by genes, he and his audience (which, at the University of Oregon, included members of the National Academy of Sciences and Jewish professors who had been refugees from Nazism, who listened approvingly) were outraged when a student mentioned the Nazi origin and intention of the original publications.

They said “you can't say that a man's work has anything to do with his life and political beliefs,” but in fact the lecturer had just finished saying that everything a person does is integral to that person's deepest nature, just as Lorenz said that a goose with a pot belly and odd beak, or a person with non-nordic physical features and behavior and cultural preferences--should be eliminated for the improvement of the species. Not a single professor in the audience questioned the science that had justified Hitler's racial policies, and some of them showed great hostility toward the critic.

When we ask a question and find an answer, we are changed. Thinking with learning is a developmental process. But many people learn at an early age not to question. This changes the nature of subsequent learning and brain development.

Theories of mind and language that justify arbitrary power, power that can't justify itself in terms of evidence, are more dangerous than merely mistaken scientific theories, because any theory that bases its arguments on evidence is capable of being disproved.

In the middle ages, the Divine Right of Kings was derived from certain kinds of theological reasoning. It has been replaced by newer ideologies, based on deductions from beliefs about the nature of mind and matter, words and genes, “Computational Grammar,” or numbers and quantized energy, but behind the ideology is the reality of the authoritarian personality.

 

[4peatssake]

Re: Skepticism and the Person and Ideas of Dr. Peat.

Skepticism and the Person and Ideas of Dr. Peat

------------

First, I would distinguish "negativity" and low energy levels from a skeptical outlook.
True, Dr. Peat does not generally come across--in his writings and interviews and videos--
as "low energy" or dull or glum or negative.
Those descriptors aren't related to the characteristic of skepticism I am talking about.

Maybe a defining of terms would be helpful.
From Merriam-Webster:

Definition of SKEPTICISM

1: an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object
2a : the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain
b : the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism characteristic of skeptics
3: doubt concerning basic religious principles (as immortality, providence, and revelation)

These are all just words on a page - or rather a computer screen and there is not one mention of there being an exploration of truth.

Have you ever been somewhere having a conversation about a subject and someone walks in who has a "skeptical" view on said subject and begins "injecting" that into the conversation?

I don't know about you - but I usually want to high tail it because the good was just sucked right out of the conversation.

That is the true origin of our discussion Narouz.

You brought Ray Peat into our discussion as a defense of your hobby horse of skepticism. An interesting segue, a rather bold move. Touche.

My experience of Ray Peat is not of a man of skeptism. I would not be attracted to that. His writings have incredibly high energy - they ignite a person (well, me, ) I poured through them, hungry for what I found and the truth and energy of his words resonated deeply within me. I care about that - for that is and was my experience. I was inspired. He was unafraid and unabashed in taking on the entire scientific community and Big Pharma. You don't see that every day.

You don't have to be a skeptic to question authority. I'm loathe to get into a philosophical discussion on "skepticism" with you as that would be an energy drain for me - but let me say this. There is a belief that skepticism is not natural - it is a learned behavior.

Evidence for this can be see by observing a child. Do you see skepticism there? No. Not until an adult has intervened. With a child, you see honest, open, curious exploration - using all of their senses, their entire intelligence, to make meaning and discovery.

Peat knows and understands how critical this is to learning, which is why he shuts off his brain (thinking) and paints. Einstein did the same thing. This is why Peat (and Einstein too) is able to access so much more of their consciousness and go far beyond the mindset and conscious awareness of a "skeptic." Charlie in another thread wondered if Peat could be enlightened.

If we look back at the quote from Peat,
I think we will see such a skepticism pretty thoroughly displayed.
I've provided a bit fuller version of that quote:

“A scientific attitude is of great importance, but we must recognize that science has absolutely nothing to do with the ‘consensus of the authorities.’ You are less likely to do the wrong thing if you believe that ‘the authorities are always wrong,’ because then you will begin to question their assumptions, evaluate their evidence, and examine their reasoning.”

I bolded your one statement because I have observed you make statements like this quite often, using phrases like "we will see" to present an opinion as some kind of collective position we will all take.

I still disagree with you on Peat being a skeptic. Rather, my view is that he discovered, probably much to his horror, "that science has absolutely nothing to do with the ‘consensus of the authorities.’ and as a result, he recommends that, "You are less likely to do the wrong thing if you believe that ‘the authorities are always wrong,’ because then you will begin to question their assumptions, evaluate their evidence, and examine their reasoning.”

I don't think he came to science as a doubting Thomas - he came as an explorer - what he found, however, was a world of deceit and darkness, not honest exploration for truth and understanding.

I don't think Ray maintains an air of skepticism in his approach to his life and work. He knows to question authority, it is a given - he understands his environment and continues to search for the truth despite the difficult conditions. He dares to speak out against the 99.99 percent. I'll also bet he doesn't measure himself against what they think either as you would have us do!

I do not see Ray Peat as someone who allows his past to inform his present. If he did he'd be like all the other doctors and scientists out there, peddling drugs for Big Pharma.

I would go so far as to say that skepticism is a hallmark of Peat's worldview and of his scientific work.

Wow Narouz, I wonder what Ray Peat would think of that.

Furthermore, Peat has recommended numerous times
that his readers apply that same skepticism toward "authorities"
and--importantly--to his own work.

Ray doesn't go around telling people to be skeptical. He warns us not to trust the liars that comprise the scientific community. And tells us to do our own due diligence. Geez.

While we as "Peatians" like sometimes to go a bit warm and fuzzy about him
("He is refreshingly free from negativity and his capacity to give is astonishing,"...
"To me he is a truth seeker. He speaks and advocates for truth. Hallelujah I say!"),
he would not encourage that kind of embellishment, I feel pretty sure.

You seem to have an aversion to any expression of support for Ray which I must say baffles me. Why stifle that? I am not all warm and fuzzy about him. I am grateful to him and appreciate what he has done. And what do you mean by embellishment? Me saying Hallelujah? Or that I don't see him as negative? Or that I think he gives his time and energy freely? Or that I see him as someone who seeks, speaks and advocates truth?

How is any of that "embellishment?"

To me, there is nothing contradictory about being a truth speaker and being a skeptic.

I didn't say they were contradictory. But I did say a truth speaker does not have to be a skeptic.

To my mind, I can't think of a person I consider a truth speaker who has not also been a skeptic.

Really?

Another way of saying it would be,
for a person to get to a position of truth,
they first must travel the road of skepticism.
Moreover, I don't see the Arrival at Truth as a static, final position:
the way I see Peat, for instance, in this regard
is that he is a truth speaker and--at the same time--a skeptic.
They are simultaneous ways of being.
If you were to ask Peat something like...
"Dr. Peat, are you glad now to have finally arrived at the truth,
so you don't have to doubt anything anymore?"
...well, I don't even think I have to supply what I think his answer would be.

Peat is all about overturning and debunking
the romantic, the mythologized, the orthodox.
To do so, he had to be thoroughly rooted in a skeptical way of approaching the world and science.

Hogwash!

To bring this discussion back to where it started,
clumsily I confess (for my part),
in a more specific discussion of diet and (shall we say) happiness or (perhaps) satisfaction, etc:
One will notice, I think, how absent from Peat's discussion of his diet
are descriptors of the selling point variety.
One almost never hears him make remarks about his food recommendations like:
"Oh, you'll just love my diet! It is the most delicious ever!"
or
"My dietary recommendations can't be topped for variety!"
or
"Once you get back in touch with your instinctual appetites, you'll feel how satisfying my diet is!"
or
"Actually, my diet has better variety, because it has less variety! The lack of variety becomes the most exalted transformation of variety!"

Those kinds of romanticizing, mythologizing spins are things that, in my view,
we tend to add--explicitly or implicitly.

It is a small point, and a tiresome one for some (I'm sorry! ) I know.
But I think it is worth making
because it goes to the heart of the much larger, more general subject of Peat's skepticism.

If you consider the nature of most web forums--
where you have membership and you belong
and you have a charismatic person you follow
or a a sports team you are fanatical about...
it is unsurprising that, at those forums, an "injection" (ouch!) of skepticism
will likely be greeted unsympathetically
("Hey all you Cleveland Browns fans here on the forum! I've come to post that the Browns suck!!")

But why Narouz? What is the point in defecating in the middle of a thread, derailing it and directing along the lines you wish to go? In your example of someone coming to the forum to tell all the Brown's fans that the Brown's suck - what is the purpose in that? That kind of thing doesn't advance a conversation or our knowledge. It's just an immature person looking to cause trouble.

It is tiresome having someone making the same argument over and over again and injecting it into a thread discussing something completely different. That was my initial and what started this particular conversation.

So...I'm not surprised my various introductions of skeptical notes here
have sometimes been greeted with less than open arms.
But, because this is a different, rare kind of forum--
because it is a Peat forum, and Peat is such a rare and different guy,
and because he is such a profoundly skeptical guy--
I do have some hopes that a skeptical approach
might fare better here.

 

[narouz]

Re: Skepticism and the Person and Ideas of Dr. Peat.

I would go so far as to say that skepticism is a hallmark of Peat's worldview and of his scientific work.

Wow Narouz, I wonder what Ray Peat would think of that.

I daresay he would agree.
In fact, I would be shocked if he did not.

Furthermore, Peat has recommended numerous times
that his readers apply that same skepticism toward "authorities"
and--importantly--to his own work.

Ray doesn't go around telling people to be skeptical. He warns us not to trust the liars that comprise the scientific community. And tells us to do our own due diligence. Geez.

4peats...if Peat "warns us not to trust the liars that comprise the scientific community. And tells us to do our own due diligence," then that is the very essence of skepticism. Gotta "geez" you back on that one.

While we as "Peatians" like sometimes to go a bit warm and fuzzy about him
("He is refreshingly free from negativity and his capacity to give is astonishing,"...
"To me he is a truth seeker. He speaks and advocates for truth. Hallelujah I say!"),
he would not encourage that kind of embellishment, I feel pretty sure.

You seem to have an aversion to any expression of support for Ray which I must say baffles me. Why stifle that? I am not all warm and fuzzy about him. I am grateful to him and appreciate what he has done. And what do you mean by embellishment? Me saying Hallelujah? Or that I don't see him as negative? Or that I think he gives his time and energy freely? Or that I see him as someone who seeks, speaks and advocates truth?
How is any of that "embellishment?"

I don't want to ask you to trouble yourself to scan over the range of stuff I post here,
so I will just say for what it's worth that, were you to do so, it would be pretty obvious that I do not have
"an aversion to any expression of support for Ray."

I don't think there is anything wrong with expressing gratitude, support, etc. for Dr. Peat.
I do so myself from time to time. (Yes! It's true!)
I think it a good thing to balance that with skepticism, as Dr. Peat teaches we should.

Another way of saying it would be,
for a person to get to a position of truth,
they first must travel the road of skepticism.
Moreover, I don't see the Arrival at Truth as a static, final position:
the way I see Peat, for instance, in this regard
is that he is a truth speaker and--at the same time--a skeptic.
They are simultaneous ways of being.
If you were to ask Peat something like...
"Dr. Peat, are you glad now to have finally arrived at the truth,
so you don't have to doubt anything anymore?"
...well, I don't even think I have to supply what I think his answer would be.

Peat is all about overturning and debunking
the romantic, the mythologized, the orthodox.
To do so, he had to be thoroughly rooted in a skeptical way of approaching the world and science.

Hogwash!

Honestly, 4peatssake, I must say I'm a touch appalled that you would say this. :?
I would think it should be so obviously true to anyone who has read any Peat,
that I didn't bother to supply examples in support.
But...I will endeavor to do so.

To bring this discussion back to where it started,
clumsily I confess (for my part),
in a more specific discussion of diet and (shall we say) happiness or (perhaps) satisfaction, etc:
One will notice, I think, how absent from Peat's discussion of his diet
are descriptors of the selling point variety.
One almost never hears him make remarks about his food recommendations like:
"Oh, you'll just love my diet! It is the most delicious ever!"
or
"My dietary recommendations can't be topped for variety!"
or
"Once you get back in touch with your instinctual appetites, you'll feel how satisfying my diet is!"
or
"Actually, my diet has better variety, because it has less variety! The lack of variety becomes the most exalted transformation of variety!"

Those kinds of romanticizing, mythologizing spins are things that, in my view,
we tend to add--explicitly or implicitly.

Please don't give up on life over this thread, 4peats.

It is a small point, and a tiresome one for some (I'm sorry! ) I know.
But I think it is worth making
because it goes to the heart of the much larger, more general subject of Peat's skepticism.

If you consider the nature of most web forums--
where you have membership and you belong
and you have a charismatic person you follow
or a a sports team you are fanatical about...
it is unsurprising that, at those forums, an "injection" (ouch!) of skepticism
will likely be greeted unsympathetically
("Hey all you Cleveland Browns fans here on the forum! I've come to post that the Browns suck!!")

But why Narouz? What is the point in defecating in the middle of a thread, derailing it and directing along the lines you wish to go? In your example of someone coming to the forum to tell all the Brown's fans that the Brown's suck - what is the purpose in that? That kind of thing doesn't advance a conversation or our knowledge. It's just an immature person looking to cause trouble.

Oh well. I was trying to make a joke.
But because you to took me seriously on the point,
let me answer you from that perspective:
Yes, you're are absolutely right, and it allows a good point to be made:
that sort of posting would be exactly the wrong thing to do,
and it would a very wrongheaded expression of "skepticism."

Since my comedic feel seems to be failing me today,
let me restate the Browns joke as a straight example
of how skepticism might be appropriately demonstrated
on a Cleveland Browns forum:
"Guys, while Weeden seems like a good guy and had a great college career,
he doesn't go through his progressions, is consistently inaccurate, and can't move in the pocket.
I doubt he is our franchise QB, and I don't see us winning more than 7 games this season."

 

[4peatssake]

Re: Skepticism and the Person and Ideas of Dr. Peat.

4peats...if Peat "warns us not to trust the liars that comprise the scientific community. And tells us to do our own due diligence," then that is the very essence of skepticism. Gotta "geez" you back on that one.

No it isn't Narouz. He is not at all skeptical about the scientific community. He KNOWS it is comprised of liars. He is certain and has proof that this is so, so much so that he would actually make a statement like that! He ain't doubtful at all!

And there is also a enormous difference about being skeptical about something - a specific thing or situation - and being a skeptic.

A skeptical person comes at things from a place of disbelief. That is their starting point.
You can believe that Ray Peat starts from this place if you want. I don't.

And please don't make claims that he is a skeptic or anything else for that matter because you don't know that. It is disrespectful. You'd have to ask him to know for sure - and provide context.

Another way of saying it would be,
for a person to get to a position of truth,
they first must travel the road of skepticism.

This is simply not true and is one of the many things that is wrong with science. How do you think the scientific community keeps Ray Peat's work hidden from view? They use skepticism! They use these same kinds of arguments to hold back or obfuscate the truth.

Moreover, I don't see the Arrival at Truth as a static, final position:
the way I see Peat, for instance, in this regard
is that he is a truth speaker and--at the same time--a skeptic.
They are simultaneous ways of being.
If you were to ask Peat something like...
"Dr. Peat, are you glad now to have finally arrived at the truth,
so you don't have to doubt anything anymore?"
...well, I don't even think I have to supply what I think his answer would be.

Why do you presuppose he is doubtful going in? Why not curious or interested? Why do you assume he comes at his work from a place of doubt? He sees something wrong or out of place, like his migraine headaches for example, - then goes into doubt about them - and then finds a cure for them? Why wouldn't he just see something wrong or out of place and then seek the solution? Why throw doubt in there at all?

This conversation is beginning to feel like I am arguing with someone who is convinced the glass is half empty and can't see that it's also half full.

Take a look at this viewpoint of skeptics.

Very doubtful in their thinking, and functioning or evaluating things in light of past disillusionments, disappointments or other social or business scenarios where what was promised was not delivered. Their wisdom (with apologies to Helen Reddy) and perspective has been born of pain. They do not give anyone the benefit of the doubt, and are prone to assume the worst about people and promises.

I brought forward this particular view because you have mentioned many times that you continue to bring up the argument that the Peat diet is not the most delicious and varied because you had embraced other diets and felt this way and ended up being disillusioned by that. This is a classic example of allowing your past to inform your present. In effect, you are preventing yourself from fully experiencing what is actually going on in the now moment because you are worried you may get burned like you did last time. So what if you do? I'd much rather approach something with an open mind - curious and ready for adventure rather than being skeptical and waiting for the other shoe to drop. No thanks. But not wearing rose colored glasses either. (or green)

Honestly, 4peatssake, I must say I'm a touch appalled that you would say this. :?
I would think it should be so obviously true to anyone who has read any Peat,
that I didn't bother to supply examples in support.
But...I will endeavor to do so.

It's OK Narouz. I don't need examples to know that you believe this to be true. I can equally say that to me it is so obviously true that Ray Peat is free thinker, a truth seeker who would not allow any form of contamination - including doubt - to cloud his judgment in his search for the truth. I cannot find the energy of doubt anywhere in his writing. If anything, I find certainty and conviction. And when he is unsure, he says so.

Please don't give up on life over this thread, 4peats.

No worries. I'll just give up on the thread! No point going round in circles! Charlie will have to get out that flogged horse.

Oh well. I was trying to make a joke.

Whoops, guess I didn't find it funny.

But because you to took me seriously on the point,
let me answer you from that perspective:
Yes, your are absolutely right, and it allows a good point to be made:
that sort of posting would be exactly the wrong thing to do,
and it would a very wrongheaded expression of "skepticism."

Since my comedic feel seems to be failing me today,
let me restate the Browns joke as a straight example
of how skepticism might be appropriately demonstrated
on a Cleveland Browns forum:
"Guys, while Weeden seems like a good guy and had a great college career,
he doesn't go through his progressions, is consistently inaccurate, and can't move in the pocket.
I doubt he is our franchise QB, and I don't see us winning more than 7 games this season."

Let me say this again. There is an enormous difference between being skeptical about something - a specific thing or situation - and being a skeptic. Now, if every game this guy came in to the forum and injected this kind of comment over and over again - never finding anything positive to say about the team - well then, perhaps he is a skeptic and I'd probably avoid his posts. But if this is simply his opinion - based on his his assessment of Weeden's performance for a specific day or season - that doesn't make him a skeptic - he's simply giving his opinion of what he thinks is the Browns chances on that day or season.

I daresay I am beginning to feel "skeptical" that we will reach an agreement on this Narouz.
Therefore, I agree to disagree with you.

 

[narouz]

I'm feeling a little woozy, stunned.
I never thought I'd be on a Peat forum
having to argue that
Peat is skeptical
and
Peat encourages people to be skeptical.

I'm sure this was the diabolically clever strategy of my fellow poster.
Ah well...nothing a little sleep won't fix....

Hey wait, I know: I am asleep! This is just a dream!!
I can't wake up.
I can't wake up!!!!!!!

 

[4peatssake]

I'm sure this was the diabolically clever strategy of my fellow poster.

Uh Oh - he's on to me.


Don't tell him I can also argue for conspiracy theories from the same angle!

Ah well...nothing a little sleep won't fix....

 

[tobieagle]

“Once we accept that knowledge is tentative, and that we are probably going to improve our knowledge in important ways when we learn more about the world, we are less likely to reject new information that conflicts with our present ideas. The attitude of expectancy will allow us to apply insights gained at one level of generality to other levels. No particular kind of knowledge will have such authority that it will automatically exclude certain possibilities in another field of knowledge.” Ray Peat

I cant see where this could be capable of being misunderstood.

For me Peat is a true scientist, which i am trying to become by myself. Skepticism is essential for true science (and for improvements in general).

You should always be able to revise old beliefs. Im very sure that Peat doesnt have the absolute truth in every case and i think he would tell you exactly the same if you would ask him.
Everyone who beleaves he has, has become dogmatic/religious about it and that leads finally to ignorance.

"Authoritarians talk about protocols, but the only valid ‘protocol’ would be something like ‘perceive, think, act." Ray Peat

 

[tobieagle]

"To learn effectively, it's necessary to question the assumptions behind everything, but few professors like to have their assumptions questioned. Always keeping in mind that "this is what they believe, it isn't necessarily true," will allow you to gradually build up your own view, and to keep your tentativeness or skepticism private, discussing it only with people that you trust." Ray Peat

Posted half an hour ago on the facebook fanpage.

 

[gretchen]

Re: Food variety

Now imagine Narouz that you have woken up and it's the beginning of the year. You know you need to make changes because you don't feel well, and suspect that being chronically constipated has something to do with it. You go on to a few forums and ask people if they can offer any suggestions, any advice as to what you might do.

You read around, and find that people are kind of clueless. Some say you should add magnesium, others say you should use oat bran. A lot of people get on board for the oats and before you know it, everyone is saying how much they love their oatmeal, while also discussing the fact that they are all constipated. Maybe you then chime in that grains are unhealthy, and off the thread goes.

I think we all have done diets that we weren't really thrilled with, and that also damaged our health in some way, and that for many of us, the switch to the Peat philosophy has amounted to being nothing short of life-changing. I ate paleo-ish type diets beginning in the late 90s and throughout my 30s and would have NEVER raved to anyone that "my diet is so good, I am so happy, this is the best ever etc." but rather would have said there were reasons I needed to eat that way, and that putting up with the frustration, boredom, hunger and stress was worth it.

Yes, I agree a diet that doeesn't include pasta, pizza, cookies and stir-fries can't be considered delicious in the traditional sense, and that most diets compared to Peat seem more sophisticated, nuanced, contemporary and just plain better. However, I've watched the diet scene for over 20 years and people are constantly seeking some solution to their inumerable health ills. All the diet-upgrading in the world away from "basic" meals of meat and potatoes hasn't made people any healthier.

Because I don't have to get up one day in January and deal with chronic constipation, I have come to think of myself as being more aware/advanced than people who don't follow this diet, because I figured out what causing my stress. No one has to slap me on the back, nor do I need to discuss it at any length with anyone, except to mention how much healthier I am than I used to be.

And so I have let go of the need to go along with contemporary diet trends/beliefs because at long last I have learned they were mostly all wrong. Although I always thought I would learn the truth about metabolism, I did not expect the great gift of Ray Peat's work, and so at least for now, I am still a year later more or less doing back flips. It's one of the best things that ever happened to me.

I agree 99% of people aren't going to choose the Peat way. 99% of people will not be able or willing to read even one Peat article, and won't be moved even if you present them with the Peat cheat notes. There won't be an aha moment, no awareness that this is the missing key. This is kind of sad in a way but realize everyone is able to learn whatever they want to. If someone doesn't want to explore Peat's ideas no one can make them.

You must admit Narouz there is something very sweet about success. Rather than feeling skeptical I think remaining quiet and investigative is key. At least we have found something that could probably be true, rather than just following along with what isn't likely and never will be true, like most people.

I disagree with you though that someone is not going to eat (and be excited about) beef chile with sauteed tomatoes, lime jello and Hershey's chocolate for dessert. My mother taught that we have to eat what is put in front of us. So as Peatians maybe we should think of ourselves as being the boss of our kitchens and selves, and be happy for our delicious yet somewhat unvaried meals.

 

[narouz]

gretchen-
I enjoyed reading your post.

Viewed from the perspective of skepticism,
I find very little to quarrel with.
I am very excited for you with regard to your success on a Peat diet,
and I think you have every right to feel wonderful about celebrating it!
And it brings inspiration to me and I'm sure to others.

Yes, there indeed is something sweet about success.
Success does happen.
Finding truth does happen.

I think I must have been very ineffective in communicating what I'm trying to get at
concerning skepticism, and Peat, and this forum.
It seems to me that some believe I am trying to persuade people
to believe in Nothing.
That I am trying to convince readers they should adopt
a glum, low, scowling, melancholy, lifeless, depressed
or--my favorite--"poopy" energy or attitude or approach to life.

No, no, no, no, no.
That is not the idea at all.

I did note, in your post, that you had to travel through periods of feeling lost,
of feeling doubt,
before you came to believe you had found some truth.

That is interesting to me.
I'm not sure how far the comparison holds up,
but some of what you describe sounds a little reminiscent of religious journeys or experiences.
In discussing skepticism here I've been using or thinking of the terms truth and doubt,
or belief and doubt.
I think it may be a different kind of creature,
but one hears the similar sounding opposition--faith and doubt--
in religious and spiritual writings.

I hope I don't just make things more confusing by introducing this spiritual angle into the discussion.
I'm not at all trying to proselytise here--
I myself am not formally religious and probably could best be described as agnostic about god/God.
But, anyhow, for your consideration,
a post and accompanying video from Andrew Sullivan's website:

“Faith Means Doubt”
http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2008/03/30/faith-means-dou/

MAR 30 2008 @ 3:07PM
More on Thomas Merton – a brief clip from a biographical documentary, "Soul Searching: The Journey Of Thmas Merton". My own essay on how faith and doubt are inextricable, and how fundamentalism is a form not of faith but of spiritual neurosis, can be read here. Merton’s lectures on the Ways Of God are here. You can get the DVD here. Merton’s literary masterpiece, "The Seven Storey Mountain," can be bought here.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=rmG1ZE9Qkc0[/media]

Merton and Sullivan are discussing the spiritual or religious dimension.
They are wondering about faith and doubt.
The principle they explore is that those two opposites seem to them to be inter-related,
or mutually reliant upon each other.

My point about skepticism
is not that we should believe nothing and mope through life like scowly poopycats. :)
Rather, it is that truth and doubt are, I think, similarly inter-related and mutually reliant.

 

[4peatssake]

"To learn effectively, it's necessary to question the assumptions behind everything, but few professors like to have their assumptions questioned. Always keeping in mind that "this is what they believe, it isn't necessarily true," will allow you to gradually build up your own view, and to keep your tentativeness or skepticism private, discussing it only with people that you trust." Ray Peat

Posted half an hour ago on the facebook fanpage.

Hi Tobie,

Welcome to the Great Skeptic Debate!

You make some terrific arguments to advance the position that Ray Peat is a skeptic.

I remain, however, skeptical - about that. Perhaps because I am an incurable optimist and believe more in there being greater value in coming from a place of curiosity rather than skepticism.

That does not mean I do not question authority or disagree with what Peat is saying in the statements you provide to "prove" he is a skeptic.

His warning (I'm assuming to students) to keep one's counsel when questioning the assumptions of their professors is very sound advice, taken in context. If Peat himself didn't do this, refused to take scientific findings at face value but rather explored for himself what is true, we may not be reading his words today.

I wonder how many scientists were "suicided" for insisting the world was round rather than flat. Many of us have read about Peat's experience being deeply investigated by the CIA because he was traveling down roads the backers of the scientific community didn't want explored and most certainly didn't want accurate findings revealed.

His "skepticism" toward his peers and their capacity for open mindedness and truth follows - it is a conclusion based upon his experience and his review of the work of his peers, it was not a starting point.

In my view, Peat is a real scientist. I cannot defend the current practices among scientists and their methodology. Why? Because it is terribly flawed and there is so much corruption and deceit. And if it weren't flawed and corrupted, there would be no need for Ray to make the statement you have quoted here, providing context for students who enter the world of "science."

I do not think skepticism is a natural position, I believe it is learned and it limits a person.

That Peat continues to work as a scientist amid such corruption and deceit is a testimony I think to both his love for and faith in humanity's capacity to recover and set things right. He carries on despite his environment. I admire that.

He shines a very bright light in a world of darkness. Humanity is in a state of enormous suffering as a result of false scientific findings being accepted as truth. That is not science. It is deceit. I am not going to try and prove this to you or anyone else. I believe we must all do our own due diligence and discover that for ourselves.

I just saw Gretchen's post and agree with her point of view, particularly about eschewing skepticism in favor of quiet investigation. Science has failed most of us gathered here - it is part of what bonds us. Our bodies and minds are sick to varying degrees. Look at how some of us jumped for joy when Rayser joined us - someone who has been Peating for 4 years and has resolved numerous health problems.

Now, we can approach Rayser's claims with "skepticism" if we wish. I won't be. Rather, I am approaching her views and experience with genuine curiosity and excitement. Not with doubt and skepticism.

I, for one, am truly amazed that Ray Peat is able to continue working within a community that is so incredibly broken and still remains so balanced and above it all.

My view is he is able to do this because he knows the drawbacks of relying solely on intellect and "reason" for answers and this is why he paints and advises us to regularly turn off our intellect and live stimulating lives. He understands that exploring other areas of our conscious awareness is equally important to the process of learning and acquiring true knowledge.

I don't make any such claims that everything Ray Peat says is true - that would be silly. But he is not arrogant, angry nor condescending - even when he exposes serious error or wrongdoing. He is not quick to rush to judgment. He is not sarcastic. And I dare say, he is not "A Skeptic." I draw a distinction here between being "A Skeptic" and being skeptical about something. Once again, it's about context.

Take for example how he handles this:

When I was studying the age pigment, lipofuscin, and its formation from polyunsaturated fatty acids, I saw the 1927 study in which a fat free diet practically eliminated the development of spontaneous cancers in rats (Bernstein and Elias). I have always wondered whether George and Mildred Burr were aware of that study in 1929, when they published their claim that polyunsaturated fats are nutritionally essential. The German study was abstracted in Biological Abstracts, and the Burrs later cited several studies from German journals, and dismissively mentioned two U.S. studies* that claimed animals could live on fat-free diets, so their neglect of such an important claim is hard to understand. (*Their bibliography cited, without further comment, Osborne and Mendel, 1920, and Drummond and Coward, 1921.)

Since 1927, others have demonstrated that the polyunsaturated fats are essential for the development of cancer (and some other degenerative diseases), but the Burrs' failed to even mention the issue at any time during their careers. How could they, studying fat-free diets, have missed an important contemporary publication, if I, 40 years later, saw it? There were very few publications on dietary fats in those years, so it was hardly possible to miss it.

As a side note, I came across this quote last night when I decided to conduct an experiment and suspend my position and view this discussion from Narouz's point of view - that skepticism is a good thing and that Ray Peat is a skeptic.

I should also mention that this particular question was not the starting point of our discussion - it was something that was brought forward into our conversation as part of Narouz's defense against my initial beef with him for jacking ttramone's thread.

Anyway, I don't see that Ray arrived at his incredulity over the Burr's neglect of the U.S. studies as coming from a place of skepticism - rather his skepticism about the Burrs and even their motives is a result of his own findings. He is careful how he says things.

Farther along in the same article http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/unsaturatedfats.shtml, Ray defends his skepticism of there being an EFA deficiency disease or syndrome. His own research finds that claim to be untrue.

When the various claims of an EFA "deficiency disease" or syndrome or symptom are examined, their inconsistency over the years makes skepticism seem increasingly justified. The Burrs' publications were typical of others, in failing to describe and account for the evidence that contradicted their claims. Claiming that certain fatty acids are essential, a scientific approach would require showing what was wrong with the experiments that showed that they were not essential, and especially, those that showed that they were positively harmful.

I somehow find myself in the midst of a "debate" about the value of skepticism. How the hell did that happen!

I just don't happen to believe skepticism is a necessary ingredient in an honest, open minded exploration for the truth. Narouz and you have a different view. That is cool.

I do not see skepticism as a position of strength. Rather, my view is that one has already placed an obstacle in one's path toward truth if that is one's starting point.

What I find interesting and sad is a tendency among intellectuals to dismiss arguments on the basis of their claims that anther person's viewpoint is "unscientific" or "wishful thinking" or "ridiculous" for some other such reason.

Many of the greatest truth seekers of the world - and I would venture to include Ray Peat among them - have been marginalized by this type of behavior and rhetoric. These are the same tactics used by the backers of the status quo.

If anything, my area of "expertise" is in behavioral science and so the actual process of debate and discussion intrigues me.

Please don't view my position as being someone who opposes an open minded exploration of the truth and a need to question authority. Particularly not someone who pulled her daughter from public school in Grade 3 and found herself in the school parking lot one day belting out Pink Floyd's "Brick in the Wall" anthem after observing some rather abusive "authoritarianism!"

Not only do I question authority, I also teach my children to do so as well. I have discovered unfortunately that some school authorities do not have the best interests of their students and do not always foster a healthy learning environment.

That said, I don't want to raise my children to be skeptics - but rather to be curious, adventurous and unafraid - despite the very challenging world we live in.

Perhaps, this better explains my point of view.