The Best Oils

[DylanPG]

What is the best oil for taking a dump?

10w30

[Necrosis]

How is that inaccurate? If you compare it to the nutritional theories of the last century, even of the last few decades, you will find both theories that match that method and theories that don't.

What I think is unhealthy is a low variety of foods and eating things you hate. I love olives, poppy seeds, sesame seeds, flax seeds, nuts, fish, but also burgers, cheese, eggs, fries, etc. So that's what I eat in terms of fats.

If you rely on nutrition science alone, you could as well flip a coin.
Science always only describes certain aspects of a human beeing. It doesn't explain anything.
Moreover, in case of nutrition science, even this restricted description changes every year.

dude you're taking flim flam philosophy and applying it to one of the harder sciences there is, biochemistry.

foods higher in fat and sugar and usually more pallatable. "Nutrition science" does not change every year. For example we know a low GI diet works well for people with diabetes because they have hyperglycemia due to poor insulin response, this fact never changes and it cannot be determined using taste, and is accurate and precise.

science explains alot, where are you getting your definition from?

[wavelength]

dude you're taking flim flam philosophy and applying it to one of the harder sciences there is, biochemistry.

foods higher in fat and sugar and usually more pallatable. "Nutrition science" does not change every year. For example we know a low GI diet works well for people with diabetes because they have hyperglycemia due to poor insulin response, this fact never changes and it cannot be determined using taste, and is accurate and precise.

science explains alot, where are you getting your definition from?

I don't want to turn this into a philosophic discussion but by definition, natural science does not "explain" anything. It makes restricted models of the world and then produces theories within those restricted models. The theories do not explain reality, they just try to match the measurable scientific aspects of the world - which are applicable to that particular model of reality - as close as possible. The restrictions and explanatory power of sciences are by definition a non-scientific issues, hence the "flim-flam" philosophy.

That being said, my point was not that e.g. biochemistry is garbage science or an "easy" science. My point is that - especially in "nutritional science" (English is not my mother language, so maybe there's a better term) - most of the time, scientific findings about certain scientific aspects (which may in fact be already well established in scientific theories) are ineligibly extrapolated to holistic statements e.g. about health, life-extension, or bodybuilding. What changes every year are those extrapolations. That's why I demand emperical evidence regarding the actual proclaimed outcome of a specific method, rather than statements derived from random combinations of theories about certain aspects.

[Necrosis]

I don't want to turn this into a philosophic discussion but by definition, natural science does not "explain" anything. It makes restricted models of the world and then produces theories within those restricted models. The theories do not explain reality, they just try to match the measurable scientific aspects of the world - which are applicable to that particular model of reality - as close as possible. The restrictions and explanatory power of sciences are by definition a non-scientific issues, hence the "flim-flam" philosophy.

That being said, my point was not that e.g. biochemistry is garbage science or an "easy" science. My point is that - especially in "nutritional science" (English is not my mother language, so maybe there's a better term) - most of the time, scientific findings about certain scientific aspects (which may in fact be already well established in scientific theories) are ineligibly extrapolated to holistic statements e.g. about health, life-extension, or bodybuilding. What changes every year are those extrapolations. That's why I demand emperical evidence regarding the actual proclaimed outcome of a specific method, rather than statements derived from random combinations of theories about certain aspects.

"I don't want to turn this into a philosophic discussion but by definition, natural science does not "explain" anything. It makes restricted models of the world and then produces theories within those restricted models. The theories do not explain reality, they just try to match the measurable scientific aspects of the world - which are applicable to that particular model of reality - as close as possible. The restrictions and explanatory power of sciences are by definition a non-scientific issues, hence the "flim-flam" philosophy."

wrong, science explains reality, it is our best tool to measure truth. If you base it on some presumptions which in my estimation are correct because i have never seen them falsified. That this is reality, there is no other reality. Science measures how the world works, theories are collections of facts about the world which describe reality. They are reality. Science describes how questions.


"That being said, my point was not that e.g. biochemistry is garbage science or an "easy" science. My point is that - especially in "nutritional science" (English is not my mother language, so maybe there's a better term) - most of the time, scientific findings about certain scientific aspects (which may in fact be already well established in scientific theories) are ineligibly extrapolated to holistic statements e.g. about health, life-extension, or bodybuilding. What changes every year are those extrapolations. That's why I demand emperical evidence regarding the actual proclaimed outcome of a specific method, rather than statements derived from random combinations of theories about certain aspects."

give me some examples,axioms,analogies, anything to support your clearly false statement.

"That's why I demand emperical evidence regarding the actual proclaimed outcome of a specific method, rather than statements derived from random combinations of theories about certain aspects."

its called the double blind methodology. I see its pointless to argue with you just like will brink did, as you are making up false definitions of what you expect, yet you have no knowledge on the matter.

[wavelength]

wrong, science explains reality, it is our best tool to measure truth. If you base it on some presumptions which in my estimation are correct because i have never seen them falsified. That this is reality, there is no other reality. Science measures how the world works, theories are collections of facts about the world which describe reality. They are reality. Science describes how questions.

Your definition of science (natural science that is) is completely wrong. Please show me where you get that definition from. Only philosophy can say anything substantial about reality. Science by definition only operates on models of reality. A model again by definition is a reduction of reality. Science is not a tool to measure truth. It's only a tool to predict measurable scientific aspects of the world. Even scientific positivists like e.g. Stephen Hawking agree with me 100% on that one. But as I said, that was not the main point. We should not turn this into a philosophic discussion. We already tried that once: http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=198162.0

Your last post in that thread wasn't that conclusive:

this is a huge clusterfuck of pseudo-intellect (this thread).

give me some examples,axioms,analogies, anything to support your clearly false statement.

Example: The claim that supplement A helps me with my bodybuilding goals, because it raises my testosterone. It may very well be that supplement A really raises my testosterone silghtly, but the only thing that matters in the end is if the ratio of muscle gain vs. fat gain is improved at a certain rate of weigh gain.

its called the double blind methodology. I see its pointless to argue with you just like will brink did, as you are making up false definitions of what you expect, yet you have no knowledge on the matter.

I politely asked him to name me the supplements for which such studies have been performed, but not regarding specific scientific aspects (like e.g. testosterone levels) but the promised outcome - an increase in the ratio of muscle gain vs. fat gain at a certain rate of weight gain. I also politely ask you, where are these studies?

I don't know why you are so aggressive. It's not my fault that not one single supplement I ever tested (as objectively as possible for a single person) did anything for me. What other conclusions can I come to?

[Necrosis]

Your definition of science (natural science that is) is completely wrong. Please show me where you get that definition from. Only philosophy can say anything substantial about reality. Science by definition only operates on models of reality. A model again by definition is a reduction of reality. Science is not a tool to measure truth. It's only a tool to predict measurable scientific aspects of the world. Even scientific positivists like e.g. Stephen Hawking agree with me 100% on that one. But as I said, that was not the main point. We should not turn this into a philosophic discussion. We already tried that once: http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=198162.0

Your last post in that thread wasn't that conclusive:


Example: The claim that supplement A helps me with my bodybuilding goals, because it raises my testosterone. It may very well be that supplement A really raises my testosterone silghtly, but the only thing that matters in the end is if the ratio of muscle gain vs. fat gain is improved at a certain rate of weigh gain.

I politely asked him to name me the supplements for which such studies have been performed, but not regarding specific scientific aspects (like e.g. testosterone levels) but the promised outcome - an increase in the ratio of muscle gain vs. fat gain at a certain rate of weight gain. I also politely ask you, where are these studies?

I don't know why you are so aggressive. It's not my fault that not one single supplement I ever tested (as objectively as possible for a single person) did anything for me. What other conclusions can I come to?

i am aggressive because ive been dealing with idiots all day and i deal with them in my daily life. They are the people who require pampering, cant think for themselves and perpetuate misinformation and downright lies.

Why dont you look the studies up yourself? ever hear of pubmed, it will have the answers you seek.

so if i show you a study where subjects lost fat taking a supplement moreso then people not taking the supplement you will be satisfied, or the same for muscle growth.

my post in the thread was meant for the pseudo-philosophical tangents people where getting on who clearly do not have any substantial grip on teachings, i also think philosophy and questions about the meta-physical are pointless. Science shows us how the universe operates. How can thinking teach us about reality, who is to say your not crazy, or deluded, or that some of us are? Your personal thought and reality doesnt make it real, however, things that can be repeated regardless of the tool of measurment or person are as close to reality as one can get.

However, i agree, lets no clutter this thread with our pointless philosophical debates.

[tbombz]

science can explain EVERYTHING. watch the science channell. i love that channell. its so interesting. although im no where near smart enough to do the kind of research and stuff those scientists do, i am smart enough to know how cool it is ! 

[wavelength]

i am aggressive because ive been dealing with idiots all day and i deal with them in my daily life. They are the people who require pampering, cant think for themselves and perpetuate misinformation and downright lies.

Why dont you look the studies up yourself? ever hear of pubmed, it will have the answers you seek.

so if i show you a study where subjects lost fat taking a supplement moreso then people not taking the supplement you will be satisfied, or the same for muscle growth.

Let's get two things out of the way:
1. You are much more educated in the specific field of science we are talking about than me. That's not my point.
2. You do not have to dig up studies for me, I was just asking, you can always tell me to fuck off.

First I should clarify that what I mean by supplements are not prescription drugs and also not pro-hormones/steroids that are or were OTC at one point.

What I would like to see is a study which shows that when all other factors (including the rate of weight loss resp. weight gain as controlled by caloric intake) are kept constant, the supplement would raise the ratio of muscle gain vs. fat gain at the mentioned rate of weight gain (bulk), resp. raise the ratio of fat loss vs. muscle loss at the mentioned rate of weight loss (cut). Because that's what I would define as the purpose of bodybuilding, maximizing those ratios. If the supplement adds a substantial amount of macros to the diet, those macros would have to be replaced with regular food for participants who do not take the supp, of course.

All the supps I have tried (in my case of course only as an emperical experiment on one person and knowing if the supp was taken or not), have failed this test.

my post in the thread was meant for the pseudo-philosophical tangents people where getting on who clearly do not have any substantial grip on teachings, i also think philosophy and questions about the meta-physical are pointless. Science shows us how the universe operates. How can thinking teach us about reality, who is to say your not crazy, or deluded, or that some of us are? Your personal thought and reality doesnt make it real, however, things that can be repeated regardless of the tool of measurment or person are as close to reality as one can get.

However, i agree, lets no clutter this thread with our pointless philosophical debates.

The answer to your questions can pretty much all be found in the mentioned thread. What you wrote above already is a (pseudo-)philosophic disquisition, and therefore (although false) still serves one purpose: contradicting itself. Again, if you don't believe me, I can dig up some quotes from Stephen Hawking, clearly one of the poster boys of scientific positivism, who however still agrees with me on those points. Or I can dig up quotes from people who really understand the nature of sciences, the great philosophers.

[wavelength]

science can explain EVERYTHING. watch the science channell. i love that channell. its so interesting. although im no where near smart enough to do the kind of research and stuff those scientists do, i am smart enough to know how cool it is ! 

It's cool, no doubt about it.
However, scientific positivism can easily be proven wrong.
Major OT alert, BTW.

[Deicide]

It's cool, no doubt about it.
However, scientific positivism can easily be proven wrong.
Major OT alert, BTW.

Is the coffee induced morning dump part of your routine as well?

[wavelength]

Is the coffee induced morning dump part of your routine as well?

You seem to have quite a fixation with taking a dump.
Unlike the typical Viennese, I don't drink coffee.

[Necrosis]

The answer to your questions can pretty much all be found in the mentioned thread. What you wrote above already is a (pseudo-)philosophic disquisition, and therefore (although false) still serves one purpose: contradicting itself. Again, if you don't believe me, I can dig up some quotes from Stephen Hawking, clearly one of the poster boys of scientific positivism, who however still agrees with me on those points. Or I can dig up quotes from people who really understand the nature of sciences, the great philosophers.

i wont respond to the first part of the post as its pointless to argue with you, if you have questions, post them and ill try and provide evidence, im not going to continue arguing inane points in this forum.

secondly, i know actual philosophers and i cant understand a word they say, many are quite brillant so either way i will avoid this debate in this forum. Perhaps i will bump the thread you have posted to continue our discussion.

[wavelength]

i wont respond to the first part of the post as its pointless to argue with you, if you have questions, post them and ill try and provide evidence, im not going to continue arguing inane points in this forum.

That's fine of course. But I think my question has already been formulated. I just did not mention any particular supplement, since I don't think such studies (as I have specified) exist for any of them. Except maybe for creatin, as Will has mentioned.

secondly, i know actual philosophers and i cant understand a word they say, many are quite brillant so either way i will avoid this debate in this forum. Perhaps i will bump the thread you have posted to continue our discussion.

Same here, they are crazy people.

[Necrosis]

That's fine of course. But I think my question has already been formulated. I just did not mention any particular supplement, since I don't think such studies (as I have specified) exist for any of them. Except maybe for creatin, as Will has mentioned.

Same here, they are crazy people.

im sorry but if you would like to learn i can tell you about many studies which have scientific evidence. I just not willing to argue about any of the mechanisms or methodologies unless you have a working knowledge of said things.

studies exist for many fat loss agents, many aminos and much more.I know i said i wouldnt respond but im in a better mood now after dealing with idiots all day irl.

[wavelength]

im sorry but if you would like to learn i can tell you about many studies which have scientific evidence. I just not willing to argue about any of the mechanisms or methodologies unless you have a working knowledge of said things.

studies exist for many fat loss agents, many aminos and much more.I know i said i wouldnt respond but im in a better mood now after dealing with idiots all day irl.

I understand, but I was asking for a specific type of study. Or is there something completely wrong with the way I formulated it? If so, can you explain to me what it is in a few sentences? You can maybe shorten the answer by assuming that I'm extremely intelligent.

[Necrosis]

I understand, but I was asking for a specific type of study. Or is there something completely wrong with the way I formulated it? If so, can you explain to me what it is in a few sentences? You can maybe shorten the answer by assuming that I'm extremely intelligent.

the type of study you requested has been done however usually only one variable is studied ie the independent variable in order to increase the power of the study and avoid extraneous variables. So there are studies on ephedrine and fat loss for example, or creatine and muscular strength and size. There are also studies showing things like increases in GH, and other hormonal milieu that would be beneficial for bodybuilding. What you have defined is the end goal and you are ignoring the steps in order to loss weight or gain muscle, there are things that enhance these criteria and that is what is studied, because muscle gain is not very informative. How was muscle gained? why? how can we manipulate these things? are there other variables? what all these questions and more are, are simply facts that we have collected in order to make more advanced studies and realize the ramifications of things like increased GH, or testosterone, we know what effects increasing these hormones will have. So if a supplement increases testosterone it can reasonably be inferred it will increase muscle mass, strength and libido things that are known to be associated with increased testosterone.

so in short, the type of study you asked for does exist, as do the studies i outlined. There are also case studies, longitudinal,retrospective, cohort etc.. studies which further enhance a supplements case.

Also, i dont mean to come off like a prick because you seem like a nice dude, and i didnt mean you have to ask me questions etc.. like i know everything, will brink for example is someone with more knowledge then me and i would defer to his expertise in alot of circumstances. I was just alluding to the fact tht you have expressed that you lack knowledge in the field, and i would rather be helpful if possible rather then combative. All i ask is that you at least have an open mind and the willingness to change your opinions if falsified, as i would. I dont want to conduct arguments where either side are unmovable, and the community of this board can learn nothing from a debate. On this board i want factual, rational info so people can make informed opinions and ask less questions, so people like princess who have pretty much modded this board solo dont have to answer the same questions over and over or mod excessively.

Im not the most fluent writer, you write better then me and english is my first langauge

[Princess L]

i am aggressive because ive been dealing with idiots all day and i deal with them in my daily life. They are the people who require pampering, cant think for themselves and perpetuate misinformation and downright lies.

Why dont you look the studies up yourself? ever hear of pubmed, it will have the answers you seek.

We see a lot of that here (and everywhere) too don't we 

usmokepole,
Could you eventually post a new topic with a brief lesson on how to effectively use pubmed as a research tool for the average Joe?

[wavelength]

the type of study you requested has been done however usually only one variable is studied ie the independent variable in order to increase the power of the study and avoid extraneous variables. So there are studies on ephedrine and fat loss for example, or creatine and muscular strength and size. There are also studies showing things like increases in GH, and other hormonal milieu that would be beneficial for bodybuilding. What you have defined is the end goal and you are ignoring the steps in order to loss weight or gain muscle, there are things that enhance these criteria and that is what is studied, because muscle gain is not very informative. How was muscle gained? why? how can we manipulate these things? are there other variables? what all these questions and more are, are simply facts that we have collected in order to make more advanced studies and realize the ramifications of things like increased GH, or testosterone, we know what effects increasing these hormones will have. So if a supplement increases testosterone it can reasonably be inferred it will increase muscle mass, strength and libido things that are known to be associated with increased testosterone.

I understand that investigating certain aspects is benificial for scientific endeavours. But you will agree that for the customer it is completely irrelevant. What I criticize is exactly the extrapolation from certain measurable factors to statements like "increases lean muscle mass". If it really does, why not conduct a study, that shows exactly that? And if those deductions are correct, why are so many people (me included) frustrated with supps simply because in reality they don't do anything for the purpose of bodybuilding, which in short is - increase of lean muscle mass?

Even if we stay within the scientific positivistic world view, where everything could be explained through science, it is very well possible that even if a certain supplement raises e.g. testosterone, certain other factors come into play, where theories are not yet conclusive (or simply those factors are not even known yet) which in the end inhibit the claimed output.

so in short, the type of study you asked for does exist, as do the studies i outlined. There are also case studies, longitudinal,retrospective, cohort etc.. studies which further enhance a supplements case.

As I said, I'm not interested in studies that investigate certain aspects. You claim that studies which are at least similar to what I have formulated exist e.g. for creatine and ephedrine. I will try to find those studies.

Also, i dont mean to come off like a prick because you seem like a nice dude, and i didnt mean you have to ask me questions etc.. like i know everything, will brink for example is someone with more knowledge then me and i would defer to his expertise in alot of circumstances. I was just alluding to the fact tht you have expressed that you lack knowledge in the field, and i would rather be helpful if possible rather then combative. All i ask is that you at least have an open mind and the willingness to change your opinions if falsified, as i would. I dont want to conduct arguments where either side are unmovable, and the community of this board can learn nothing from a debate. On this board i want factual, rational info so people can make informed opinions and ask less questions, so people like princess who have pretty much modded this board solo dont have to answer the same questions over and over or mod excessively.

I fully understand.

Im not the most fluent writer, you write better then me and english is my first langauge

Thank's a lot, that's a huge compliment.
That's the main reason I'm posting on forums, to improve my English.
Hence my sometimes flowery, long winded language.

[www.BrinkZone.com]

the type of study you requested has been done however usually only one variable is studied ie the independent variable in order to increase the power of the study and avoid extraneous variables. So there are studies on ephedrine and fat loss for example, or creatine and muscular strength and size. There are also studies showing things like increases in GH, and other hormonal milieu that would be beneficial for bodybuilding. What you have defined is the end goal and you are ignoring the steps in order to loss weight or gain muscle, there are things that enhance these criteria and that is what is studied, because muscle gain is not very informative. How was muscle gained? why? how can we manipulate these things? are there other variables? what all these questions and more are, are simply facts that we have collected in order to make more advanced studies and realize the ramifications of things like increased GH, or testosterone, we know what effects increasing these hormones will have. So if a supplement increases testosterone it can reasonably be inferred it will increase muscle mass, strength and libido things that are known to be associated with increased testosterone.

so in short, the type of study you asked for does exist, as do the studies i outlined. There are also case studies, longitudinal,retrospective, cohort etc.. studies which further enhance a supplements case.

Also, i dont mean to come off like a prick because you seem like a nice dude, and i didnt mean you have to ask me questions etc.. like i know everything, will brink for example is someone with more knowledge then me and i would defer to his expertise in alot of circumstances. I was just alluding to the fact tht you have expressed that you lack knowledge in the field, and i would rather be helpful if possible rather then combative. All i ask is that you at least have an open mind and the willingness to change your opinions if falsified, as i would. I dont want to conduct arguments where either side are unmovable, and the community of this board can learn nothing from a debate. On this board i want factual, rational info so people can make informed opinions and ask less questions, so people like princess who have pretty much modded this board solo dont have to answer the same questions over and over or mod excessively.

Im not the most fluent writer, you write better then me and english is my first langauge

You make your point well in the above, and I agree with all of it. I also made essentially the same points to him, and he essentially ignore it in favor of his own invented "formula" which he has convinced himself is anything beyond what I said it was: n = 1 personal observation. As I said, nothing wrong with that at all, but it's not objective research. His position appears to be, lacking what he has defined as acceptable research (yet lacking any background in the biological sciences and or actually reading the data that exists) his attempts to "research" supplements on his own using his own methodology is supposed to convince anyone beyond himself that X supplements have no value to bbers and other strength athletes. I can accept that what he's done had proven to him, the supps he tested didn't work him in the way he's defined success, and that's all.

Beyond that's it's mental masturbation and pseudo scientific mumbo jumbo combined with comments of what constitutes "truth" and other non related stuff that has no bearing on the issues at hand, which are:

What supplements actually "work"?
How do we define "work"?
Is there data to support that definition?
How good is that data?
Does the data that exists mirror what the "real world" says, such as his personal n=1 experiments conclude?
If no data exists and or that data that does exist is crap, now what?

[wavelength]

You make your point well in the above, and I agree with all of it. I also made essentially the same points to him, and he essentially ignore it in favor of his own invented "formula" which he has convinced himself is anything beyond what I said it was: n = 1 personal observation. As I said, nothing wrong with that at all, but it's not objective research. His position appears to be, lacking what he has defined as acceptable research (yet lacking any background in the biological sciences and or actually reading the data that exists) his attempts to "research" supplements on his own using his own methodology is supposed to convince anyone beyond himself that X supplements have no value to bbers and other strength athletes. I can accept that what he's done had proven to him, the supps he tested didn't work him in the way he's defined success, and that's all.

If you read my posts you will clearly see that none of this is true. I don't understand why you ignore 90% of what I wrote. I understand that you are a busy man, so am I. But if you choose to take the time and post here you should at least know what you are responding to.

Beyond that's it's mental masturbation and pseudo scientific mumbo jumbo combined with comments of what constitutes "truth" and other non related stuff that has no bearing on the issues at hand, which are:

What supplements actually "work"?
How do we define "work"?
Is there data to support that definition?
How good is that data?
Does the data that exists mirror what the "real world" says, such as his personal n=1 experiments conclude?
If no data exists and or that data that does exist is crap, now what?

Can you please explain to me what you would call mental masturbation and pseudo scientific mumbo jumbo? I respect your expertise in a specific field of science but your comments clearly show that you have none whatsoever regarding the nature and restrictions of natural science in general. The philosophic part of the posts were clearly separated from the other parts.

Instead of trying to insult your conversation partners in areas you have absolutely no knowledge of (philosophy and the classification/restrictions of sciences), why would you not instead keep your promise and present the studies you said you would in this post (I have already answered the question requested in the quote):

I will attempt to answer that question if you answer the question I asked before, you did not answer: What is your background for understanding the methodology of research in the biological sciences?

At least that would be productive. If you are interested I can then explain all the complicated philosophic "mumbo jumbo" to you. This way it's a win-win situation.

[Necrosis]

If you read my posts you will clearly see that none of this is true. I don't understand why you ignore 90% of what I wrote. I understand that you are a busy man, so am I. But if you choose to take the time and post here you should at least know what you are responding to.

Can you please explain to me what you would call mental masturbation and pseudo scientific mumbo jumbo? I respect your expertise in a specific field of science but your comments clearly show that you have none whatsoever regarding the nature and restrictions of natural science in general. The philosophic part of the posts were clearly separated from the other parts.

Instead of trying to insult your conversation partners in areas you have absolutely no knowledge of (philosophy and the classification/restrictions of sciences), why would you not instead keep your promise and present the studies you said you would in this post (I have already answered the question requested in the quote):

At least that would be productive. If you are interested I can then explain all the complicated philosophic "mumbo jumbo" to you. This way it's a win-win situation.

do you have any education in philosophy? just curious, actual degrees, masters of phd.

[www.BrinkZone.com]

If you read my posts you will clearly see that none of this is true.

Sorry, I simply don't agree and those same comments seem to be a theme in others responses to you also. You have some real blinders on there my friend.

Can you please explain to me what you would call mental masturbation and pseudo scientific mumbo jumbo? I respect your expertise in a specific field of science but your comments clearly show that you have none whatsoever regarding the nature and restrictions of natural science in general.

And there is the example you asked for....BTW, my degree was a major in....drum roll...."Natural Sciences" so I have a pretty good handle on its strengths and limitations.

You claimed some science background, but admit to having no background in the biological sciences or knowledge of the methodology used there. So what exactly is your science background?

The philosophic part of the posts were clearly separated from the other parts.

Ergo, mental masturbation and not relevant to the issue at hand. I don't mind answering questions and debating with people and such. What I will not do is repeat myself. I have already made my comments as to what I see are the limitations to your "research" in other threads, and you strike me as the kind of person that will deny, then simply keep asking the same questions over and over to wear the person down. Not going to work with me.

I said it once, will not keep repeating it. Carry on.

[wavelength]

do you have any education in philosophy? just curious, actual degrees, masters of phd.

No, but for philosophic child-play like that, you don't need too much insight.
It's pretty much simple logic.

[www.BrinkZone.com]

do you have any education in philosophy? just curious, actual degrees, masters of phd.

I have asked him several times what his background was, and he's avoided that only to admit he has no background in the biological science or the research methodology used, yet claims a background in the sciences to which he has yet to explain. All of his comments so far, have lead me to believe he has no background in any of the hard science or his answers/comments would make more sense at it applies to the nutritional sciences he keeps commenting on. I don't care if your background is in physics, math, chem, or biology, you will generally understand very basic concepts he's clearly failed to "get" so I am dubious of his claim to any science background. Again, does not make him a bad person, just a person who should stop making claims about the nature of research in these areas, much less rejecting them as he continues to do.

[Necrosis]

No, but for philosophic child-play like that, you don't need too much insight.
It's pretty much simple logic.

i disagree, without philosophical training and being well read on the subject layman arguments are pointless. I have a friend for example who is quite the philosopher and is quite hard to understand and has an excellant grasp on philosophy as well as natural sciences. Will brink may know him from mind and muscle as he is a global moderator Ras. I say this because he is really my sole experience with someone with a vast knowledge of philosophy and our arguments are infantile in comparison, hence then reason i see no need to further argue things we are ill equipped to discuss.

WILL, how come you dont often post on MandM, im not a inner circle member but post on the site often. Just curious as to why you dont post there much?