Science, Non-science, Nonsense and
Nastiness in the Vegetarian World

Stanley M. Sapon, Ph.D.

This is Part Two of a Three-Part Series
To read Part One, click here.

 WAYS OF KNOWING: NON-SCIENCE

Since ancient times humans have asked questions about "how we know," and there exists a venerable and esteemed branch of philosophy – epistemology – that studies the nature of knowledge, its presuppositions and foundations, and its extent and validity. Plato believed that knowledge resided in the brain, but his pupil, Aristotle, considered the heart to be the site of knowledge. Issues of "location" aside, in Aristotle’s view, understanding natural phenomena depended on observation and logic, and his philosophical perspectives set the stage for the emergence of modern scientific method. Later thinkers, like Maimonides and St. Thomas Aquinas, strove to incorporate elements of faith and intuition in perceiving truth and acquiring knowledge.

Here we cross the borders of the domain where scientific method is paramount, and move into other domains where the rules of "science" do not prevail. Although we could correctly call these "Non-Science Domains," we must keep in mind that "Non-Science" does not mean "Anti-Science."

Although inhabitants of all domains pursue knowledge and truth -- and even beauty-- their definitions and their methods are not the same, and the very terms of discourse and "Rules of Research" are different. A potent and prominent difference between the domains is found in their vocabulary: words that are prohibited to scientists in the performance of their work turn out to be words that, for the natives of other domains, are obligatory – words like values, ethics, justice, mercy, conscience and compassion.

In this realm there are institutions dedicated to the study of the Philosophy of Science, the Philosophy of Jurisprudence, the Philosophy of Education, and the Philosophy of Religion. The vocabulary of evaluations and assessments includes terms like right and wrong, proper and improper, and words that refer to emotions like happiness, sorrow, regret, remorse and shame. There are hundreds of words that reflect subtle nuances of feelings, like hope, gratitude, respect, and a whole dictionary of words that have absolutely no place in the lexicon of scientific method. This is the domain of the vast majority of humanity: philosophers, poets, wordsmiths and blacksmiths, those who paint portraits and those who paint barns, saints and sinners, the prosperous and the poor.

When someone becomes utterly convinced that there is only one correct way to achieve a noble goal, and that there is only one kind of knowledge that matters, the noble goal falls at risk. If persuasion is a key element in a strategy, trying to write a message in dark, bold, letters by pressing very hard will break the pencil point, and the message will be lost. A sharpened pencil can also serve as a weapon that inflicts pain on people who are striving for parallel goals.

There are other ways of knowing, ways that depend on other human capacities. The very human qualities of compassion, empathy and emotion, whose presence in a scientific search for truth would corrupt its findings, are the very same qualities that spark and energize a campaign to end violence and relieve suffering – both animal and human.

 The Fourth Dimension

There is yet a fourth dimension to knowledge – one that calls on still other human capacities. That fourth dimension is called "wisdom," and is something that takes place at the confluence of "facts," "feelings," "values" and "judgment." Wisdom is what is absent when we wonder how a smart, knowledgeable person can sometimes do something foolish. And wisdom is what we see when a simple person, lacking formal education or diplomas, says or does something that illuminates some aspect of a situation we had not thought about, or offers a rare insight that raises our consciousness in some gentle way.

It would be foolish to insist on asking if one dimension is better, more important, than the others. If we’re making soup and sandwiches for lunch, which is more important, a knife or a spoon? You can’t eat soup with a knife, and you can’t slice bread with a spoon.

 Hard Questions

In what venue may one ask questions like "Is it right that nuclear radiation sickens people who live near a power plant that overheated?" "Is it wrong to pull the wings off a butterfly?" "Is it fair that children should get sick and die from lack of food?" A chicken will bleed to death if its throat is cut. "Is it right to cut a chicken’s throat ...a hundred chickens... nine million?" "Is it moral to deny medical care to a child if her parents have no access to health insurance?" And further. "Is it wrong for the state to kill a person who has committed a crime?" "Is it ethical to kill a bull to entertain a paying audience?" "Is the concept of Human Rights a valid one? ...Civil Rights? ...Animal Rights?" "Should people who are out of work and paying no taxes have the right to vote?" "Should only people of normal intelligence be permitted to marry....have children?" "What should we do with children born with prominent deformities?... subject them to euthanasia? ...use them as sources for organ transplants?"

Answering questions like these is of paramount importance to vast numbers of living beings. But none of these questions are answerable through the most rigorous application of scientific method.

The issue of who has the answers to the questions that most trouble us can be resolved without major dispute, if we remember to address the questions to the appropriate department. The counsel of a wise physician at a NAVS Summerfest stays with me: "Never ask the barber if you need a haircut." We can take that the rest of the way by remembering that it would not be wise to ask a scientist to pronounce on a question of esthetics, ethics, values or social priorities, any more than we should ask a philosopher, a poet... or a barber a question about the causes or prevention of birth defects.

 NONSENSE

We have talked a lot about knowledge, facts, principles and values. We have taken pains to sort out some of the primary differences between the narrow-spectrum "scientific" focus of those who ask How, and the broad-spectrum approach of those who ask Why. So much for knowledge. How about the ability to make sensible decisions, to exercise good judgment?

How are we to tell the difference between a wise choice and a foolish choice? Is this a question for a scientist, or for a philosopher? Or both? Or neither?

How do we tell the difference between "Sense" and "Nonsense?" If there is such a thing as "common sense," is there also "common nonsense?" Is there nonsense within the vegetarian community?

Nonsense has its well-deserved place in the Hall of Humor, from the Limericks of Edward Lear, to my own vegan "concoction":

I once saw a man from Dundoon
Eating vegetable soup with a fork.
"Though I know it’s not pleasin’,"he gave as his reason,
"I would otherwise finish too soon."

Nonsense can be something so senseless as to be laughable. That’s fine, if its purpose is simply to amuse. Sometimes nonsense can illuminate social or political foolishness, like Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking Glass or Alice in Wonderland, the laughable nonsense with which Gilbert and Sullivan lampoon the English class system, and the zany antics of Groucho Marx as Dr. Hugo Hackenbush, demolishing the pomposity of the medical profession.

 LINGUISTIC NONSENSE

But nonsense, posing as serious thought, can also mean absurd, foolish, silly, insane or preposterous pronouncements. It becomes even more deceptively destructive when it claims to be a prestigious product of "scientific investigation."

Yes, there are abundant examples of nonsense in the cause of vegetarian advocacy, as there inevitably are in any cause that seeks to persuade people to think or act in new or unconventional ways. One form of nonsense avails itself of the process of "re-naming" some activity or substance, using "new definitions." A prime example is one in which a "new definition" is fitted into a faulty syllogism: "Abortion is murder. I have had an abortion. Therefore I am a murderer." It also instantly turns anyone who supports a woman’s reproductive freedom into an accomplice to murder. Slogans like "Meat is murder" take the same tack: if you would not be a murderer, stop eating meat. "Fur is murder," and so on. People are predictably very uncomfortable thinking of themselves as murderers, so "murder" gets a lot of use in the arsenal of militant activists.

From a behavioral perspective, besides being patently nonsensical, it is easily predicted that telling people they are murderers will not engender warm, good feelings of moral kinship with those who declare and denounce their behavior as despicable.

 HEALTH NONSENSE

Broad, sweeping promissory statements are another form of trouble-making nonsense. We have all read the statement :"Vegans have low cholesterol counts, and doctors say that people with low cholesterol don’t get heart attacks." Is the statement true? Is the statement complete? Can we finish the syllogism: "I am a vegan. I have low cholesterol. Therefore I cannot have a heart attack?"

The complete statement was made by Dr. William Castelli in the context of his findings in the Framingham Project – a long-term study of the antecedents to heart attacks, carried out in Framingham, Massachusetts. He said:

"We’ve never had a heart attack in Framingham in 35 years in anyone who had a cholesterol under 150. Three quarters of the people who live on the face of this earth will never have a heart attack."

Is it safe to conclude that cholesterol is the only measure that correlates with heart attacks? Is it safe to conclude that a low cholesterol reading guarantees your immunity to heart attacks?

If a vegan with low cholesterol suffers a heart attack, is the prognosis for his survival and recovery the same as for an overweight omnivore with a history of high fat, high sugar, high cholesterol consumption?

A dedicated advocate of veganism who has lived for 15 years on a plant-based diet has a heart attack. Does that heart attack betray her "cause," invalidate the claimed benefits of vegan living, and turn all her years of vegan advocacy into "propaganda" that disseminates falsehoods?

Presenting "low risk" as "no risk" is nonsense, and clearly does a disservice to the health advisor and to the advisee.

What can thoughtful members of the vegetarian community do to decrease the probability of counterproductive advocacy? We can communicate our concerns to organizations we support, and urge them to abandon premises– and promises– that are scientifically indefensible, philosophically and logically flimsy, insensitive and cruel, or simply nonsensical.

 WHAT CAN WE DO?

From the point of view of greatest potency, however, we can take pains to emphasize the positive aspects of our choice of lifestyle. We need to rely on undisputable facts and feelings, and be sure that we do not present probabilities as predictions of better health. Let the Dairy Council live with the consequences of their outright lies about cows’ milk bringing glowing good health, great complexions and strong bones to all human beings. We must be not bend the truth by pronouncing soy milk to be the perfect answer to every human nutritional need or challenge.

There is some genuine risk to the dependence on statistically-based "studies" to support promises of better health. Today’s popular health triumph can be tomorrow’s flop– persuasions based on "scientific proof" that high-fiber diets convey immunity to colon cancer, that soy beans and soy products are panacea for every human health problem, or that "Heart Attacks Hardly Ever Happen to Vegetarians," are at the mercy of ongoing "studies" by an army of "nutrition experts." We need to remember that arguments that live by statistically-based findings may perish by statistically-based findings of "New Studies."

Nonsense turns into sheer, life-threatening idiocy in the hands of inventors of pseudo-scientific "new diets" like the "Paleolithic," "Zone," "Blood-type," et al. Our best lines of defense in this area are articles like Dr. Michael Klaper’s brilliantly lucid piece "Blood Type Diet Debunked." (linked at end of article)

In sum, while overstating the advantages of vegetarianism can be counterproductive, waging a campaign of searching for inaccuracies, and criminalizing the accused authors as determined liars, is even more damaging. Such irresponsible behavior merely serves to provide an eagerly sought-after excuse to reject any and all evidence that supports a thoughtful, mindful, compassionate life style.

There are other examples of the harm generated by condensed, fragmented, out-of-context quotations.

 ECONOMIC AND BEHAVIORAL NONSENSE: HUNGER RELIEF

Strategies for promoting the adoption of vegetarianism often attempt to strike altruistic and spiritual chords. One of the most potent of these appeals engages such causes as the brotherhood of humankind, the manifestation of love for one’s neighbors, and the making of personal sacrifices in the name of universal social responsibility. All of these causes find common ground in efforts to relieve the tragedy of human hunger, and the intrinsic nobility of such efforts is often mined for simple, easy-to-grasp, one-step panaceas for human misery.

Consider what appeared in a recent, widely distributed appeal for people to adopt a meatless diet:

 "Be Caring: Your kicking the meat habit will free up grains and soybeans currently fed to animals for the world’s hungry people." (Emphasis added)

Now compare that 22-word "sound bite" with what John Robbins wrote in his exhaustively researched and penetrating study of the roots of world hunger in his landmark book, May All Be Fed:

"If Americans were to reduce our meat consumption by only 10 percent, it would free land and resources to grow over 12 million tons of grain annually for human consumption, more than enough to adequately feed every one of the 40 to 60 million human beings who will starve to death on the planet this year." (Emphasis added)

In this same study, Robbins takes great pains to prevent oversimplification of his vision, and adds:

"Of course, this doesn't mean world hunger would be solved simply by Americans eating 10 percent less meat. There are severe economic, social and political realities that must be faced. But it does dramatize the severe waste of resources involved in meat production. And I will give you one guarantee: the 80 percent of U.S. grain that is fed to livestock in order to produce meat will not reach the world's hungry."

When painstakingly developed reasoning, based on documented data, is trivialized into "Quick Fix" slogans, serious thought about vital issues is replaced by economic and behavioral nonsense.

 Crisis hunger – the sort that commands exhaustive TV coverage and instant, universal efforts at charity – is exemplified by the tragedy of the floods in Mozambique. Hundreds of thousands of people have been devastated by the loss of homes, property and farmland, and are suffering dreadful hunger. The compassionate response of the world has been generous. Yet the films on TV show a mountain of bags of rice stacked near the Mercy Flights that brought them from around the world. Sadly, there is no way to get the rice to the starving people clinging to tree-tops and huddled on tiny islands of dry land. Humanitarian efforts to relieve this terrible tragedy are being thwarted, not by inadequate food supplies, but by inadequate delivery resources. The problems are further complicated by the fact that rice, the most widely offered crisis food-relief staple, cannot relieve hunger until it is cooked in safe water, in pots, over fires fed by some fuel – none of which is readily available in a flood-ravaged country.

Although natural– and political– disasters create hunger, this is not the hunger presumably addressed by urging Americans to "free up grain" by going meatless. It is absolutely crucial to recognize that "freed up grain" is not "free grain." It means grain that is available for purchase; vast quantities of "freed up grain," and no money to pay for it, still adds up to vast numbers of hungry people.

Let us look for a moment at the economics of grain production. The US Department of Agriculture reports as of October, 1999: "This year’s bumper crops will push the corn surplus to nearly 2 billion bushels – more than 20 percent of the nation’s total production – and boost wheat stocks to 987 million bushels." Farmers in the USA have been so successful in producing huge harvests, that the resulting over-supply has driven the price of grain so low that many farmers are facing financial ruin.

We already have enormous surpluses. Why are these megatons of grain not being used to feed the starving of the world right now? The truth of the matter is that chronic hunger is rarely caused by a global, or even local, scarcity of grains. The most prevalent cause of chronic hunger is a combination of poverty and powerlessness in the face of greed.

Today’s enormous agricultural surplus appears even after 80% of the crops have been consumed as animal feed. If Americans further reduce their meat consumption there will, indeed, be an even greater surplus of wheat, corn and soybeans. Will this further augmented surplus of grains and beans magically appear on the tables of impoverished, hungry people in America and Third World countries?

And since none of these grains are edible out-of-the-sack, will these stricken, emotionally and physically depleted people also miraculously acquire the focused energy, the know-how, the cook-stove and the disposition to cook and consume these grains?

Will the surplus-induced drop in grain prices result in a decrease in animals being fattened in feed lots? Or will cheaper feed costs increase the profitability – and the numbers– of animals raised for slaughter ... to be followed by a massive advertising campaign to "buy more meat, now that prices are lower?"

The problems of hunger – crisis and chronic – are deep and complex, and involve many levels and dimensions of human need, culture, social values, ethical, psychological and emotional challenges of poverty, political issues, geography, and more.

What comes to mind here is the observation by H. L. Mencken: "For every complicated problem there is a simple solution– and it is wrong."

We can conclude our exploration of nonsense with these words:

Promoting vegetarian diets by presenting oversimplified solutions to highly complex problems is, in both the short and the long run, a hazardous and pervasively counterproductive strategy.

Links noted: Blood Type Diet Debunked by Michael Klaper, MD

This is Part Two of a Three-Part Series
To read Part One, click here.