Thursday 7 January 2010

I'm just not getting it....

By the time I'd come to fat acceptance, I thought it was obvious that if science was really a factor in all this, we wouldn't still be considering calorie counting to be a valid or viable way of turning fat people into thin.

I'd lost my appetite for voraciously reading up studies about fatness as the recent ones were of such poor quality, so unconvincing and circular in their reasoning, if you can call it that. It was hard to see a discipline I'd had so much respect for being dragged down to such a low level.

So imagine my surprise when on getting involved with FA that all I heard about is how if we could just gather all the science, we would prove our case. We would prove that we cannot predictably alter our weight with the tools available, thus far.

My personal view is that health associations of being fat can neither be fully ruled in or out, due to the extreme bias of the obesity construct and it's field which produces a lot of results to order for its pre destined conclusion.

It's not my idea of what science is supposed to be. It seeks to parody of when science has cornered a theory and is seeking to tease out the details. It is more like when he police are convinced that a certain person done it and 'find' convenient 'evidence' to fit that frame.

When we say, diets don't work and so forth. The first thing we are asked for is evidence, or told to prove it. Overlooking the extent of weight loss dieting and the continued existence of fat people. The question should be why don't diets work?

It's not on account of fat people, dieting fails all, but of biology. If someone refuses to accept reality in favour of their theory, what 'proof' are they going to respond to? How can you make an argument that there is an obesity crisis, and say dieting and it's euphemisms have worked?

Unless you can show that when a person loses 40lbs another person gains it. someone else gains it. Now I see exactly why certain people don't bother much to argue with those who believe in creationism. They don't share the same terms of reference and to some degree, arguing with the fantastical strengthens them and weakens you.

I don't feel like I'm in a 'debate'. They believe. I know.

No comments:

Post a Comment