From: altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar)
Subject: Re: Vegetarians or not vegetarians?
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 06:40:31 GMT

claudiak@i88.isc.com (Claudia Kale (STG)) writes:

>In article <altar.724698210@sfu.ca> altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar) writes:
>>
>>
>>claudiak@i88.isc.com (Claudia Kale (STG)) writes:
>>
>>>Then why do you wish to know the dietary habits of other posters?
>>>To what possible use can you apply that knowledge, if not to let it
>>>influence your perception of credibility? 
>>
>>
>>I guess I can't speak for Donata, but for myself I think it is
>>of helpful to know where people are coming from.  Also,
>>it helps to put a human face on the otherwise anonymous, faceless
>>names here.  Maybe by helping to personalize things just a little
>>we might in turn be better able to understand each other a little
>>more.  

>Again, I ask: exactly how does it "help" to know whether a poster
>is vegetarian or not? 

Well, if the person is a vegetarian then I know better to 
bore him or her with what might be obvious and taken for
granted assumptions while with an omnivore such things might
have to be more carefully explained, documented and elaborated upon.  
To take another example, if someone is telling me about
some outlandish claims for the merits or dismerits of
vegetarianism, I think it helps to know from what perspective
the person is coming from and how she or he is interpretating
the facts from their vantage point. 

Norwood Russel Hanson in his classic, "Patterns of Discovery", 1958, 
cogently argued that even in natural science patterns of
discovery and "understanding" (i.e., preconception and perspective)
are closely depended upon each other, and in turn, dependent
upon a conceptual clarity of language and that such clarity
is best achieved by seeing through the "lens of particular
theories".  In other words, it is not quite true that "seeing
is believing", but also, "believing is seeing".  Theoretical
standpoints make a big difference in not only how we interpret
the same world, but even in what we "see" or "observe" about
us.  More recent work on the psychology of cognition and the
sociology of knowledge has only accented this same point.


>Is a vegetarian biochemist a better biochemist
>than an omnivorous one? 

One would hope not, but in the real world differnces like this do
make a difference.  Interestingly, since most people are omnivorous,
so are most researchers, yet it is a testimony to their achieved
degree of "objectivity" that the results on vegetarianism have
been as favourable as they have been.  Still, I read a kind
of begrudingness in some of the scientific reports of these
results creeping in here and there.  In this case, we are talking 
about well-trained and accomplished researchers who are better able
than most of us to suspend their bias and personal practice in
the pursuit of objective knowledge.  Here on the net, however, we lesser
mortals are not going to be as accomplished on this score, hence
it is helpful to treat with some measure of skepticism what is
here being said and by whom.   I also think it helps to remind
oneself about where one stands so as to maybe correct for any
inadvertent bias or over-enthusiasm.  

Anyway, I hope no one feels compelled to disclose their
dietary practice if they are not feeling inclined to do so,
but my observation is that most people have at one time or
another freely made known their current dietary practice.
So be it.  :-)

				Cheers,
					ted

Newsgroups: rec.food.veg