In my book The Interconnectedness of Life I argue that even though I do reference scientific studies, because science changes from one year to the next I don't heavily rely on science to back up my book. What I do however is try to state my point that a vegan lifestyle (better yet a diet of predominantly fruits and vegetables) is indeed better for our health, the health of the planet and if we care about animals.
What do you think? Do you think science is a load of quack or do you follow science and every study out there? Your opinion on the issue.
The Interconnectedness of Life a book by Michael Lanfield with foreword by Karen Davis, PhD explores the relationship between humans, animals and the Earth. It exposes the underlying reasons to the vast array of daunting problems of our time while addressing spiritual and ethical issues so we can live in a more harmonious, loving and compassionate world.
With inspiring and telling stories from Jonathan Balcombe, PhD, Karen Davis, PhD, Judy Carman, MA, David Sztybel, PhD, Matt Bear and others, this is the definite book of awakening consciousness on the planet, while saving the Earth, feeling and looking great, and best of all being kind to animals. If you truly want to understand the meaning of life and our place in this world, than this book is for you.
What people are saying about The Interconnectedness of Life
"The Interconnectedness of Life articulates in an uplifting and engaging way the many correspondences between vegan living and building a healthier world. Michael Lanfield weaves stories from his personal journey of transformation together with the latest research on nutrition and ecology. To this he adds a judicious selection of wise words from sages of many times and places. The result is a literary banquet that is sure to inspire and guide readers to greater compassion, clarity, health, and understanding. Highly recommended."
– Dr. Will Tuttle, Author of the #1 Amazon bestselling book The World Peace Diet
"If we as humans are ever to break free from the path of destruction we currently find ourselves on, it is crucial that we as a species embrace the concept of nonviolence. Veganism is a philosophy whose time has come, and in order for us to fulfill our destiny of spiritual evolution, it is one that must be recognized and adopted by every living human on this planet. Michael’s message is clear, love is the glue that connects everything to everything else, and denial of this has led to wide scale suffering for countless animals, planet wide. If we are ever to bring this planet back from the brink of seemingly inevitable despair, we must recognize animals as our brethren and realize we are here to guide and protect them, not to abuse, slaughter and gluttonously devour them, as has sadly been the case since the dawning of recorded history. The Interconnectedness of Life goes far in explaining just why we need to step back and take a look at our relationship with other earthlings, and sheds light on the daily, forced atrocities animals must endure before finally ending butchered sizzled and fried on our dinner tables."
– Mango Wodzak, Author of Destination Eden
"Reading the Interconnectedness of Life, you feel as though you are sitting with Michael himself as he opens his heart and tells his story of vegan awakening. In this genuine and heartfelt book, he covers all the reasons why human beings must end the exploitation and killing of animals, if life on earth is to survive. He also offers excellent references for further research. What I love the most about Michael’s work, though, is that he goes to the heart of the solution for us all. He makes it clear that our task “to create peace and heaven on earth” requires the raising of human consciousness to the highest level of unconditional love for all life. This book will help many people become vegan and thus, help bring peace, freedom and love to all beings."
– Judy Carman, MA, Author of Peace to all Beings and The Missing Peace
You can purchase the paperback or download the free PDF.
Please share this message and the book around with your friends and family.
Surely you wouldn't kill the hot secretary now would you?
science is "correct how."
science is not a "what" that can be labeled.
calling "science" a "load of quack" begs the questions: which science? you certainly don't mean "searching for truth properly."
if you mean: seeking skewed statistical data in order to promote a product or service. then such "science" serves a nefarious purpose.
science, essentially, is a tool: a knife, a gun. you can use it to chop a cucumber, protect your home; or you can use it to stab or shoot someone.
deceit, dishonesty, ulterior motives -- these factors rob science of its ability to help.
however, science as such, is a "how," it means using the scientific method. the application of the scientific method means, basically, "you actually have to be right." being "right" about things is helpful and powerful, and its opposite is simply "being wrong."
i like the term "scientism" used by a fellow commenter. thnx for that!
Science isn't completely quackery, some good things have come from scientific research and exploration. For example the way Jane Goodall studied chimpanzees changed our understanding of what it means to be human. However today I bet many trolls would say she was "uneducated" and would demonize her lack of credentials. Science should never get in the way of common sense, ethics or morality.
I don't understand how science is "quack" I view it as the complete opposite, can someone explain why it is supposedly quack?
For every scientific study, there seems to be one highlighting the complete opposite. Science can be another way to validate peoples points of view. However I think you can sift through the quackery if you look at the source of the study, the size of the study and whether it is peer reviewed or not. Science provides a good base for discovering the truth and then your own observations and personal experience can validate this.
I'm very grateful for science. It is the mere poor application that determines quackery.
Application - Exactly!
When science is funded and biased that's where problems and confusion start. Science is great for learning.
Interesting discussion! I would like to find out more about what Jeff said.
In South Africa, Dr Tim Noakes, previously a carbohydrate-fan, has discovered the wonders of low-carb living. He is MASSIVE over here. People here are going crazy for it (how a low-fat diet is to blame for all our health problems, how carbohydrates cause insulin resistance, how cancer loves carbs, how everyone is addicted to sugar/carbs etc).
He is huge in the media, and his first book has sold more copies than any other book in South Africa before. He has a new book on the way later this year (showing how potato and rice caused all our health problems) and wants to print a cheaper version of his first book to reach more people.
Anyway, so I started doing some research last week to see if I can write articles to combat some of this, and realised for the first time what a huge mess 'science' has become on the internet. While I'm not worried about raising questions about the basic premise of the low-carb idea and firmly believe in the health (and ethical) benefits of my diet, I feel completely overwhelmed by the amount of data (claimed to be 'scientific') cited by both sides to prove anti-carb/veg diets and anti-fat/meat diets. Furthermore, on both sides arguments are often conducted by intelligent, but completely scientifically untrained individuals. Both sides are extremely biased, I know I am. While I do not doubt the health benefits of a vegan diet at all, I don’t want to quote studies that are not 100% correctly done and reviewed, with proper answers to other studies with seemingly contradictory results. I really, really have no desire (or enough knowledge) to get involved in 'my-study-your-study' debates, and I always want to be open to things that disprove or challenge my current beliefs (my beliefs about being vegan will never change, but if I need to present my data differently, I want to know about it). I'm okay with the basic statistical stuff on nutrition (such as what is claimed we are eating, and what the realities are etc), but the hardcore science on disease is way over my head. How does one begin to make sense of any of it? The one thing both sides must agree on, is that junk- and processed food is the one common denominator. Some days I just wish we could throw it all out and start a massive new study covering a couple of decades following people on low-carb, low-fat vegan, typical Western diet, and people following the new Harvard dietary recommendations.
Any ideas of how to deal with the science information overload will be appreciated. :-)
I know what you mean. Such a large number of people are deluded about health. Most Americans still think that milk is good for you!!! Just follow the money and you'll usually find the truth. Special interests flood the media with harmful skewed info.
My basic rule of thumb came from Gary Yourofsky... for every study my opponent provides, I'll provide two. My best weapon is probably The China Study.
greetings michael! and a belated welcome to 30bad!
science is definitely not a load of quack, but many 'scientists' do practise quackery. sometimes, researchers in (the 'soft' sciences especially) are more interested in 'proving' their pet idea (for various reasons) rather than discovering reality and its truth.
sometimes though you can have honest defense of potentially valid, but unaligned theories and it appears as though scientists don't know what they are talking about, though what they are really doing is waiting for confirmation of the particular theory. a famous case in point is hoyle's steady-state universe vs gamov's big bang ... the latter won because of evidence that eventually became available. so it is unfortunate to assume that
1) hoyle was incompetent because he 'lost' when in actual fact he was one of the most brilliant scientists of the past century (as was gamov, btw) and defended his theory very well until evidence showed otherwise.
2) scientists don't know what they are talking about because they disagree with each other. this latter attitude invites the fallacy of inflation of conflict.
many mean well, but design investigations which take insufficient/extraneous factors into account, so they only get a partial picture rather as did the six blind men studying the elephant:
It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind.
The First approach'd the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
"God bless me! but the Elephant
Is very like a wall!"
The Second, feeling of the tusk,
Cried, -"Ho! what have we here
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me 'tis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a spear!"
The Third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up and spake:
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a snake!"
The Fourth reached out his eager hand,
And felt about the knee.
"What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain," quoth he,
"'Tis clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a tree!"
The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: "E'en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can,
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a fan!"
The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Then, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a rope!"
And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!
So oft in theologic wars,
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!
although john saxe above was referring to theology, the same can apply to science as well. personal observation is a good thing usually, but some can get quite egotistical about it too.
you can't really have good science until one removes the ego because then the effort to discover is genuine. one merely becomes a channel to find truth rather than uphold personal observations which can often become crusty convictions.
humility seems to always be a good idea for it enables one to see beyond the immediate vicinity as newton realized:
I was like a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.