For instance, this ‘paleo diet’ business relies on the idea that eating the same thing our ancestors did in 10,000 BC will make us live longer.
Not quite. It’s based on the idea that eating a specific list of foods will make us live longer. The bit about that being what ancient humans ate is probably both untrue and irrelevant, but we have direct data on the effects of the specific foods, so the existence of an additional, invalid argument which has gotten undue attention should not affect our judgment.
What part about “what ancient humans ate is probably both untrue and irrelevant”? I mean we don’t know exactly what range of foods they ate, but we have pretty good ideas.
The important point here is that the evolutionary diet/lifestyle theory correctly predicted a large swath of specific effects, now validated. Undue attention? You might as well argue against evolution.
Not quite. It’s based on the idea that eating a specific list of foods will make us live longer. The bit about that being what ancient humans ate is probably both untrue and irrelevant, but we have direct data on the effects of the specific foods, so the existence of an additional, invalid argument which has gotten undue attention should not affect our judgment.
What part about “what ancient humans ate is probably both untrue and irrelevant”? I mean we don’t know exactly what range of foods they ate, but we have pretty good ideas.
The important point here is that the evolutionary diet/lifestyle theory correctly predicted a large swath of specific effects, now validated. Undue attention? You might as well argue against evolution.