john@anasazi.UUCP (05/10/86)
I think that the whole issue of biorythms serves as an example of invalid
logic by both adherents and critics. This sort of polarization is typical
in most areas where there is no "hard" science.
The errors of the adherents are obvious: there are the mystics
who come up with [you name it human characteristic] cycles based on
almost nothing; there are the more scientific ones who just misinterpret
the statistics.
Many critics show the following, common, logical fallacy:
(1) There is a lot of crackpottery in biorythms, so
(2) Biorythm is crackpottery.
This does not follow! It seems to me entirely likely that there
are various cycles that affect human performance, chemistry, health, etc.
The most obvious one is the circadian rythm, but a lunar cycle is not
too silly. That these cycles are started at birth and followed continuously,
that they are highly precise and the same in all individuals, etc, are
unlikely. That they correspond to very general characteristics like
"mental", "physical" and "emotional" is also unlikely... that sort of
lumping of characteristics is more like astrology. Whether they exist
at all is a matter of research, not pro or con emotional leanings.
--
John Moore (NJ7E/XE1HDO)
{decvax|ihnp4|hao}!noao!terak!anasazi!john
{hao!noao|decvax|ihnp4|seismo}!terak!anasazi!john
terak!anasazi!john@SEISMO.CSS.GOV
(602) 861-7607 (day or evening)
7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Paradise Valley, AZ, 85253 (Home Address)
The opinions expressed here are obviously not mine, so they must be
someone else's.friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (05/16/86)
In article <258@anasazi.UUCP> john@anasazi.UUCP (John Moore) writes: > Many critics show the following, common, logical fallacy: >(1) There is a lot of crackpottery in biorythms, so >(2) Biorythm is crackpottery. > This does not follow! It seems to me entirely likely that there >are various cycles that affect human performance, chemistry, health, etc. >The most obvious one is the circadian rythm, but a lunar cycle is not >too silly. That these cycles are started at birth and followed continuously, >that they are highly precise and the same in all individuals, etc, are >unlikely. That they correspond to very general characteristics like >"mental", "physical" and "emotional" is also unlikely... that sort of >lumping of characteristics is more like astrology. Whether they exist >at all is a matter of research, not pro or con emotional leanings. > The problem is that this is *not* Biorythms, it is simply circadian rythms. You are commiting the fallacy of assuming that things which have a similar description are equivalent! All of the things you label as "unlikely" are the central core of the Biorythms concept. *That* is why we are debunking it. I certainly have *never* denied the existance of natural biological cycles, since they are well established by valid scientific study. I do *not* read biorythm charts or horoscopes. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen ARPA: ??
jss@ulysses.UUCP (Jerry Schwarz) (05/20/86)
> Many critics show the following, common, logical fallacy: > (1) There is a lot of crackpottery in biorythms, so > (2) Biorythm is crackpottery. > This does not follow! It seems to me entirely likely that there > are various cycles that affect human performance, chemistry, health, etc. > > John Moore (NJ7E/XE1HDO) There is no fallacy. The study of cycles in biology is a well established field. (It probably has a name of which I am ignorant.) The theory of "bio-rhythms" is a specific theory promulgated by crackpots. It has nothing to do with the scientific study of biological cycles. Choosing a name that might also have been used by scientific investigators does not make a particular theory scientific. Jerry Schwarz Bell Labs, MH