Consider the fallacies discussed on pages 29-40 in Vaughn's text. Consider, also, chapters 1-3 in Campbell's text.
1. In about 100 words, summarize Campbell's first three chapters.
Campbell believes that modern healthcare does not improve people’s health. He states that what he calls a whole food, plant based (WFPB) diet can prevent cancer, heart disease, and diabetes as well as reverse the damaging effects of oxidation in the human body.
Campbell defines three criteria for determining whether a regimen like WFBP matters. Rapidity (how quickly it works), Depth (how many health problems it solves), and Breadth (how much the health of person following it improves).
He also describes how his research …show more content…
How did Campbell use the Socratic Method? Explain. (This should be about 100 words.)
Campbell points out on pages 4 and 5 that the United States spends more on health care than any country on earth, yet chronic disease is increasing. Obesity, diabetes and hypertension have all increased dramatically in the past few decades
Then he cites a study in the Journal of the American Medical Association showing that the adverse side effects of prescription medication kill 106,000 people per year. This shows that a system designed to promote health makes people sicker and, in some cases, causes death. This shows the absurdity of how modern medicine presents itself as doing one thing but does another.
4. What is the connection between animal proteins and cancer? (Answer in about 50 words.)
Animal protein, after it is consumed, works its way into the calls and turns on the cancer-causing process. A protein found in dairy products, casein, was found to be particularly responsible for creating cancer cells. An Indian study found that rats with 20 percent protein in their diet developed cancer while rats with 5 percent protein did not.
View Harris' talk and complete reading of Section 6.1.
Answer the following …show more content…
In about 100 words, what is Harris' view?
Harris believes that the separation between science and human values is an illusion and that this is a wrong and possibly dangerous idea. He believes that facts and values seem to belong to different spheres but this isn’t true.
His argument is that values are a certain kind of facts. They are facts about the wellbeing of conscious creatures. If we are at all concerned about other beings, we are concerned about values and morality. He further argues that science can and should be concerned with these issues and that it provides a better way to deal with them than religion.
2. Explain Harris' epistemology in about 250 words, and make sure to use the terminology found in