Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ulysses.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!jss
From: jss@ulysses.UUCP (Jerry Schwarz)
Newsgroups: net.sci
Subject: Re: biorhythms - example of invalid criticism
Message-ID: <1263@ulysses.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 19-May-86 18:49:01 EDT
Article-I.D.: ulysses.1263
Posted: Mon May 19 18:49:01 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 21-May-86 01:06:19 EDT
References: <8021@watrose.UUCP> <258@anasazi.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 18

> 	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