The use and abuse of scientific studies

Abstract
In response to Evelyn Pluhar'sWho Can Be Morally Obligated to Be a Vegetarian? in this journal issue, the author has read all of Pluhar's citations for the accuracy of her claims and had these read by an independent nutritionist. Detailed analysis of Pluhar's argument shows that she attempts to make her case by consistent misappropriation of the findings and conclusions of the studies she cites. Pluhar makes sweeping generalizations from scanty data, ignores causal explanations given by scientists, equates hypothesis with fact, draws false cause conclusions from studies, and in one case claims a conclusion opposite of what the scientist published. Such poor reasoning cannot be the basis of an argument for moral vegetarianism. A broader search of the literature and attention to reviews and textbooks in nutrition shows that each of Pluhar's claims is suspect or incorrect. Pluhar has not undermined my central claims: even if animals have certain rights and well-planned vegetarian diets are safe in complex industrialized societies, these diets cannot be so regarded if the presuppositions of high levels of wealth, education, and medical care do not exist; and, women, children, the aged and some ill persons are at greater risk on restrictive vegan diets. Thus, any duty of moral vegetarianism is not categorical but provisional in nature.
Keywords animal rights  animal welfare  children  diet  moral vegetarianism  scientific reasoning  vegan  vegetarian  women's health
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/BF01966361
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
Edit this record
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Mark as duplicate
Request removal from index
Revision history
Download options
Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 30,798
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library
References found in this work BETA
The Case for Animal Rights.Tom Regan - 2009 - In Steven M. Cahn (ed.), Noûs. Oxford University Press. pp. 425-434.
Understanding Scientific Reasoning.Ronald N. Giere - 1991 - Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Who Can Be Morally Obligated to Be a Vegetarian?Evelyn Pluhar - 1992 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 5 (2):189-215.
So Animal a Human ..., Or the Moral Relevance of Being an Omnivore.Kathryn Paxton George - 1990 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 3 (2):172-186.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Discrimination and Bias in the Vegan Ideal.Kathryn Paxton George - 1994 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 7 (1):19-28.
On Vegetarianism, Morality, and Science: A Counter Reply. [REVIEW]Evelyn B. Pluhar - 1993 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 6 (2):185-213.
Use and Abuse Revisited: Response to Pluhar and Varner. [REVIEW]Kathryn Paxton George - 1994 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 7 (1):41-76.
Vegetarianism, Morality, and Science Revisited.Evelyn Pluhar - 1994 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 7 (1):77-82.

View all 6 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles
Vegetarianism, Sentimental or Ethical?Jan Deckers - 2009 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 22 (6):573-597.
On Vegetarianism, Morality, and Science: A Counter Reply. [REVIEW]Evelyn B. Pluhar - 1993 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 6 (2):185-213.
Vegan Diets for Women, Infants, and Children.Ann Reed Mangels & Suzanne Havala - 1994 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 7 (1):111-122.
Who Can Be Morally Obligated to Be a Vegetarian?Evelyn Pluhar - 1992 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 5 (2):189-215.
In Defense of the Vegan Ideal: Rhetoric and Bias in the Nutrition Literature. [REVIEW]Gary E. Varner - 1994 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 7 (1):29-40.
Vegetarianism, Morality, and Science Revisited.Evelyn Pluhar - 1994 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 7 (1):77-82.
Rejoinder to Kathryn Paxton George.Gary E. Varner - 1994 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 7 (1):83-86.
Discrimination and Bias in the Vegan Ideal.Kathryn Paxton George - 1994 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 7 (1):19-28.
Use and Abuse Revisited: Response to Pluhar and Varner. [REVIEW]Kathryn Paxton George - 1994 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 7 (1):41-76.
Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total downloads
22 ( #235,460 of 2,202,407 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #300,203 of 2,202,407 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads
My notes
Sign in to use this feature