Re: [Fwd: Re: Nutrition again]
Truman Prevatt (truman.prevatt@netsrq.com)
Thu, 9 Jan 1997 08:49:56 -0400
s.
> >>
>
>Truman, the next time I get into my minds something that has to do with the
>Earth crashing into the sun in 2002, you can call me on "proff". However, the
>problem we're concerned with here is very simple and easily proved or
>disproved. It requires an investment of about $100 in glucometer and
>strips--about 20 of which I gave away last year just to gather from field
>data. I've you're actually curious about this particular facet of equine
>life--do the same yourself and learn something that clearly you don't know
>right now.
>
>I'm not as interested in the past history of science as the future of applied
>science. Here we have a device that can give us an instant answer to a
>question. Do you have not interest in the answer??? Like most academics?
>
>ti
Ah-ha, reductionism at its best. What we have learned from quatum physics
is that a reductionist approach is not only insufficient it provides wrong
answers. Physics to be understood (and to be properly applied) needs to be
approached as holistically. The same is true for all science.
The horse's body is a very complex chemical/physical system, which is
different from the human body. The question we should be addressing is not
how long it takes X to happen, but what changes in the system are likely to
result from X - and it our case of interst while the horse is running a 100
mile ride. If this is being academic, then guilty as charged.
Truman
Truman Prevatt
Sarasota, FL