On Fri, 5 Dec 2003, Matthew Hunter wrote: > On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 12:01:29AM -0800, Philip Hart <philiph at SLAC.Stanford.EDU> wrote: > > I think this is arguable - most things appear (from a secular perspective) > > to be considered unclean because they don't fit someone's category of > > what's natural in terms of scales or foot structure - maybe pigs with > > trichinosis were worth avoiding, and maybe milk has some bad chemical > > reaction with beef on wooden plates, I don't know - or squeamishness about > > blood. > > To really argue the point on these specific traditions would > require someone well-versed in both food preperation science and > the rules of this particular tradition. I am confident that some > (but not all) of the rules do translate into behaviors that *have > the effect of* reducing the incidence of certain problems with > bad food suffered by other cultures. > In the context of this discussion it doesn't matter why the > tradition was instituted. What matters is that it has a > beneficial effect. I have read a little bit about this subject over the years for various reasons, and I read the food science book On Food And Cooking before going to sleep, but as best I recall the kosher laws have some Just-So stories behind them but no hard evidence. Not to go all Stephen Jay Gould on you - I like JS stories - and maybe your general point can be validated - I just think it would be rather difficult. > > On the other hand, maybe G*d thinks it's bad to eat rabbits and scallops > > and llamas, as well as golden retrievers, and maybe G*d wasn't clear about > > swordfish because He hadn't thought about it. > > You're arguing with a strawman. No, (passing up the straight line), I'm making a vivid but feeble joke.