Top 4 Logical Fallacies used by Keto Gurus
Appeal to Nature
The argument:
- That which is natural is good or right.
- N is natural.
- Therefore, N is good or right.
The logical fallacy is 1. However, in the case of Keto/Carnivore, even if we grant that 1 is true, 2 isn't true either.
From Wikipedia:
>The appeal to nature is frequently utilized in commercial advertising because it successfully leverages a deep-seated cognitive heuristic known as the "naturalness bias." This bias causes consumers to quickly and automatically associate the term "natural" with positive attributes such as health, purity, and moral goodness, often overriding the need for scientific evidence. In consumer psychology, research demonstrates the tangible effects of this fallacy on purchasing behavior. For instance, a study by Pornpitakpan (2004) found that framing food or cosmetic products as "natural" not only significantly increased purchase intent but also resulted in a more favorable overall attitude towards the brand.
Appeal to Incredulity
the argument:
- I cannot imagine how P could be true; therefore P must be false.
- I cannot imagine how P could be false; therefore P must be true.
This fallacy is especially clever, because it leverages the audience's incompetence as a warrant.
Let's combine it with the first fallacy:
"I don't understand how a carnivore diet be bad. We've been eating it for thousands of years."
This fallacy is especially insidious because it subtly shifts the burden of proof away from the person making the claim.
False Dilemma
A false dilemma, also referred to as false dichotomy or false binary, is an informal fallacy based on a premise that erroneously limits what options are available. The source of the fallacy lies not in an invalid form of inference but in a false premise.
Example:
"For most people, you can't eat a lot of carbs or be at a healthy weight."
Notice how I added the qualifier "for most people" to seem reasonable. But anyone overweight hearing this will implicitly believe they are "most people"
Special Pleading
Special pleading is an informal fallacy wherein a person claims an exception to a general or universal principle, but the exception is unjustified.
Examples:
- "I only eat grass fed butter. Those studies don't apply to me."
- "I'm a lean mass hyper-responder. I'm a unique phenotype that's protected from the dangers of high LDL."
- "I have a CAC of zero. I'm safe from heart disease despite high LDL."
Now, the user of this fallacy will almost always try to dress it up in some other sciency mumbo-jumbo that is not evidence, or just mechanistic speculation.
1 is unjustified because there is no scientific evidence. 2 is unjustified because there is no scientific evidence that LMHR are protected from plaque formation (although Norwitz supporters in bad faith will act like you're claiming LMHR don't exist). 3 is unjustified because a Coronary Artery Calcium (CAC) score is a lagging indicator of heart disease. It measures calcified, hardened plaque that has built up in your arteries over many years. Because this buildup is the result of long-term atherosclerosis, the score reflects past damage rather than immediate, acute risk.