Get e-book Hello Methuselah!: Living to 100 and Beyond

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online Hello Methuselah!: Living to 100 and Beyond file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with Hello Methuselah!: Living to 100 and Beyond book. Happy reading Hello Methuselah!: Living to 100 and Beyond Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF Hello Methuselah!: Living to 100 and Beyond at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF Hello Methuselah!: Living to 100 and Beyond Pocket Guide.
Related Interests
Contents:
  1. Talk:Longevity myths/Archive 1 - Wikipedia
  2. The Grim Reaper does not care about the latest longevity study you saw on Facebook
  3. Hello Methuselah!: Living to 100 and Beyond
  4. ADVERTISEMENT

To longevity narratives , longevity folklore , or longevity stories. Second attempt; Talk:Longevity myths Proposed move:Longevity narratives above resulted in extended discussion among partisans rather than consensus.

Talk:Longevity myths/Archive 1 - Wikipedia

You can read for yourself the reasons against move, as I would hesitate to summarize them. Ryoung, please answer my questions above, in their place, without interrupting paragraphs. I support this move as well, if it's to "narratives" or "folklore"; "stories" sounds a bit too vague for my liking and doesn't really solve what I perceive to be the problem of this page.

My support is based on the comments above and in general because I feel that the title of this page does not conform well to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policies.

Moved from WP:RM. The real problem here is that he is approaching this issue from an agenda-driven perspective.

The Grim Reaper does not care about the latest longevity study you saw on Facebook

Wikipedia is NOT the place to argue about religious belief. Articles should conform to outside, reliable sources. For example, a scientific article:. Should we even be debating this? Ryoung , 9 May UTC. I understand what you are saying, JJB, but your argument is largely specious. It seems to me you are making a rather large mountain over a tiny molehill of a problem.


  • Autres titres intéressants!
  • Fruit, veg and family life – why Spaniards are living longer?
  • Sharing Options.

As for the use of "myth" I actually wrote part of a section of the Roswell UFO Incident on the incident as a "myth" - which in the narrative sense at least one scholar has called it. Calling it a "myth" here does not establish the claims are false; rather it makes the point that in a narrative sense, folklore can be either "fiction" such as jokes or cautionary tales, or "myths" which are "presented as fact and avowedly believed to be true by many group members [the author defines "folk" as in "folk narratives" as any group of people who share at least one common factor, where the group has some traditions it calls its own] It should be noted that the defining criteria for stories of the second [myth] type are independent of the objective factuality of the narrative.

I can supply those references if you wish. I propose that instead of renaming this article, a simple explanation of "myth" might suffice to clarify the issues you raise here. If you are saying that I am "technically" correct, then we have established that the use of the word "myth" within the article is correct.

Is it then, as you state, misleading? I'd say the debate boils down to whether one could be misled here - you clearly think they can be, though I'm not precisely sure as to what this means to you. How about simply stating that a "myth" is meant as a belief held by groups of people, a belief that those people affirm is "true," but which fails to conform to what we would currently hold as scientific verifiability. For example, the Bible states that Methuselah lived to be years old, an age both unverifiable and scientifically implausible.

Yet many people assert that he in fact lived to be this age. If people did not assert it was true, then it would not be a "myth" in this sense, it would be a fictional tale, an allegory, or what have you. Like the Brothers Grimm tales, which we can all agree are not "myths" but "fictions. So, what constitutes a "myth" here?

Hello Methuselah!: Living to 100 and Beyond

Well, after documenting some one billion lives or so, science has not observed any humans to celebrate a rd birthday. Therefore, those who claim extended lives with a degree of certitude are by definition holding onto a "myth" as those claims have not been verified and are considered scientifically implausible. Further, those who claim lives within the range of proven human longevity yet have not any of what we would identify as standard elements of verification, yet assert certitude are also engaging in "myth. In conclusion, all I see the need here is to clarify what is meant by "myth" here.

I stole the last few words from the essay I quoted from above. Oppose against 'longevity narratives' and 'longevity stories'. Call me ignorant but I had to even look up the meaning of 'narratives' to see if it fitted the article. Much of the article more closely focusses on countries rather than people and some cases are just names and dates as examples. Therefore I don't think either of these names are appropriate for the article. However I'm Neutral on a change to 'Longevity folklore'. I think 'longevity myths' is just as appropriate.

Strongly oppose No point changing a page which is generally understood to have it's intended meaning. I seriously doubt that a change to "narratives" would help the understanding of the average user. Since WIkipedia's policies on reliable sources consider journal articles to be the first source to go with as the most reliable, let's see what phrase scientific authorities use: — Ryoung — continues after insertion below.

Is There a Secret to Longevity?

He provides a perspective that includes both myth and reality. To emphasize the fact that extended longevity has always been a human aspiration, his account extends from ancient times to current efforts. The desire to attain immortality is also reflected in the promise of an afterlife by our major religions. Again, the word "myth" is used, NOT "stories". Why are we even debating this? It's Ph. Guinness "The height of credulity was reached May 5, , when a news agency solemnly filed a story from China with a Peking dateline that Li Chung-yun, the "oldest man on earth," born in , had just died aged years sic.

Rust - Music - - pages " If this seems incredible, what are we to make of his own report that he had discovered a potion which would prolong life indefinitely, as it had already prolonged his own for more than years? Among his other extravagant Bike for Life: How to Ride to RM Wallack, B Katovsky - "We want to be able to hop on our bikes and do what comes naturally whenever the urge strikes, today or decades from now.

So read the training and anti-aging strategies outlined in the book Have suggestions or a good cycling- longevity story to tell? Let us know at Australian paper. Reliable, verifiable, applicable: just the sort of thing I've gotten used to citing at WP. Good link.

here One ref to the year-old who lives on steak sauce, and one joke story about a nonagenarian. My first take from the free sources is that the driving motive said to be behind this article, namely, that stories about ages over can be neatly categorized into a few recognized classes, just doesn't get coverage like virtually everything else I've put in WP. Except for a certain thesis that contains categories too similar to this article to be of much use. To me, that data would actually argue for "merge article back into 'claims'".

That may look more and more viable the longer we play this little game. JJB , 10 May UTC You see, I just don't think the article heads should be replaced with alchemy, medicine, hormones, cycling, red wine, steak sauce. What am I missing? My feeling right now, subject to change, is that the whole article should just be disassembled and alphabetized by geography. Pardon us all for being oblivious, but the perfectly good phrase "longevity traditions" has been overlooked and has much better testimony than anything else so far. Unlike the prior searches, this yielded much more material very quickly, the material is much more appropriate, and many more sources can be provided without the baggage of other alternatives:.

The argument that the term "myth" is not appropriate for this article is based, it would seem, on two false premises: 1 The word "myth" suggests "fiction," when some of the so-called "myths" here may have been real, therefore it is POV to use that term and not a more neutral term like "story"; 2 Because many of the so-called "myths" on this page have no source which actually uses that term to describe them, it is OR to describe them as "myths. If we have a common definition of "speech," we can call it a speech.

Here, if a story fits the readily found definition of "myth," we are not required to locate someone who in fact called story X a "myth," it is a "myth" if it fits the definition of "myth. So, what is a "myth"? The usage on this page is quite obvious - it is a "myth" in the sense used in cultural anthropology, which this article, quite clearly, is an example of. If there is a failing in the text on the page, it is in that it lacks an explicit description of this usage, thus leading to the somewhat understandable mistaken confusion over whether it is "POV" to call some claims "myths," as a common colloquial definition of "myth" is "untrue story.

ADVERTISEMENT

In his introduction, he says that, without prejudging the veracity of the incident, "it can be treated and analyzed along lines that have become well established in cultural anthropology. He says a "myth," generically, is "a narrative that some people within the society say they find credible. In other words, a myth necessarily has or had, in the case of antique myths a constituency of true believers who, by virtue of a shared avowal of their belief, constitute a subculture.

Can we apply what is true in calling Roswell a "myth" to claims of long life? Of course we can.