[hyko]

I would caution against using “Qui bono” as a heuristic; you will end up believing in a lot of BS using that as a tool. It can only ever be a piece of evidence alongside others. I benefit immensely from sunlight, but that doesn’t mean I am implicated in the rotation of the earth.

In this particular case, there are many natural experiments we can conceive of that demonstrate why fasting alone is highly unlikely to significantly impede “normal” aging in humans in the lab. That’s before we get to how effective it could actually be as a treatment.

And while we’re following the money, there are many powerful entities that would love a “free” aging cure to juice their demographics…so why don’t they use it?

[avgcorrection]

> It can only ever be a piece of evidence alongside others.

A heuristic is not evidence, as you should know.

[hyko]

Yeah exactly, I’m saying it’s dangerous to use “who benefits?” as a heuristic, because it will be wrong far more often than it will be right.

[avgcorrection]

> Yeah exactly,

I say that it is a heuristic, you conflate it with evidence, and then you say that’s exactly the point (that it’s not evidence)? You’re not saying anything that I haven’t said originally.

Your supposed counter-example is beyond facile. Who-benefits presupposes that the agent has the means to affect some outcome. But no human could have arranged the rotation of the Earth.