"Many people have run regularly over the years and most of them didn't instantly burst into flames, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be conducting long-term studies of the health benefits and risks of running at various intensities."
Who and where exactly is anyone arguing that "we shouldn't be conducting long-term studies of the health benefits and risks of running at various intensities"?
To your list of fallacies you should perhaps add the strawman argument.
"Just because yoga is considered "ancient wisdom" doesn't mean we shouldn't test it rigorously and without preconceived notions of its efficacy or inefficacy."
Another strawman.
"Science is the only way to distinguish ancient wisdom from ancient hogwash; anecdotes and arguments only confirm pre-existing biases."
Is this a "scientifically proven claim"? Or is this just an expression of a "pre-existing bias"?
Those are not strawmen, those are called examples. What he's saying is that "naturalness" or "antiquity" does not mean that something shouldn't be tested. For example, running is obviously very natural and old, and that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be tested.
So:
>Who and where exactly is anyone arguing that "we shouldn't be conducting long-term studies of the health benefits and risks of running at various intensities"?
just reinforces his point, because it was meant to be a statement that everyone could easily agree with.
Pre-existing bias towards testing and researching in order to approach the truth is a virtue, and to dismiss it while simultaneously attacking by misusing the tools of reason and logic that are its fruits when it is situationally convenient to you is both silly and entirely dishonest.
Who and where exactly is anyone arguing that "we shouldn't be conducting long-term studies of the health benefits and risks of running at various intensities"?
To your list of fallacies you should perhaps add the strawman argument.
"Just because yoga is considered "ancient wisdom" doesn't mean we shouldn't test it rigorously and without preconceived notions of its efficacy or inefficacy."
Another strawman.
"Science is the only way to distinguish ancient wisdom from ancient hogwash; anecdotes and arguments only confirm pre-existing biases."
Is this a "scientifically proven claim"? Or is this just an expression of a "pre-existing bias"?