General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNeil DeGrasse Tyson Tells Bill Maher That Anti-Science Liberals Are Full of Shit Too
“Let’s not pretend that Democrats and Republicans equally deny science,” Maher said. But TV-scientist and friend of the show Neil DeGrasse Tyson quickly stepped in to correct Maher. “Don’t be too high and mighty there,” Tyson said. “Because there are certain aspects of science denials that are squarely in the liberal left.”
What was “the one”? For viewers who are familiar with Maher’s bizarre belief that vaccines cause autism (they don’t), we could guess what he was talking about. But the panelists said it out loud anyway. “Vaccines!” everyone said in unison. Maher simply pointed and said, “Yes.”
Tyson went on to explain that liberals also tend to be the ones who consistently scare people about what they believe are the dangers of genetically modified organisms. He also rightly pointed out that liberals tend to be big believers in “alternative medicine.”
--snip--
Anti-science Republicans really do need to pull their heads out of their asses. Climate change is real. The Earth isn’t 10,000 years old. Noah’s Ark is, at best, a good children’s story.
But liberals need to clean up their own house before they make blanket assertions about conservatives being the only anti-science assholes out there. And since Maher attests to being such a champion of rational thought, he really needs to wake up to the mountains of bullshit in his own backyard. The smell bleeds through my TV set every time he says the word “frankenfood” like a toddler who just learned a new curse word.
http://gizmodo.com/neil-degrasse-tyson-tells-bill-maher-that-anti-science-1780648740?utm_medium=sharefromsite&utm_source=Gizmodo_facebook
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
tonyt53
(5,737 posts)
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)But that would make them anti-science fools, which they already proclaimed they are!
PJMcK
(22,025 posts).. rational people of any political point of view.
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)
Neil DeGrasse Tyson 
wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)
Lint Head
(15,064 posts)community that is anti vaccine, anti medicine etc.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)jtuck004
(15,882 posts)Last edited Wed Jun 8, 2016, 12:51 PM - Edit history (1)
"Tyson went on to explain that liberals also tend to be the ones who consistently scare people about what they believe are the dangers of genetically modified organisms. He also rightly pointed out that liberals tend to be big believers in “alternative medicine.” "
Most all of them will believe any pseudo-scientific pap you come up with, especially if it concerns the shortcomings in how OTHERS live their lives.we
Then again, we all have things we choose to believe.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/dear-skeptics-bash-homeopathy-and-bigfoot-less-mammograms-and-war-more/
PJMcK
(22,025 posts)The fact is, denial of science is not part of the Liberal orthodoxy (if there is such a thing). Generally, the left doesn't categorically deny scientific thought, processes or facts. That denial is firmly part of 21st century Conservative belief as exhibited by the Republicans in Congress and their national and local platforms.
Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)
FrodosPet
(5,169 posts)Medical science is bad because of pharmaceutical companies. Space science is bad because we are supposed to spend the money feeding people, not building spaceships and giant telescopes. Agricultural science is bad because of GMOs. Physics is bad because of weapons and nuclear power.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)
nxylas
(6,440 posts)Better say this now, since this is probably the last week we'll be allowed to criticise our corporate masters on DU, but just because the science says that GMOs are safe, it doesn't mean that Monsanto aren't bastards.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Pretending GMOs are bad is quite an anti-science stance, however.
nxylas
(6,440 posts)Progressive: "It's wrong for Monsanto to patent seeds that farmers in the developing world have been growing for millennia."
Conservadem: "Why do you hate science?"
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)All types of seeds are patented, btw. That's not an issue that is only about GMOs.
PatSeg
(47,370 posts)It used to be "hating capitalism", but that wasn't working so well anymore. Now those who question are called "anti-science" and labeled as part of a wacky fringe group.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Last edited Thu Jun 9, 2016, 01:09 PM - Edit history (1)
That's the problem, the anti-GMO doesn't bother to question anything. It just goes with really ugly propaganda that is not support by scientific consensus. It's absolutely disheartening to true progressives.
Actually that is not true in my experience, but you obviously are free to believe whatever fits your agenda.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)The reality is that it is true in your experience. It's just that you don't want to acknowledge that which goes against your preconceptions.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2016/03/the_gmo_labeling_movement_is_about_faith_not_facts.html
PatSeg
(47,370 posts)Not true, but nice of you to tell me what I acknowledge or preconceive. You really, really have no idea.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)
You don't have to repeat them, mantra like. We already get it. Oddly, you make many claims, but never back any of them up, while pretending those who do support their stances with consensus evidence don't do so.
It's quite amusing.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022879693
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1127&pid=90656
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5479926
PatSeg
(47,370 posts)"Oddly, you make many claims, but never back any of them up, while pretending those who do support their stances with consensus evidence don't do so."
That pretty much sums up what I've observed from you and the other Monsanto apologists on this board. That and lots of personal snarky assaults on people's intelligence and character. When someone does provide "evidence" that is solid, we get a gear shift to personal attacks loaded with lots of sarcasm.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Got it.
PatSeg
(47,370 posts)I read plenty of them and as I said earlier, I often check out evidence and links the few times they are provided. Most of the comments, however, are more attacks than information.
GoneOffShore
(17,339 posts)Call Congress RIGHT NOW!!
FrodosPet
(5,169 posts)Right after putting up an LBN post about Uber. And a short walk to the local watering hole for dollar burger day. And some time with my super cool niece.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)And for some, logical fallacies such as Denying the Antecedent is also good as it allows halfwits the pretense of cleverness by conflating a stated specific concern with an inferred general conclusion.
All hail the Logical Fallacy... tool of the half-wit. Friend of the under-educated. Ally of the sub-literate.
bvf
(6,604 posts)
GOLGO 13
(1,681 posts)AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Science is not a religion.
And Darwin is not a prophet.
And it's "Darwin is its prophet".... even tho' he isn't.
PJMcK
(22,025 posts)That's a nice turn of phrase but it's somewhat inaccurate.
The dictionary defines a religion as "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods." Science does not accept supernatural powers, only those facts that are repeatedly testable.
Further, Darwin wasn't a prophet, he was a scientist. Again, the dictionary calls a prophet, "a person regarded as an inspired teacher or proclaimer of the will of God." Charles Darwin observed the natural world and came to logical conclusions with the exclusion of supernatural forces.
Lastly, a scientist is "a person engaging in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge that describes and predicts the natural world." Neil deGrasse Tyson and Charles Darwin, among legions of others, use human intellect and knowledge and creativity to understand our universe utilizing tried and trued methodologies.
Still, yours is a good manner of expression and has popular appeal.
MisterFred
(525 posts)
MrScorpio
(73,630 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)
IronLionZion
(45,410 posts)there is plenty of woo. People believe all sorts of things if it makes them happy.
Personally I like to to evaluate everything and see if there might be some merits or dangers to things like genetically modified food or alternative medicine. Of course it may require a scientific study and observation of a large sample size. There are also lots of biased scientific studies out there sponsored by companies with a financial interest in the outcome.
Some modern medicines may have gotten their roots in herbal medicines before big pharma decided we all need to buy their pills for example.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)they steadfastly refuse to accept it. They are entrenched in their anti-science positions like "a tick on a hound."
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)People that run around yelling about how much smarter liberals are than conservatives annoy the everloving shit out of me. This place is supposedly a hotbed of Democratic thought, and the stupid here is bounteous beyond the ken of even the most experienced woo-slayer. Quackery, Alex Jones-caliber conspiratorial fantasies, hokey religions, organic-grass-fed-shade-grown-non-GMO-free-range bullshit... we got it all.
The Polack MSgt
(13,186 posts)
IronLionZion
(45,410 posts)are probably compensating for some insecurity. Especially if they aggressively need to tear someone else down for their beliefs.
Plenty of conservatives think they are smarter than bleeding heart liberals often because of the woo and conspiracy fantasies and new age stuff.
Reality is highly based on a person's individual experience and perceptions.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)In no one's "experience" do vaccines cause autism. In the experience of thousands, measles can kill.
IronLionZion
(45,410 posts)and someone might falsely attribute it to vaccines as the cause the same way many Republicans think the financial crisis was caused by Obama/gays/immigrants/etc. and not by the greedy billionaires in their own party.
People believe things often because it feels like a cause and effect, even if there is no relationship.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)parents and the public to do the same. They advocate against mandatory vaccinations, and, if not effectively countered, their arguments sway others and before you know it, you have a measles outbreak.
These beliefs have consequences.
jonno99
(2,620 posts)"organic-grass-fed-shade-grown-non-GMO-free-range bullshit"
Response to cleanhippie (Reply #12)
Post removed
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)I kinda like Maher, but sometimes he tends to favor agendas more than reality. The thing most likeable about Neil DeGrasse Tyson is he puts more stock in science than agendas and isn't afraid to say so.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)AllTooEasy
(1,260 posts)I was Catholic school educated from K-12. DeMatha's(BTW, the best HS in the Universe's 13.799±0.021 billion year history!!!) Trinitarian priests, nuns, and brothers not only taught us that Evolution was real, but they completely destroyed the Creationist argument. They showed us that Genesis actually has 2 creation stories, how they contradicted each other, that they were written centuries apart, and that nearly exact pagan stories(like the Gilgamesh Epic) were written centuries prior in the same region. We were taught that Genesis was a grouping of parables meant to convey a spiritual or social message, not a literal account of history. The Trinitarians taught us Chemistry, Physics, Geology, Biology, and Physics. A Creationist would flunk out of DeMatha, or any of our rival Catholic Schools(Carroll, Gonzaga, Good Counsel, etc.). My 12th grade Physics teacher, Dr. Quinn, said something that always stuck with me "Science shouldn't destroy your faith in God, it should destroy your faith in Man. Learning Science IS learning about God".
I've been an engineer for 20+ years. His words never failed. The more science I learn, the more I am awed of God...and the more I realize that humans are just chimps with better speaking skills.
I'm an Episcopalian now.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)The same can be said for a lot of prominent Muslims over quite a few centuries.
None of this makes my statement any less true. When you attribute things that are unknown to some mythological abstract entity you are at least at some level suppressing discovery of the true nature of those things. Not to mention that for every priest and nun that is teaching evolution, you have thousands of zealots that are using their collective power to not only suppress that knowledge but to also offer ridiculous non-science based "alternative theories", which are nothing more than hocus pocus delusions plucked out of centuries old tomes with zero scientific value.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)You've only demonstrated that human beings are able to hold and compartmentalize opposing worldviews.
Regardless of what religious people are able to do, religion itself is inherently unscientific, and a good many religious scientists would agree with that.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)lame54
(35,281 posts)don't trust GMO's? - then you are anti-science even if you believe in climate change, medical advancements, NASA, Apple/Microsoft, look forward to driverless cars etc.
not being convinced of one area does not necessarily make one anti-science
The term "anti-science" is being thrown around a lot lately, often to defend large corporations and their questionable activities. How did everything on this board become so "black and white" and contentious? I'm pretty sure I know, as I've seen too many comments that seem to come out of someone's playbook.
And since when is questioning anything "anti-science"? I would have thought it to be the opposite.
I am so tired of Neil deGrasse Tyson. He has become more of an arrogant celebrity than a scientist.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)proof.
But don't cite the opinion or interpretation from a paid industry shill, nor from someone who has studied many opinions from paid industry shills and call that proof.
The more you yammer at me, while failing to deliver concrete proof from an objective source the stronger will become my belief that your opinion is just that, which you are welcome to. But that is not proof.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)Why should I take his word over most of Europe, many other countries, and even China? When China bans a food there must be something to it. Are GMOs science? Yes, but are they good science?
Is atomic energy science? Was the development of atomic weapons good science? I certainly don't think so. Does that make me anti-science? Disagreement and questioning something is pro-science, not anti-science. Status quo is anti-science. I can remember when "question everything" was a good goal ideal to live to. To not question something, especially something as new as GMO science, that is being against science. Mr. Tyson should explain to the world why not questioning something is pro-science. Good science does not just blindly accept anything as the final answer and a true scientist would be ashamed of himself for saying so.
Before people start pounding on their keyboard I do know China is starting to get into the GMO business and I have no doubts that that they are getting into it for the money not the health benefits. Can't wait for Monsanto to try suing China for infringement.
You are right about Tyson, to put it bluntly, he is starting to just be about the money.
alp227
(32,015 posts)Just because "many countries" ban GMO doesn't mean they're following the scientific consensus.
PatSeg
(47,370 posts)Pretty much sums up what I was thinking, but couldn't put it all into words. Thank you.
When I first heard Tyson's condescending and dismissive remarks about GMOs and the people who are concerned about them, it was shortly after I'd watched his Cosmos series. That made it even more infuriating, as the segment that had the strongest impact on me was the one about the Lead industry and how it hired a scientist to assure Congress and the public that lead was safe. Did he not see the hypocrisy? Well, I sure did and I am sick of seeing his smug face all over the Internet, like he is some kind of God of Science.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Just like the WHO and many more scientific organizations.
American Association for the Advancement of Science: ”The science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe.” (http://bit.ly/11cR4sB)
American Medical Association: ”There is no scientific justification for special labeling of genetically modified foods. Bioengineered foods have been consumed for close to 20 years, and during that time, no overt consequences on human health have been reported and/or substantiated in the peer-reviewed literature.” (http://bit.ly/166OUdM)
World Health Organization: ”No effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of GM foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved.” (http://bit.ly/18yzzVI)
National Academy of Sciences: ”To date more than 98 million acres of genetically modified crops have been grown worldwide. No evidence of human health problems associated with the ingestion of these crops or resulting food products have been identified.” (http://bit.ly/13Cib0Y)
The Royal Society of Medicine: ”Foods derived from GM crops have been consumed by hundreds of millions of people across the world for more than 15 years, with no reported ill effects (or legal cases related to human health), despite many of the consumers coming from that most litigious of countries, the USA.” (http://1.usa.gov/12huL7Z)
The European Commission: ”The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are no more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies.” (http://bit.ly/133BoZW)
American Council on Science and Health: ”[W]ith the continuing accumulation of evidence of safety and efficiency, and the complete absence of any evidence of harm to the public or the environment, more and more consumers are becoming as comfortable with agricultural biotechnology as they are with medical biotechnology.” (http://bit.ly/12hvoyg)
American Dietetic Association: ”It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that agricultural and food biotechnology techniques can enhance the quality, safety, nutritional value, and variety of food available for human consumption and increase the efficiency of food production, food processing, food distribution, and environmental and waste management.” (http://1.usa.gov/12hvWnE)
American Phytopathological Society: ”The American Phytopathological Society (APS), which represents approximately 5,000 scientists who work with plant pathogens, the diseases they cause, and ways of controlling them, supports biotechnology as a means for improving plant health, food safety, and sustainable growth in plant productivity.” (http://bit.ly/14Ft4RL)
American Society for Cell Biology: ”Far from presenting a threat to the public health, GM crops in many cases improve it. The ASCB vigorously supports research and development in the area of genetically engineered organisms, including the development of genetically modified (GM) crop plants.” (http://bit.ly/163sWdL)
American Society for Microbiology: ”The ASM is not aware of any acceptable evidence that food produced with biotechnology and subject to FDA oversight constitutes high risk or is unsafe. We are sufficiently convinced to assure the public that plant varieties and products created with biotechnology have the potential of improved nutrition, better taste and longer shelf-life.” (http://bit.ly/13Cl2ak)
American Society of Plant Biologists: ”The risks of unintended consequences of this type of gene transfer are comparable to the random mixing of genes that occurs during classical breeding… The ASPB believes strongly that, with continued responsible regulation and oversight, GE will bring many significant health and environmental benefits to the world and its people.” (http://bit.ly/13bLJiR)
International Seed Federation: ”The development of GM crops has benefited farmers, consumers and the environment… Today, data shows that GM crops and foods are as safe as their conventional counterparts: millions of hectares worldwide have been cultivated with GM crops and billions of people have eaten GM foods without any documented harmful effect on human health or the environment.” (http://bit.ly/138rZLW)
Council for Agricultural Science and Technology: ”Over the last decade, 8.5 million farmers have grown transgenic varieties of crops on more than 1 billion acres of farmland in 17 countries. These crops have been consumed by humans and animals in most countries. Transgenic crops on the market today are as safe to eat as their conventional counterparts, and likely more so given the greater regulatory scrutiny to which they are exposed.” (http://bit.ly/11cTKq9)
Crop Science Society of America: ”The Crop Science Society of America supports education and research in all aspects of crop production, including the judicious application of biotechnology.” (http://bit.ly/138sQMB)
International Society of African Scientists: ”Africa and the Caribbean cannot afford to be left further behind in acquiring the uses and benefits of this new agricultural revolution.” (http://bit.ly/14Fp1oK)
Federation of Animal Science Societies: ”Meat, milk and eggs from livestock and poultry consuming biotech feeds are safe for human consumption.” (http://bit.ly/133F79K)
Society for In Vitro Biology: ”The SIVB supports the current science-based approach for the evaluation and regulation of genetically engineered crops. The SIVB supports the need for easy public access to available information on the safety of genetically modified crop products. In addition, the SIVB feels that foods from genetically modified crops, which are determined to be substantially equivalent to those made from crops, do not require mandatory labeling.” (http://bit.ly/18yFDxo)
Consensus document on GMOs Safety (14 Italian scientific societies): ”GMOs on the market today, having successfully passed all the tests and procedures necessary to authorization, are to be considered, on the basis of current knowledge, safe to use for human and animal consumption.” (http://bit.ly/166WHYZ)
Society of Toxicology: ”Scientific analysis indicates that the process of GM food production is unlikely to lead to hazards of a different nature than those already familiar to toxicologists. The level of safety of current GM foods to consumers appears to be equivalent to that of traditional foods.” (http://bit.ly/13bOaSt)
“Transgenic Plants and World Agriculture” - Prepared by the Royal Society of London, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the Brazilian Academy of Sciences, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the Indian National Science Academy, the Mexican Academy of Sciences, and the Third World Academy of Sciences:“Foods can be produced through the use of GM technology that are more nutritious, stable in storage, and in principle health promoting – bringing benefits to consumers in both industrialized and developing nations.” (http://bit.ly/17Cliq5)
French Academy of Science: ”All criticisms against GMOs can be largely rejected on strictly scientific criteria.” (http://bit.ly/15Hm3wO)
Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities: ”Food derived from GM plants approved in the EU and the US poses no risks greater than those from the corresponding conventional food. On the contrary, in some cases food from GM plants appears to be superior with respect to health.” (http://bit.ly/17ClMMF)
International Council for Science: ”Currently available genetically modified crops – and foods derived from them – have been judged safe to eat, and the methods used to test them have been deemed appropriate.” (http://bit.ly/15Hn487)
-----------------
Politics are not science. They should be informed by science, but, when it comes to some things, it's not in some places.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)lame54
(35,281 posts)i asked a republican friend why he didn't like Bernie
He said because of his stance on GMO's made him anti-science
That is a cop-out
he needed an easy way out and that was his quick answer
I am not anti-science but am still undecided about GMO's
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)The evidence shows that GMO foods are no different, no better and no more harmful than non-gmo foods. To say otherwise denies the science behind that. One doesn't have to accept it, of course, but that then makes one anti-science on that subject.
lame54
(35,281 posts)they are just "Anti-Science"
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)lame54
(35,281 posts)it's a way to call someone an ignorant fuck
it's a shortcut to winning an argument
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Why argue with someone that rejects the scientific evidence?
lame54
(35,281 posts)because you are rejecting my basic premise
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)I'm happy to discuss the science...
lame54
(35,281 posts)necessarily make you anti-science
and don't hit me back with "On that subject"
because that is never implied
That's like saying "I don't get the appeal of Star Wars."
"That's because you are anti science fiction."
which may not necessarily be true
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Conservatives we label as anti-science aren't that on all subjects either.
I'm not getting your point, apparently.
but I would place one asterix on this, which is that just because we can make certain GMOs doesn't mean we should. There are definitely GMOs that have the potential to cause grave problems, such as in Monsanto's attempts to make Roundup resistant crops. As you know, genes don't necessarily stick where they're placed and there is no way to know to where these genes may migrate or to prevent them from doing so, especially to the very weeds that Roundup is supposed to kill. I suspect that most people do not understand that we humans are naturally-created GMOs who have virus, fungus, bacteria and other non-human genes in our genetic material (link below for those who would like to learn about this.) I do not believe that for-profit corporations like Monsanto should be able to create whatever organism they want, do their own "tests" and then send this data to the revolving door of government/corporate agencies for review and approval. We need a strong, independent mechanism to review and regulate GMO organisms. I wish liberals would rephrase the argument from the anti-scientific "All GMOs are inherently bad" to "We will regulate GMOs to ensure that they are safe for the public, the way we do with other foods, drugs and products."
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/03/humans-may-harbor-more-100-genes-other-organisms
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)But for the topic at-hand, its tangential.
Maybe start an OP on that?
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)...with the exception that GMO is already tested far more rigorously than any of those other methods. If we regulated GMO the way we do other foods, there would be less regulation on them.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)let me know what happens. I am very curious about the natural results.
Was the result harmful to humans? I don't know, but don't try to tell us that it was the same as any other breeding method.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)My claim wasn't that all breeding methods are exactly the same in all respects, just in those that were mentioned, so you would have done well to actually read the post in which I was replying, unless your actual intention was to be completely disingenuous.
But on your completely unrelated topic, there's nothing "natural" about any plant breeding method. All are intended to produce a result that doesn't happen naturally, which is kinda the whole point. But thanks for the worn out anti-GMO talking point about something that never came close to being actually approved or marketed anywhere, which relies heavily on the ignorance that transgenesis doesn't happen in nature.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)The point I'm making is that many if not most breeding methods do happen naturally. And happened naturally for millions of years. Cross pollination and hybrids, even mutations, are all natural and occur even without human intervention. I am not one that thinks all GMOs are bad, but to even compare the process to natural methods is wrong and in my opinion a diversion.
To blindly accept any science and not question it and it's consequences is anti-scientific. Remember if nobody questioned anything, how much science and progress would we have? But to blindly accept all change? That is not being pro-science.
Round-up is more complicated story than most and demands much more scrutiny. Is round-up by itself bad for humans? Maybe, maybe not, and it needs more testing, but moreover is what round-up allows to happen bad for humans indirectly? Round-up allows plants that normally would have died from a poison being administered to them to live. Normally the poison administered would kill the plant thus making it inedible. By the action of allowing a plant to absorb a poison and still live it allows the plant to then transfer the poison to any animal that eats the plant. Round-ups immunity properties are being transferred to the weeds it was designed to help eliminate, what are the long term consequences of that? I think all of that needs to be questioned.
But you are right I have gone off on a tangent so this is my last post about this under this OP.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)As I stated, transgenesis most certainly is something that happens in nature. So the claim that GMO is somehow less natural than any other breeding method most certainly is a diversion that simply feeds on paranoia and ignorance, which is the underlying strategy of the anti-GMO movement.
The idea of blind acceptance just doesn't have any merit. GMO is more heavily tested and regulated than any other breeding method and is continuously expected to comply with an ever increasing higher standard that comes when the goalposts are constantly being moved. So what makes all of this anti-science is why. Why is this one method of breeding far more heavily scrutinized than any other? When you ask this question, you are faced with completely nonsensical answers like fish and tomatoes and other assorted appeal to nature fallacies. The reality is that anytime you employ almost any breeding method, you wind up with attributes and genes not found in the parent organisms. The reason I say almost is because the one exception is transgenesis employed by GMO biotechnology. With that method you are only changing one gene at a time instead of thousands and the results are far more predictable.
Certainly anytime you produce a new varietal by any method, there is a possibility of introducing unintended consequences. GMO is a technology that's been around now for over 30 years and has not once introduced any human safety issues. Nobody is dying and nobody is getting sick. You can't say that about the other methods you mentioned.
Round-up really isn't all that complicated. It's already been tested more than pretty much any other pesticide in history, and the result is it's safer and far less toxic and than everything it's replaced. No amount of testing is ever going to appease the anti-GMO movement which is agenda driven. You can't fix an anti-science mindset with more science. Your idea that round-up is somehow fundamental different is nonsensical. There are all sorts of selective herbicides which kill target pest weeds and not the beneficial plant. Describing something as "poison" without any consideration of dosage or target control is also nonsensical. Just because something is "poison" to one type of organism, doesn't mean it's "poison" to a completely different organism. Most plants have inherent pesticidal properties and most of the pesticide load you get comes from the plants themselves, not from pesticides used during production.
immoderate
(20,885 posts)puts a strain on the "laws of thought."
--imm
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)or organic, take your pick.
In the case of BT corn and cotton, BT is a safe to consume insecticide that is used, liberally, on organic produce as well, because its naturally occurring.
immoderate
(20,885 posts)I think there's a difference. 
--imm
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)what difference there is is irrelevant from a food safety standpoint.
immoderate
(20,885 posts)Can I eat a GMO food without dying? Sure. To say there is 'no difference' is not really accurate. There are no long term epidemiological studies. And effects throughout the environment are ignored.
--imm
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Here's a decent summary on the subject:
https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2016/01/13/no-long-term-gmo-studies-humans/
immoderate
(20,885 posts)Feed lot studies of antibiotically drenched cows with short lives are not sufficient.
--imm
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)immoderate
(20,885 posts)They are lying? 
--imm
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)immoderate
(20,885 posts)Those animals don't get to lead normal lives. They are given antibiotics from birth. No normal diets. Diseased animals are previously culled. They are slaughtered in adolescence. They are not inspected for abnormalities.
--imm
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Most GMOs don't produce novel chemicals in enough quantity, or in any quantity, to have a pharmacological effect on the human body, and those that do are tested for such, for example Vitamin A absorption for Beta Carotene enriched Bananas. What do you want done to reassure you that GMOs are safe?
Apparently its not animal testing.
immoderate
(20,885 posts)And labeling would be helpful in following effects. But I agree they would be subtle, if at all.
My immediate concern is with the environment, and the economics.
--imm
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)It seems like you want GMOs to be tested like drugs are, even though they would have no pharmacological effects. My question is, why, and should such testing hold true for every new breed of crop, regardless of source?
immoderate
(20,885 posts)I would like to think that GMO feed does not have long term effects, but how would I know?
As to testing the limits on what things could be studied, I'll consider it.
--imm
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)which, you could argue, actually has a substance that didn't previously exist in the plant, that substance(BT) has been tested safe for years, with long term studies.
Roundup-ready crops, for all the faults you can possibly have with the overuse of Roundup itself, have a protein that's slightly different from one plants already produce that prevent roundup from disrupting some pathways that lead to death of the plants. Those proteins aren't novel and have no pharmacological effect on people, long term and short term.
Other substances that are genetically engineered into plants include substances like beta carotene, I think we are already familiar with the long term affects of consuming that.
immoderate
(20,885 posts)How can we know?
--imm
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Why are you ok with Mutation Bred Organisms?
immoderate
(20,885 posts)
--imm
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Zzzzzz.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)and many of the extracts and substances(those that actually are in the products) have a much stronger pharmacological effect on humans than any GMO has so far.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)...since this shit isn't regulated by the FDA, there's no way to tell... unless one keeps a chemistry set in their basement.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)immoderate
(20,885 posts)--imm
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)immoderate
(20,885 posts)I am including all possible environmental and economic effects in my analysis. But I don't think even the safety for human consumption has been established.
--imm
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Can you name them?
What are you backing up your assertions with?
immoderate
(20,885 posts)I haven't seen evidence that they're safe. There's lots of potential damage to the environment and the economy. So far, any benefits accrue to the manufacturer, not the farmer, or the consumer. What should be done about super pests, and super weeds, and biological monocultures, for instance?
I am concerned about pleiotropy. And there are other effects on gene expression that we don't understand. Do you know it all?
--imm
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)you pretend to be reasonable, but fail to provide evidence or even reasoning for your positions.
As far as super pests, super weeds and monocultures, you seem to have a problem with agriculture itself, not with GMOs.
immoderate
(20,885 posts)I am 'closed minded' enough not to fall for that. (I remember when Teflon was safe. 
)
--imm
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)you need to, at the very least, identify what substances in GMO products you think are dangerous. Its not like there are secret ingredients that can't be examined.
immoderate
(20,885 posts)Here are the first few reasons that come to mind:
- Feedlot animals receive antibiotics.
- There are no controls.
- They don't get a normal lifespan.
- They are not fed appropriately.
- Diseased animals are culled, and not counted.
- No forensics.
GMOs are generally not available for study. The few purported long term epidemiological animals studies that I have perused seemed methodologically sound. None of the findings AFAIK, have been found to be invalid. The withdrawals, if any, are based on technical objections that do not refute the findings. Follow-ups are indicated.
Do novel procedures not deserve the same scrutiny as 'novel substances?' You haven't dealt with anomalies of genetics such as pleiotropies and new discoveries like: http://www.democraticunderground.com/122847579
I don't think you have adequately accounted for unexpected consequences. YRMV. Again, we still have economic and environmental aspects to deal with, that are really my main concern.
--imm
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)GMO sugar beets any differently than sugar produced from non-GMO sugar cane?
Chemically, the end product is identical, being composed of practically entirely of sucrose and fructose.
Would you conclude the GMO sugar beets are unsafe, what justification would be used.
The techniques about how something is produced don't really matter as they are, for all practical purposes, chemically identical.
Another example, this time in food flavoring, and this just shows the stupidity in marketing/regulation. You can, quite easily synthesize Vanillin in the lab, you can probably guess what that is, its the molecule responsible for the smell/taste we call Vanillin. However, if you were to do that, you cannot label your product organic, why, because you synthesized this one chemical in the lab. If you were to harvest it from vanilla bean, then you can label it as organic, even though its the exact same molecule. Seems rather silly, don't you think?
You also have yet to bring up your economic and environmental concerns.
immoderate
(20,885 posts)Are you asserting that nothing can be learned from long term, epidemiological animal studies? And before they're done.
Economics: You are OK with patenting organisms? And do you think Monsanto is performing some public service?
--imm
Lunabell
(6,075 posts)I told one sciency guy that I was on the fence about GMOs and he proceeded to tell me how anti science I was, and blah blah blah. Later in a conversation about something else, he told a man that it was good to have a healthy dose of skepticism. I told him, well what do you think "on the fence" means? No answer...
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)You are not being skeptical. You are simply choosing to ignore evidence.
Lunabell
(6,075 posts)I'm skeptical because I don't trust corporations. My choice for my body is no GMOs if I can help it. But don't think I'm one of those anti vaxxers.
Oh sure, I think corporations are probably fudging some of their data too, about side effects of vaccines, but they have proven to be life savers over time. I understand the science of how vaccines work, but genetic manipulation of food is a totally different story. Especially when poisons are involved.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)You are also choosing to ignore a great deal of other knowledge.
You are willfully choosing to create a world that doesn't exist, and the pretending that your skeptical.
CTs are the opposite of skepticism.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)You seem to be confusing one for the other.
PatSeg
(47,370 posts)conflicting "evidence" from several sources, one would be inclined to be suspicious of the studies coming from corporate studies when that business stands to benefit from positive results.
Your's a blanket statement that pretty doesn't say much of anything. It is easy to tag something "anti-science" when it doesn't conform with one's point of view.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)for example, Wakefield's study linking the MMR vaccine to autism. Other examples includes the GMO corn/rat study by Seralini, etc.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)99.9% of the time, it's the scientific evidence that wins.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Legitimate science journals also have a thorough peer review process, and beyond that studies which are conducted for government certification have additional oversight. Furthermore anyone who questions such a study can follow the same methodology and see if the results are repeatable.
The flip side of that is that some studies are published in shit journals that are almost always pay-to-play meaning those who want to have their studies published must pay the publisher to do so. While this is not necessarily bad, it does lend itself to predatory publishers that have shit peer review processes and will basically publish anything they are paid for.
So just because a study is financed by corporate interests doesn't mean it's bad and just because a study pretends to be independent doesn't mean it's good.
PatSeg
(47,370 posts)I don't know what world you're living in, but in MY world so called "legitimate studies" are often suspect. There are ways to get around "conflict of interest disclosures", especially if you are a multi-billion dollar corporation. Meanwhile we seems to have a revolving door between certain industries and the federal agencies that provide oversight for those industries.
I am not gullible and certainly not naive enough to believe that companies like Monsanto or Big Pharma can be trusted. They buy scientists, as well as lawmakers, journalists, and Internet trolls. Many other developed nations are not nearly as trusting as we are and have stricter laws and restrictions in this respect. I guess their governments must rely on "shit journals" when they make their decisions.
You know, you three make a great team, though the rhetoric is unsurprisingly familiar.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)You more or less just discarded every scientist on the planet, and yes, we are talking about the planet, not just the United States. So who is trustworthy to you on this issue?
PatSeg
(47,370 posts)I don't trust people on boards like this that attempt to shut down meaningful and construction discussions with condescension and ridicule. Instead of offering specifics, they respond with questions.
There are plenty of "trustworthy" experts throughout the world and assuming you have Google, I am sure you can find them on your own, though you really don't want an answer. You just want to ridicule any answer you get.
This used to be a liberal, intelligent, open-minded site.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)even if its to territories that challenge your beliefs, and when confronted with said evidence, change those beliefs, which is the hardest thing of all. Its admitting you can be and have been wrong.
PatSeg
(47,370 posts)So you don't know how I respond when my beliefs are challenged or how I assess the evidence before me or how and when I admit I'm wrong. You do not know the paths I've been down, what I have learned and experienced, or what beliefs I have embraced or discarded (based primarily on evidence by the way).
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Unless you are actually gullible you should realize that kind of thing also works the other way. One of the anti-GMO darlings, Charles Benbrook, had a long history of creating dubious "research" published in shit journals. Come to find out, the New York Times blew his cover and revealed he was being paid to produce advocacy thinly veiled as science. But I'm sure the journalists at the New York Times are just on Monsanto's payroll, right? 
PatSeg
(47,370 posts)Condescension and sarcasm. Always helpful to any meaningful discussion.
Have a good night. 
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)
Cheers!
PatSeg
(47,370 posts)
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)If you want to post shit like this, then you just blocked your own path to the high road. Complaining that you get condescension in return is pretty rich, so lets just please not pretend you are all about open mindedness and meaningful discussion because you have already proved you aren't.
PatSeg
(47,370 posts)Was one of those "shit journals" The New England Journal of Medicine?
MisterFred
(525 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)You are presuming the reason for being against GMOs as they are currently used has to be being afraid of eating genetically modified organisms. I have no problem with that.
I just don't want to see pesticide use (and pesticide residue in the environment) increase. GMOs are a huge driver for that because (as is unknown by most pro-GMO people) the primary use of genetic modification in crops is to increase their tolerance for pesticides/herbicides to allow for a larger amount of chemicals to be sprayed on fields.
In short, science tells me pesticides are bad for people and the environment.
Social research tells me that the overwhelming majority of GMO crops are produced solely to allow more pesticides to be used.
I don't want GMO crops to be easily available to farmers for environmental reasons and I want labeling of GMO products in supermarkets so I can avoid the foods most heavily drenched in pesticides during their production.
My opposition to (the vast majority of) GMOs and the companies that create them is ROOTED in science and an understanding of actual farm practice, not anti-science fantasy.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)For example, Roundup-ready crops actually reduce overall herbicide use due to the fact that Roundup is more effective than the alternatives, remember, this isn't a choice between no herbicides and Roundup, but between Roundup and herbicides that are more toxic and environmentally damaging.
Being more effective means you don't have to spray it as often, not nearly as often as the alternatives.
Another example, with BT corn or cotton, you reduce the spraying to just a few times a year, and while the pesticide that is used is safe, spraying it is energy intensive and wastes a lot of fuel. So you reduce the carbon footprint of the farm using GMO crops.
MisterFred
(525 posts)If you're going to couch your arguments in "but SCIENCE!" then at least use independent and not industry-funded studies.
https://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2190-4715-24-24
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)You've certainly seen the Benbrook nonsense debunked before, so it really is disingenuous to post it and ask that it be debunked again. That's not ok.
http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2012/09/24/anti-gmo-study-is-appropriately-dismissed-as-biased-poorly-performed/
http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2012/10/do-genetically-engineered-crops-really-increase-herbicide-use/
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/collideascape/2012/10/03/when-bad-news-stories-help-bad-science-go-viral/#.VxZQ7_krIdU
And, finally, the reality is that Benbrook is not looked upon much better than Seralini.
http://www.science20.com/science_20/the_dying_gasp_of_chuck_benbrooks_credibility-156906
GMOs reduced sprayed pesticides and herbicides, and allow for the use of safer ones. Why do you want to harm the planet by stopping that?
http://www.foodsecurist.com/debunked-impacts-of-genetically-engineered-crops-on-pesticide-use-the-first-thirteen-years-benbrook-2009/
MisterFred
(525 posts)I only read research. Sorry, I have no way of judging if you're using reliable sources from the above blogs.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)If you don't know that some of the best science information on the planet is by actual scientists at their blogs, then you have no business pretending to know what's happening in the world of science.
BTW, we both know that's lame, because your whole first post was nothing but anti-GMO propaganda, straight from ugly anti-GMO web pages. Don't try to play such games. That's not ok.
And you chose to ignore all the science with findings that were different from Benbrook.
In other words, you are not basing anything in science. You are running from it.
You do know that the journal Benbrook's stuff was published in has a very low impact factor, right? And you know it's the same journal that republished Seralini? Yeah, there is no credibility there. You understand that, right?
But if you still think Benbrook is the be all, end all, come on over to Food and Farm Discussion Lab on Facebook, where you can discuss it with scientists, farmers, and science lovers. I think you would be interested to see what they have to say.
MisterFred
(525 posts)Nor do I claim to be an expert in the field. But I'm not running across the research you mentioned. Particularly nothing debunking Benbrook.
I did find Martinez-Gersha, Worster, and Radosevich (2003)
JSTOR stable #3989465
They were highly skeptical of the claims you made for the efficiency benefits of GMO crops.
I did find McAfee (2004)
JSTOR stable #30033954
She puts forth the very obvious conclusion that the results U.S.-based studies of the impact of GMO crops generally do not apply outside of North America & Europe. I can't imagine you'd be surprised by that.
On the other hand, I did see some very poor evaluations of the Environmental Sciences Europe journal, so that speaks to your point.
Also, if you don't think I'm discussing in good faith, don't respond to me. It's a foolish waste of your time and my time.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)... that support your preconceptions.
Somehow, you think that finding the outliers that support your preconceptions change the consensus that everyone else had come to see.
That's not how this works.
And what claims did I make about efficiency benefits?
MisterFred
(525 posts)BTW, I think your standard for confirmation of your assumptions is a bit low.
As an aside, since this is obviously not my field, what research databases would you recommend as the best resources for finding these meta-analysis and mainstream studies? I regularly use EBSCO & JSTOR, but I'm obviously outside my specialty here. What are the more valuable databases for looking up this research that I should be easily finding?
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)I've given you one such place. GMO Skepti Forum is another.
You can then bring whatever study you want to discuss, and see how it holds up. Those places care about good evidence, and work to keep the discussion positive.
Reading the research is great, but you have to know much more than just the research to learn how to read the research. That's why checking in at places where actual scientists discuss these matters is fantastic.
I have work to do.
You will find hundreds of studies on the topic via the GENERA database.
http://genera.biofortified.org
MisterFred
(525 posts)Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)without critical examination are useless, and anyone can publish anything as long as they are willing to pay the fee and get past the editorial board of the journal in question.
MisterFred
(525 posts)Since I'm obviously outside my field of expertise, what research databases are most useful for your field. I don't often have to use much more than EBSCO or JSTOR, and I'm simply not finding the research - including published meta-analyses - you say should be easily available.
And I'm not comfortable relying on the blogs of scientists when I don't know if they have an economic interest in promoting certain products or farming practices.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)science and medical blogs when necessary. Sometimes its as simple as reading the single study, sometimes not. Big problem is a lot of them are behind paywalls, so I only have access to the abstract, and that can be woefully inadequate.
Its not a matter of relying on the blogs of scientists, most of them are upfront and honest with their affiliations, I'll even purposefully research the other side, going to their blogs, look up what research they do, and articles as well.
I don't claim to be a scientist, biologist or doctor, I'm a layperson who is interested in science, though my first loves are paleontology(Dinosaurs, fuck yeah!) and Astronomy. I was that nerdy kid with the Dinosaur banner in my room and a space shuttle alarm clock on my bed stand.
MisterFred
(525 posts)I have a university affiliation, so I'm fortunate enough I don't have to worry about most paywalls. Not a scientist though: historian. And I'm generally not as alarmist as I come off: I know we're not in the bad 'ole days of DDT. I appreciate your replies in this thread.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)if you were to pick the mild toxicity of DDT over contracting malaria, its kind of a no brainer, if you think about it. Of course, better alternatives should be explored, I do wonder if we would be able to eradicate the species of mosquito that carry such diseases through genetic engineering, seems safer than spraying homes with DDT, though that is still done.
MisterFred
(525 posts)The issue with DDT is its persistence in the environment, not its toxicity, which is why it's unsafe as a pesticide. And there are (or are supposed to be) fairly stringent requirements for when it is used to control mosquitoes, in part to ensure it's not used at the rate that can cause problems over a few decades of application.
As for safer, you used that word if. If we can eradicate a species of mosquito with no side effects, of course it's great. And I think there's been some genetic engineering-related exploration to that end already. But the likelihood of the genetic changes used to change/eradicate one set of mosquitoes seems very likely to make its way into other species/populations. Evaluating what knock-on effects those new genes would have is the hard part. If we can figure that part out is a big if.
Still, given we'll be messing with human genes fairly soon (I see that as inevitable, and probably beneficial), might be good to have a go at some lesser organisms first.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0111629
http://www.europabio.org/do-gm-crops-help-reduce-pesticide-and-herbicide-applications
Do you know what the push for non-GMO sugar means? It means more use of pesticides/herbicides, and more fuel use, which is also bad for the environment.
http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2016/05/as-consumers-shift-to-non-gmo-sugar-farmers-may-be-forced-to-abandon-environmental-and-social-gains/
Similarly, Chipotle's fear mongering only means more product use, and increased super weeds.
http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2015/05/what-does-chipotles-switch-to-non-gmo-ingredients-mean-for-pesticide-use/
Why you want to bring more toxic products is beyond comprehension.
http://www.crediblehulk.org/index.php/2015/06/02/about-those-more-caustic-herbicides-that-glyphosate-helped-replace-by-credible-hulk/
Now, remember, you can bring up Benbrook, but that has been debunked, and he is in the pocket of Big Organic. So, you're really are not doing yourself any favors promoting labels that make no sense. Certainly, a GMO label tells you nothing about the new apples in terms of any pesticide/herbicide use. Same with the new potatoes. Same with the old Papaya. And if you want to eliminate Bt, well then you have to stay away from organic products, and you have to tell farmers that they need to spray, and expose themselves when they don't have to do so with Bt. I could go on and on, but I doubt that you care.
On edit: You actually posted Benbrook one minute before I finished this post. Come on, you have to be kidding. Cherry picking a bad study doesn't mean you're going with science. It means you go with the science that supports your preconceptions, and that's not how it works. Do you really think that debunked nonsense, by a know organic shill, makes all the other evidence go away?
It doesn't.
MisterFred
(525 posts)Yes, I was going to bring up Benbrook. (2012) However, rather than write a scathing reply, I'll simply ask you for the research you claim invalidates his conclusions. I did not find any in a quick look on EBSCO, aside from one comment which would indicate his numbers don't apply in the American context (but nothing about everywhere else in the world).
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)You just responded to the post with those links.
And, yes, organic is a marketing term used by an ever larger industry, and Benbrook is an actual shill for that industry.
And I posted several pieces that address his poor methodology, etc... above.
Cherry picking isn't science.
Oh, and Big Organic is real, and it's not pretty. Here's a great example:
http://skepchick.org/2015/07/john-roulac-anti-gmo-leader-master-manipulator/
MisterFred
(525 posts)You posted news articles about research or blogs. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying I'm not familiar with any peer-reviewed research that "debunks" Benbrook and you haven't posted any.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)You also forgot to realize that the actual researchers who wrote those pieces link to quite a bit. Your decision to run from the real world is your decision, but it's not ok to pretend that Benbrook is anything but a cherry picked oddball.
MisterFred
(525 posts)Keep in mind I'm fairly ignorant here.
Source one: a news organization openly advertising endorsements by George W. Bush, the Wall Street Journal, Steve Forbes, and P.J. O'Rourke.
Yeah, I'm going to take my science news from the guys promoting their connection to George W. Bush and P.J. O'Rourke. Warms my liberal heart.
Source two: A peer-reviewed article. Very useful, thank you. Ironically, praises Benbrook's research and says it is consistent with theirs in the comment section. Yes he's obviously a pariah in the scientific community...
Source 3: Literally a website built by biotech companies to promote their interests. HELLO, BIAS! Why on earth would you pass them off as a neutral, reliable source?
Source 4: This article relies on a broadcast from NPR (seriously) for most of its information. Odd, given the apparently qualifications of the blog owners.
Source 5: Another article from weed freaks, the links here go to NPR, the LA Times, their own twitter feed, the University of Minnesota's self-promotion magazine, and the television station KUNC. I don't need a synthesis of news media for my 'cutting-edge science stuff'.
Source 6: A guy who really likes internet memes and Marvel.
One out of six decent sources. And that one undercuts your main point. Sorry, you just lost all credibility with me.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)You keep pretending you want to discuss these matters. Well, then I'll see you at Food and Farm Discussion Lab and GMO Skepti Forum.
BTW, your criticisms are rather funny considering the only "science" you have to support the anti-GMO cliches you offered initially is by a guy who get paid by organic companies.
And if you can debunk anything about the actual content, science wise, in any of those pieces, then you might have a point. In the meantime, not really.
MisterFred
(525 posts)That doesn't make me right or you wrong. It does mean you've lost the ability to convince me of anything. I have higher standards for where I get my information.
You criticize me for citing a guy paid by organic companies while sending me links to a website actually operated by companies that make money off of GMOs. That's called hypocrisy unless you had no idea that's who created the source you linked to me. If you were ignorant of the provenance of your sources and this is your field of expertise, you've got bigger problems than just hypocrisy. If you can't see that, you're not being honest with yourself.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)You just try to find excuses to ignore the content. That's not how actual discussion works. You are simply doing whatever you can to support your preconceptions. That's not going to help anyone.
MisterFred
(525 posts)As far as I can tell, you're the pot calling the red curtains black. But as noted in another post, if you don't think it's an actual discussion, why waste the time?
MisterFred
(525 posts)The only science research you actually linked was source #2 - which itself claimed its findings were consistent with Benbrooks'. Everything else was just tertiary sources.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)That's why no one is going to spend time talking to you. You won't be honest in discussion.
MisterFred
(525 posts)Did you not read it? Or did you read it and think my arguments were wrong?
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Last edited Thu Jun 9, 2016, 11:09 AM - Edit history (1)
Because the science doesn't support anti-GMO claims.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)MisterFred
(525 posts)You are presuming the reason for being against GMOs as they are currently used has to be being afraid of eating genetically modified organisms. I have no problem with that.
I just don't want to see pesticide use (and pesticide residue in the environment) increase. GMOs are a huge driver for that because (as is unknown by most pro-GMO people) the primary use of genetic modification in crops is to increase their tolerance for pesticides/herbicides to allow for a larger amount of chemicals to be sprayed on fields.
As soon as you show me the science declaring that increased use of pesticides is good for human health and the environment, I'll stop caring about GMOs.
In the meantime, feel free to keep incorrectly assuming what my motivations are.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)refusing to acknowledge proven, indisputable science is another...
I'm talking generally, I'm not referring to any specific topic
lame54
(35,281 posts)Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)If its for ideological reasons, at least admit it, but don't claim there's evidence supporting your position when in reality there isn't.
Oneironaut
(5,491 posts)Don't trust GMOs because research tells you that they may be bad, or you have proof that the studies proving them safe were fraudulent and/or wrong - fine.
Don't trust GMOs because naturalnews said they cause autism, or JoeQuackers95366 said on his blog that "vaccines are evil maaaan!" - totally ridiculous.
I have no problem with skepticism if it is subject to the same rational scrutiny as legitimate research. Instead, most woo-peddlers create a virtual castle to protect their ideas from scrutiny, and have an army of trolls to back them up. Distrusting GMOs is not anti-science if you have actual scientific proof that they're to be distrusted.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Corporate666
(587 posts)Either people believe in the scientific method or they don't.
The great thing about the SM is that it is designed to prove itself (and it's conclusions) wrong. There is no belief or mantra involved. In fact, there are millions of scientists clamoring to make a name for themselves by proving things wrong. It's one of the best ways to succeed in science.
So, saying "I am a person of science, but I don't believe in X", where X is what science tells us is true, means you are - by definition- anti science.
There is no belief involved in evolution. Or GMO's. Or climate change. Or medicine.
Science and belief are like oil and water. They don't mix - at all. You either understand science or you go with 'belief' instead. You can't have it both ways.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)If the "not convinced" is based on evidence, or the lack of it, I'm with you. But if it's based on hysterical nonsense, then no.
Honestly, for the most part, I trust the scientific process enough to go with what the Subject Matter Experts think, unless there is a good reason to do otherwise.
lame54
(35,281 posts)but saying climate change is in Florida
More laws (that we are all forced to follow) are based on conservative anti-science views than liberal anti-science views
Texano78704
(309 posts)That is telling us that climate change is real and GMO's are okay. Yet I'll bet there are plenty here that will argue otherwise.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)Gore1FL
(21,126 posts)They have undeservedly been made into boogeymen.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)And labeling a seed development technology tells you nothing about the food in question.
Your namesake obsessed about evidence. Why don't you?
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)The anti-GMO movement loves to tell the story about Percy Schmeiser, who was sued by Monsanto for deliberately isolating licensed canola from his neighbor and planting his fields with it. Schmeiser wasn't an organic farmer, just a crook who got caught and now is a hero of the anti-science movement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc_v_Schmeiser
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)It would make a fair movie tittle.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)It's time for you to stop promoting conspiracy theories.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)And the suit was all because he wants to utilize a random marketing label.
Do you even read the crap you post from anti-GMO propaganda pages?
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/sep/03/western-australian-organic-farmer-loses-appeal-over-gm-case-cost
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Show me that story from a legit news source. Your last one was debunked by legit news sources, already.
And again, the truth is that the farmer's sued Monsanto. Monsanto hasn't actually sued any such farmers over such cases.
Sheesh.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/monsanto-critics-denied-us-supreme/
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)Since the mid‑1990s, Monsanto indicates that it has filed suit against 145 individual U.S. farmers for patent infringement and/or breach of contract in connection with its genetically engineered seed but has proceeded through trial against only eleven farmers, all of which it won.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Your source was inaccurate about the case, as my link shows. You have done nothing but prove my point here. Nice job. (And no one who posts crap from RT has any right to talk about logic.)
And let's debunk that crap yet again.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top-five-myths-of-genetically-modified-seeds-busted
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Why should a company not uphold its contracts?
None of that has anything to do with the bogus nonsense you posted originally.
You have failed, as you had to know you would. Why do you push such nonsense? What do you have to gain by fomenting fictions?
http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top-five-myths-of-genetically-modified-seeds-busted
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)The2ndWheel
(7,947 posts)We complain about religion, but human rights don't actually exist either. It's just a bunch of stuff written down a while ago that everyone is supposed to follow.
Science is a concept invented by human beings. Applying it to the world can also lead to problems. Take the Green Revolution as an example, since there's discussion about food. Sure, that helped keep more people alive. Great, now there's more people that need more resources, contributing to both the overpopulation issue, as well as the overconsumption issue. Both of which contribute to the climate change issue.
Can we honestly say that climate change is an objective problem? To what? The universe and planet don't care if you live, suffer, or die. We care because it's about us, making it subjective.
Going to the Earth being 10,000 years old. It might be. How do we know? There's no objective year out there somewhere. It's the amount of time it takes the planet to go around the sun. That's completely subjective, and only matters to humans. Maybe it's 10,000 galactic years old. Although, shockingly, 10,000 years ago is about when civilization really got started. Wow, weird how that lines up, give or take a year.
Point is, human beings make up a whole bunch of shit all the time. Language being another example. We're lost in our abstract imaginations.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)And I'm. It even going to try, as it would be an exercise in futility.
The2ndWheel
(7,947 posts)That's a shame. Sort of a cop out too. Am I factually wrong?
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)I'll come back to you if I have the time.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,166 posts)I see people from all over the political spectrum get caught up in it.
Johonny
(20,829 posts)antiscience, it is just that liberals more often have typical anti-science views that dominate society. GMO, astrology, aliens, JFK being killed by Elvis, bigfoot, anti vaxxer etc... are typically non-partisan anti-science views. Meanwhile there are certain clear mythos supported by big business that have transformed into GOP platform such as denying climate change or lead paint before it. I could go on, but the burden of proof is on Tyson here. He needs to show scientific results that say liberal are more, much more likely and are including this in political party platforms or else he's just flapping his lips. He's a scientist, put up or show up Neil because I'm tired of hearing this unproven talking point over and over from him. He's supposed to be a scientist.
hunter
(38,309 posts)...It's that we can simply replace fossil fuels with solar and wind power and carry on business-as-usual with our high energy industrial economy.
The only way to quit fossil fuels is to quit fossil fuels. Solar and wind energy, even nuclear power, are not drop-in alternatives or replacements for fossil fuels. An economy powered by renewable energy looks nothing like the economy we enjoy now.
mackdaddy
(1,523 posts)Science is always open to new information, to new scientific truths. What we know as "fact" can always be re-evaluated, or extended. Dogma has no place in real Science.
Our understanding of matter and energy is under near constant revision. The line between "woo" and science sometimes gets pretty fuzzy. I am not sure most "scientist" have much of a handle on string theory or multidimensional space.
Scientific truths are also very rarely black and white, but are beyond shades of gray to shades of the entire rainbow. Blanket statements like "all Vaccines are safe for everyone" are like saying "peanuts are safe for everyone". I just ate a handful of peanuts, but if about 5% of the population did that, their throat will swell up and they will die! Vaccines can and do have adverse reactions in some people. But not all people, or even most people have the reactions. The risks always need to be evaluated and weighted against the benefits.
Many if not most medicines were developed by exploring the effects of "alternative" medicine plants and chemicals of the past. Some work well, some not so much. That is why we have true scientific studies of their effects. But even these are not always definitive over time. Prilosec and other PPI drugs were safe and effective stomach acid reducers and companies made Billions from them. Except we recently found they cause profound brain and kidney damage. Oops.
Science is always open to new insights and revelations. Religion is not. Many seem to still confuse the two.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)mainly describing stuff that has been shown to not work, and is generally misrepresenting science. It was coined by James Randi for this purpose. A catch-all term to describe things such as psychic phenomenon, homeopathy, quantum "theory" of consciousness and other bullshit.
In addition, no one on the pro-vaccine side has ever said that "all Vaccines are safe for everyone" that's the strawman. We are well aware that they aren't, that's why we are so for mandatory vaccination programs that do not allow non-medical exemptions, or at least I do. Those people who can't take vaccines should be protected as much as practical through herd immunity. Less carriers/vectors, less exposure to disease.
In addition, I would outright reject the idea that gathering plants and animals for medicinal purposes is, in itself, "alternative medicine", indeed, alternative medicine is really just bullshit quackery that attempts to make itself legitimate. How do we know which plants and animals have beneficial medical effects on our bodies? Through science, we are also able to figure out the proper dosages so they don't kill us(dosage makes the poison, after all), and find ways to synthesize them so we don't harvest organisms to extinction. The issue is those practitioners of "alternative medicine" are opposed to scientific examination of their techniques, some go even so far as to say examining the techniques or materials is impossible, misconstruing the observer effect, etc. That makes them magic or miracles, take your pick, but it isn't science and it isn't effective.
Also, I looked it up, there's an association between long term PPI use and kidney damage, however its still too early to tell if its actually the cause. Its worthy of more examination, but the key is that we wouldn't be asking a Reiki healer to do the examining.
GaYellowDawg
(4,446 posts) PatSeg
(47,370 posts)Not everything is black and white AND as you say, "True science is never settled".
Thanks for the sanity 
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)That comment seems more like an excuse to ignore the reality of the current evidence.
It doesn't.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)It's a classic example of how people will develop belief systems that half-heartedly acknowledge something, but only to the extent that they can maintain an excuse to ignore evidence that goes against their preconceived notions.
It's very much what supports the very things NDT criticizes in the OP.
Orrex
(63,199 posts)Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)and demands that if there is evidence, it should be evaluated fairly.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)I'm not saying they don't protect from disease or anything, but some people do appear to have serious side-effects from vaccines. This can't be dismissed.
I don't think it's 100% clear that GMOs are perfectly safe either.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)immune system its exposed to, if that didn't occur, then neither vaccines nor infection based immunity would be effective.
For the GMOs, which commercially available ones are unsafe? How are they unsafe and what makes them unsafe?
Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)you can induce damaging inflammation that can cause problems in some people.
I don't think GMOs cause huge problems, otherwise something would have shown up by now. But there could be smaller low-level toxic effects. There is also the relative safety of the herbicide glyphosate, which is used in conjunction with most GMO crops.
For many GMOs, the normal gene expression pattern is altered, which may cause over-expression of genes that encode for toxic proteins. Not to mention, most GMOs out there introduce a foreign gene into the plant, and some people may develop allergic responses to that.
For GMOs and vaccines, I didn't say they were "unsafe" (depending how you define "safe"
. Science says to keep studying these issues, not just say "science has proven these are safe" and forget about it. I think we need to keep an open mind.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)out real world ones. Hell, one of the first things done to GMOs is testing what proteins are produced, that's part of the reason why we can say that all GMO crops currently available now are safe for human consumption, they don't produce "toxic" proteins. You also have to define "toxic" for example, glyphosate, which you used in your example, is less toxic than caffeine at the doses that humans are exposed to them. That's key, the dose makes the poison, you can die from over-consumption of water, and the only substance we know about that's potentially less toxic is THC, but that's controversial.
We are also well aware of potential side effects of vaccines, hence the need for vaccination programs to immunize as much of the population as is feasible so that those who can't take the vaccines, due to being immunocompromised, having severe allergic reactions, etc. are protected through herd immunity.
Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)I assume you mean that at the low dose humans are exposed to glyphosate it is less toxic than the high doses of caffeine, that we take in? Do you have a citation for that?
My original point about vaccines was not that they shouldn't be used, but we should continue to study their safety and develop better ones where possible.
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)But lots of people claim they are not anti-science...until they are.
And to some people reasonable doubt means they are not convinced.
They would better off admitting that there is no scientific proof these products cause harm, but they are concerned that as science improves harmful effects could be discovered. That is not irrational.
But since we can easily prove that many of these products have saved and improved millions of lives we would be crazy not use them on some sneaking suspicion that we will discover a harmful effect in the future.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)than the disease they protect from. E.g. botulism or rabies.
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs270/en/
"A vaccine against botulism exists but it is rarely used as its effectiveness has not been fully evaluated and it has demonstrated negative side effects."
http://www.cdc.gov/rabies/specific_groups/doctors/adverse_reaction.html
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)on everyone at all times, that's stupid. They need to be tested for effectiveness, and a cost-benefit analysis should be done, as was apparently done on the examples you give.
So what's the problem? We aren't talking about people who have a problem with the rabies vaccine, but people who think vaccines in general cause autism(they don't), or that the HPV vaccine causes infertility, promiscuity or fainting(it doesn't), or that Measles is apparently only as bad as the common cold, so the vaccine is too risky(which is definitely not true), etc.
PufPuf23
(8,764 posts)Examples include the once thought miracle chemicals DDT and 245T.
Another negative example is radium. The scientists (Madame Curie) recognized the dangers and protected themselves accordingly but workers who painted radium for luminous watch dials and other instrument faces grew ill because the radioactive radium collected in workers bodies as the human body does not differentiate between calcium and radium.
Applied science is prone to politics and agendas.
Science is still the best arbitrator.
Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)She used protection too late?
PufPuf23
(8,764 posts)Radium discovered in 1890s by Madame Curie.
Lawsuit from watch factory in 1920s and subsequently workers used protective gear when applying radium base luminous paint.
Curie dies 1930s.
Radium based luminous paint discontinued by 1950s.
Orrex
(63,199 posts)Fortunately, there is absolutely no evidence that vaccines or GMOs are unsafe.
Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)some vaccines are indeed unsafe, and are not used as a result.
Orrex
(63,199 posts)I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that you were complaining but unsafe vaccines and GMOs that are used despite being unsafe (yet somehow "downlplayed" by science). If they were found to be unsafe and then discontinued, then that's hardly an example of science downplaying their danger--quite the opposite.
Which vaccines do you have in mind as unsafe, by the day?
And how were they determined to be unsafe? Through astrology? Through acupuncture? Through homeopathy?
Or through science?
Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)I am using the definition of "safe" meaning there are perfectly harmless and never cause problems or adverse side-effects.
You seem to be blinded by the popular idea that vaccines are safe and have no side effects. This is simply not true.
Orrex
(63,199 posts)I don't care to be lectured to about the nature of science from a science-illiterate, whether they be on the left or the right.
Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)In other words, they do have some adverse effects, right?
"And it's clear that you have no idea what science is or what is meant by the term safe.
I don't care to be lectured to about the nature of science from a science-illiterate, whether they be on the left or the right."
You couldn't be more wrong about me. I can guarantee I know far more about vaccines and scientific research than you do. Unless it's your job, like mine is.
Orrex
(63,199 posts)So your objection is silly.
I hope that your boss doesn't learn of your shocking ignorance on the subject, or you'll find yourself sitting on the curb before your lunch break.
Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)What is your definition of safe then?
"what do you do in your job that's "safe meaning there are perfectly harmless and never cause problems or adverse side-effects?""
I never said that was my job, it's a silly question.
I'm not going to lose my job as I am a tenured professor of Immunology.
Orrex
(63,199 posts)How can you have achieved tenure as a professor of immunology while clinging to a bullshit definition of "safe?" Do you maintain that level of "safety" in your labs? What other bizarre notions are you inflicting on your students?
Since I'm sure that your vast knowledge gives you exhaustive familiarity with the leading studies in your field, please provide a list of studies that define "safe" as "perfectly harmless and never cause problems or adverse side-effects."
Go ahead, I'll wait. I'm sure that this is an easy task for an expert in the field.
I'm glad that I never suffered through one of your courses. You'd likely have flunked me for calling out your nonsense.
Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)What is your definition?
Obviously "safe" is relative. Different regulatory agencies have different definitions of safe and it depends on what kind of item you are talking about.
Orrex
(63,199 posts)Last edited Thu Jun 9, 2016, 04:49 PM - Edit history (1)
I don't believe that you maintain that requirement for anything else in the universe, so I see no reason to accept that bogus standard here.
As you note, "safety" is indeed a relative term, and it depends on many factors. For instance:
Is the proposed treatment safer than infection by the disease prevented by that treatment?
For modern vaccines, the answer is a resounding and unequivocal yes.
Does the probability of the treatment causing lethal or permanent side effects exceed the probability of lethal or permanent effects of the disease prevented by that treatment?
For modern vaccines, the answer is a resounding and unequivocal no.
Does the proposed treatment have a well-established record of safety after (in many cases) millions of successful uses without serious demonstrable complication?
For modern vaccines, the answer is a resounding and unequivocal yes. Even the HPV vaccine, in use only a few short years, shows a phenomenally good safety record.
Does anything in the history of the universe meet the proposed safety standard requiring that it is "perfectly harmless and never cause problems or adverse side-effects?"
The answer is a resounding and unequivocal "obviously not."
On balance, I would say that vaccines meet any reasonable safety requirement, certainly on par with (or greatly exceeding) any other non-topical medical treatment. And here are two additional bonus questions asked and answered:
Is there a legitimate reason to hold vaccines to this arbitrary, preposterous and unattainable standard?
The answer is a resounding and unequivocal "obviously not."
Does the demand that vaccines meet this arbitrary, preposterous and unattainable standard suggest that the person is an anti-vaxer who doesn't actually understand science despite dubious claims to the contrary?
The answer is a resounding and unequivocal "yes."
Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)"Does anything in the history of the universe meet the proposed safety standard requiring that it is "perfectly harmless and never cause problems or adverse side-effects?" "
I assume you are referring to medical treatments, and kind of a silly, hyperbolic phrasing there.
"Does the demand that vaccines meet this arbitrary, preposterous and unattainable standard suggest that the person is an anti-vaxer who doesn't actually understand science despite dubious claims to the contrary?"
And you clearly do not understand my position, and are leaping to the ridiculous polar opposite of the anti-vax position.
Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)some vaccines are unsafe.
Not all vaccines are the same.
Orrex
(63,199 posts)And nothing in the entire history or future of the universe would qualify as "safe" under your absurd definition.
Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)and I was wondering how you define safe. And I still wonder what your definition is.
Orrex
(63,199 posts)And HERE's is my more than sufficient answer to your foolish question.
I frankly doubt that you're a tenured professor of immunology, because I hate the thought that an accredited university would pay money for someone with such a foolish notion of science.
Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)to be clear, I am not against vaccines.
But also I think you have granted my point that vaccines can cause side-effects in some people.
From the beginning, I was merely making the point that science says we should continue to study the side-effects of vaccines, and of course any new vaccine needs to be evaluated for safety.
There is a legitimate academic hypothesis that vaccines pre-dispose to allergic immune responses by inducing a type of T cell response that also promote allergies. Because the incidence of allergies and asthma has soared in recent decades. There are of course other hypotheses, such as the hygiene hypothesis, for the increase in allergies and asthma, but I don't think at the current time, we can rule out a role for vaccination.
The thing that bothers me, as an academic, is we have this ridiculous vaccine debate in this country, where you either have to believe vaccines are the best thing ever, or you are a dangerous anti-vaxxer. And you can never question the safety of vaccines! Witness this thread. But the truth is much more nuanced.
Yes, I can understand why the public health community wants to promote the idea that vaccines never cause any problems, because they want everyone to get them and to induce herd immunity, etc. But there is a propaganda aspect to it that still bothers me.
"I frankly doubt that you're a tenured professor of immunology, because I hate the thought that an accredited university would pay money for someone with such a foolish notion of science."
I think it's *you* who doesn't understand science.
GaYellowDawg
(4,446 posts)The evidence has been evaluated fairly. Vaccines are safe. The problem is, even after a fair evaluation, people want to hang onto B.S.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)Checking for all those horrors that people were screaming about.
There is no evidence that vaccines cause autism, and the evidence indicates that you're much better with vaccines than without.
There is no evidence that GMOs are harmful either.
modestybl
(458 posts)The GMO debate is not the anti-vaccine equivalent. GE has tremendous potential, but 99.99% of the $$ is NOT going into research for new diseases or breakthru therapies. It's how Big Agra gets to own all the food. We have had NO independently funded research on the concerns of non-industry geneticists regarding new toxic proteins, gene instability, new allergens, environmental contamination. Well, that last we DO have... new generations of super-weeds and super-pests, ourselves and our biosphere being the laboratory, but the experiment is being run by the lawyers as a test of their liability protection legal constructs.
Those who rightly questioned the oil industry scientists who still vigorously push the climate change denying arguments, seem to unquestioningly embrace the industry-backed scientists on widespread and reckless use of GMO farming... with the utterly predictable consequences of superweeds and superpests (wow! they discovered evolution!).
On another topic, the science is more on the side of a vegan diet than intrusive conventional medical procedures for heart disease and many cancers. But that doesn't make anyone rich.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)As far as application of Genetic Engineering, uhm, is it fair to criticize agricultural companies for trying to increase yields and profitability by using such technology? Yes, it can be used in medicine, but isn't that for medical research organizations, companies and universities to research. Its fair to criticize HOW said technology is used, but the fact that its used at all doesn't seem like a fair criticism.
In addition, there is independently funded research into the safety of GMOs, don't know why you stated such a blatant falsehood.
You then make a lot of claims, so can you back them up:
New toxic proteins? Can you name some?
Gene Instability? What does this even mean?
New Allergens? Name some.
You then go on a tangent about superweeds and superpests, which isn't even related to GMO, but rather industrial farming practices. I would say that yes, overuse of pesticides leads to resistance to those pesticides in farming, this hold true regardless of whether the crop is GMO or not. That's why we need to find new pesticides and other effective techniques that are just as safe as the ones used, but are more effective in the future. Similar to antibiotic resistance in bacteria, its an arms race.
Now we see the ideology behind this post, and let me just say, a vegan diet isn't a cure for a heart attack, it might be a preventative, but it isn't a cure, neither is it a cure for cancer, also you need evidence for these assertions. In addition, are there doctors out there that actually prefer to have us go through bypass surgeries rather than cut down on the salt and fat? Or to exercise more, etc. Where does this myth come from? Hell, it took my fiancee a year and two referrals to get hip surgery, her orthopedic tried everything under the sun, from physical therapy to steroid shots, to avoid the surgery. Even the orthopedic surgeon was skeptical, and told her, in blunt terms, the risks, and the possibility that the surgery wouldn't work at all.
After he shaved her ball joint, a couple of bone spurs on her hip bone and sewed her cartilage back together, she feels much better now, but here's the thing, I'm not saying her doctors were wrong, they weren't, but they rightly wanted to avoid the risk of surgery IF it can be avoided. In this case, it most likely will have paid off, we will know long term, she's still in recovery of sorts, surgery was in January.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)they will recommend medicine, and other, more invasive techniques when they deem it necessary.
Who knows, maybe these people had unethical doctors, but I know of no GP or specialist that my fiancee sees that doesn't recommend lifestyle changes first.
Classic example, and if she reads this, she might kick my ass, but her Neurologist, who she sees for migraines, last time we visited, she was getting them a little worse, and you know what he said? Cut down on the Mountain Dew, it will reduce the frequency of the migraines. He still prescribes her the rescue injections of sumatriptan, etc. but he won't change anything unless she continues with her lifestyle changes. He tells her to exercise and reduce caffeine intake, things like that. Same goes for every doctor she or I have seen, they will recommend lifestyle changes before they go to the pills.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Neither negates the need for the other.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)Science is a method, not a belief system. It is not about getting everybody else to think what you think.
yellowcanine
(35,699 posts)The details of how it occurred are not of course.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)yellowcanine
(35,699 posts)to talk about "teaching the controversy" (about evolution) in schools and other such nonsense.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)You don't have to agree with them to eschew the personal attacks. If we want to pretend to the title of Mr. Reason and Logic, we need to walk the walk, not be calling the less well-informed names out of frustration.
You aren't going to convince believers about their faith anyway. Belief is not changed by talk.
yellowcanine
(35,699 posts)As in, the earth and other planets orbit the sun, evolution happened, gravity exists, etc.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)support. In fact, there are quite a few beliefs that, when challenged by evidence, actually become more entrenched in the believer.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)Gore1FL
(21,126 posts)We don't know everything there is to know about Gravity.
Newton gave us a nice chunk. Einstein discovered more.
We went to the Moon with Newton. We made GPS work with Einstein.
What we know about gravity, however, is settled and not disproved. Hence the theory stands. It's as settled as we are going to get unless: 1> we learn even more. 2> someone manages to disprove Newton and Einstein.
That doesn't make gravity a belief.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)A well supported one to be sure, accurate to as accurate as we can see or as accurate as we can infer in some cases, but never the real substance of reality. That we experience directly, and we wander around in the images we create of it, hopefully gracefully.
Any good mathematical theory will have many equivalent forms, isomorphisms, homomorphism, models, or whatever mathematical term is used in the context. And nature is full of ad hoc arrangements, arbitrary numbers, etc. that we don't understand, some very precise.
The point of empirical methods, that they work better, is that they avoid getting wrapped up in the bullshit in your head, it keeps experience first.
And all the interesting stuff is out there in the "we don't know yet" areas, so you want to be looking in that direction, not grazing on established theory all the time.
So what I oppose is this dogmatic theory-first approach. Guys like Maxwell don't get enough credit, guys like Einstein get too much. We love our theories too much.
And that is without even getting into how statistical methods are used.
Gore1FL
(21,126 posts)Theory is a tested hypothesis that hasn't been disproved.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)You yourself just admitted they are one and the same but for human action and belief. We select hypotheses according to what we think plausible now, and test them according to the methods we have availiable, and if they pan out, we adopt them as the current model or whatever, but that doesn't make them complete or unique or the best there is, what they are is the best we know of, have found so far. Sometimes pretty damn good to be sure.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)In the scientific method, a hypothesis is an educated guess about an explanation for a set of observations. A hypothesis may be proven false through experimentation. A scientific theory is a hypothesis that has been repeatedly tested and not disproven.
Gore1FL
(21,126 posts)bemildred
(90,061 posts)The first one repeats the definition at me, the other one, who was doing OK up to that point, gives me a video.
Gore1FL
(21,126 posts)Wallow in ignorance. It is your choice.
Hekate
(90,627 posts) 
Il_Coniglietto
(373 posts)You can just see Neil thinking, "Is it worth it? Is it worth it to get into this?"
You can't pick and choose what aspects of science (which is simply, as has been pointed out, a method of observing and measuring the universe around us) you like and don't like. In the end, the only thing that matters is the evidence. As humans, we operate on the best-available evidence. If new data come along, then they are put through rigorous testing over a long period of time to see if they hold up. If they do, awesome. If they don't, you've still learned something, so also awesome. That's science.
All the other fluff is just that.
ecstatic
(32,679 posts)and other corporations that we're told to blindly trust in their delivery of said science.
I agree with Neil's point, but he should also acknowledge that it's not so much a rejection of science as it is a rejection of blind trust in for-profit corporations.
qdouble
(891 posts)people are less likely to accept anything that doesn't agree with their worldview or other principles.
Not agreeing with every scientific study isn't necessarily the same as being anti-science though, as there are often questionable studies released that ultimately produce results that are later falsified. Not to mention that the media often wrongly reports the results and most laymen don't read the actual studies themselves...and often, even if they did read it, it's no guarantee that they'd understand.
Believing something solely because someone says "this is what scientists agree on" is basically accepting an argument from authority, which logic tells us, does not mean the claim is necessarily true.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)particularly on subjects that most people aren't experts in.
This is another issue that is rarely brought up, but many ideologies seem to relish in being ignorant, as in they will state some of the most factually wrong information, any attempt to correct it is met with more denialism.
qdouble
(891 posts)Believing something simply because one person or a whole bunch of people from an authoritative position say it must be so without analyzing it yourself is still an argument from authority. The truth is the truth, not the resultant of a vote or consensus.
Beyond there, there is evidence that good percentage of published research produces results that aren't reproducible in follow up studies. Negative research is also grossly underfunded and under-published. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/
There is a difference between being willfully ignorant and questioning studies that don't past the smell test or which you haven't been provided adequate and convincing enough evidence to believe in.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)in many journals.
qdouble
(891 posts)as well as people who blindly follow them. If there's an area of science of which I don't know anything about, I'll be inclined to agree with the scientific consensus. However, if I disagree with a study or scientific consensus because I find the evidence or methodology used to arrive upon the result unconvincing, it doesn't mean that I'm genuinely anti-science. To label anyone who disagrees with scientific consensus anti-science is to hint at scientific consensus being infallible, which is a provably false assumption.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)whether your criticism devolves to the point of conspiracy theory territory. Which is something that seems endemic in the Anti-Vax, Creationist, Anti-GMO, and anti-conventional medicine movements.
For example, the March Against Monsanto is just rife with pretty much every conspiracy theory you can imagine, from chemtrails to HIV denialism, it really is something to behold.
qdouble
(891 posts)conspiracy theory nonsense. However, there was a recent study in which it claimed that marijuana effected a person's life achievements worse than alcohol. I didn't buy into it because I questioned whether you could fully asses that with one being illegal and other being legal. The study itself admitted the weakness, but it didn't stop new sites and the anti-drug crowd from running with it. There is also decent ground to question string theory and many abiogenesis theories.
This is of course different than questioning GMO's solely because you think it's a corporate conspiracy and dismissing all research that shows it as being safe.
My point is that we shouldn't automatically declare anyone who questions a scientific study or consensus as being necessarily anti-science.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)there are no "definitive" studies, not one study can absolutely prove or disprove any one thing. Its a process of many different studies, many different people and a lot of time, before a consensus can be reached. Sometimes the evidence becomes so overwhelming that when a person finally draws the information together it becomes obvious, but debate can still rage within that field. I'm thinking of two such instances, "On the Origin of Species" and Einstein's theories on relativity. Neither came from either man from whole cloth, they were the culmination of decades of work from others and themselves.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(101,295 posts)The big issues - evolution, climate change - where there's an overwhelming amount of science, the right have a huge inclination to deny the facts, in the face of reason.
For vaccines, a few left wing people deny the facts, but it's not an accepted tenet of a political party, like climate change denial is for the Republicans, or part of their religious creed, like it is for right wing Christians (Christians in denominations that have significant numbers on the left, like Catholics or Episcopalians, have far less belief in creationism - it really is a political thing inside religion). And for GMOs, it's more like extreme scepticism - people saying "it might be dangerous, so let's not do it", when it's a fairly new situation, and so far, there's no evidence that GMOs are a health or environmental problem. But because it's new, there isn't the weight of science that vaccines, climate change and evolution have.
Maher is right on this - although he is one of the few kooks about vaccines.
And here are some numbers on GMOs - very little difference in concern between sides:
http://ap-gfkpoll.com/featured/ap-gfk-poll-an-appetite-for-labeling-genetically-modified-foods
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)There's over 600 studies in the GENetic Engineering Risk Atlas (GENERA). They have been around well over 30 years. Nobody is dying. Nobody is getting sick.
GoneOffShore
(17,339 posts)
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)There is a big difference between an herbal remedy which might be effective for some ailments that nevertheless is surpressed for political or corporate $$$ reasons (like cannabis) and, say, homeopathy, which is bullshit.
The "war on drugs" is a perfect example of how our policy decisionmaking has NOT been based upon "good science".
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Cannabis isn't alternative medicine. It has proven efficacy for a number of conditions. Alternative medicine is shit like homeopathy, energy healing, and Christian faith healing.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)But I think a lot of people put herbal remedies which may not be picked up in a prescription at Walgreens under the heading "Alternative Medicine".
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Big box pharmacies jumped on the bandwagon because alternative medicine is a multi-billion dollar business and they figured it wasn't fair that the market was restricted to witch doctors and snake oil salesmen.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)is that a lot of people- for reasons you describe, also because it has that weird thing of being grandfathered in somehow with the FDA (I forgot the backstory)- confuse homeopathy with, again, herbal remedies.
Now, herbal remedies- as you are undoubtedly aware- may or may not work or be effective in different situations, but there is a scientific pathway by which (obviously, see penicillin mold or willow bark) a herb, say, can have a physiological effect.
Homeopathy is just water, so unless you're dehydrated it's not going to cure anything.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)That's why I was careful to say efficacy beyond the placebo effect. Many modern medicines are produced from the extracts of botanical ingredients and other synthetic compounds which are engineered to recreate botanical ingredients, so there's no question some herbs do work. However, the vast majority of "herbal remedies" are simply quackery.
When I visited China I took a tour of an Eastern medicine "pharmacy". It was pretty interesting in that they had more witches brew type stuff than you could shake a stick at, most of it was wrapped up in very attractive packaging designed to mimic what you might find in a modern pharmacy and sold behind glass counters by people wearing white coats. So there's a lot invested in making people think the stuff works, and I suppose you can say the same thing at some level for modern medicine.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Socal31
(2,484 posts)
bhikkhu
(10,715 posts)A city down the road from me is one of the "liberal capitals" of my state. Its a wonderful and lively place to visit, as my own small city is depressingly backward and right wing sometimes, but one aspect of the free-thinking open mindedness is definitely woo - lots of crystal shops, metaphysical healers, anti-vaxxers and so forth. With the good comes the questionable.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)It's not alternative if it's been shown to be effective by actual science.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)They don't hold any actual sway on nutrition. Most herbs do nothing. MM is useful for some things, but calling something that is shown to work alt med is simply bogus.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)If it did, we would just call it medicine.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)
progressoid
(49,967 posts)And some of the more ironic posts defending their anti-science views. 
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)I can only hope for the sake of progressive action, that this means DUers, overall, are taking science more seriously.
progressoid
(49,967 posts)But I don't have any data to back up that statement!
< more irony >
HuckleB
(35,773 posts) cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)You know those last few centuries when the planets were firming up.
ismnotwasm
(41,975 posts)
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)Science denial combined with conspiracy theories about Monsanto is just sad to see from otherwise intelligent people.
fishwax
(29,149 posts)Neil is right too, of course, that anti-science bullshit is anti-science bullshit.
It's hard to tell from the summary exactly what NDT said, and whether he actually claimed that liberals are more likely to oppose vaccines and GMOs. Since I don't have his exact words, I won't judge his comments, but I will say this: there isn't much real or clear evidence that democrats/liberals are more likely to oppose vaccines or GMOs than are republicans/conservatives. Most of the polls and surveys that I've seen (including the one summarized here: http://www.realclearscience.com/journal_club/2015/07/01/where_conservatives__liberals_stand_on_science.html) show about equal support among democrats and republicans for the anti-vaccine and anti-GMO lines.
progressoid
(49,967 posts)fishwax
(29,149 posts)(I was traveling when I first saw/responded to this thread, and so lost track of it. Then today I saw it pop back up to the front page again, so figured I'd respond.)
He does claim that anti-GMO positions are mostly from the left, but there's not really strong evidence to support that.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)fishwax
(29,149 posts)I did find it interesting, but the relevance to this particular discussion wasn't clear
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Here's the correct link.
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/liberal-vs-conservative-antiscience/
fishwax
(29,149 posts)I intended a gentle and tongue-in-cheek tone. Perhaps I didn't properly calibrate it.
When I came into the conversation initially I was traveling, and never had the chance to get back to it after the responses. Then today, for some reason, the post was kicked back to the front page of GD
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Liberals are generally pro-science.
Okay,...there's the "waving crystals over the pregnant woman's belly to read the fate of the child" crowd but at least they know where to get good weed.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Novella takes a good look at the picture.
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/liberal-vs-conservative-antiscience/
Bucky
(53,986 posts)I wonder if there's an agreement that guests can't touch that subject, or if Tyson was just pulling his punches to maintain the forum
timdog44
(1,388 posts)that coming up on June 16 when the uncivil Hillary posters and the uncivil Bernie posters can not do so anymore, that we have found something else to whine and cry about. This just goes to show that full of shit people are full of shit about anything.
I always of the mind and taught that there are no absolutes in science. It seems that so many here want to treat science as a religion. And it is possible that NDT can be wrong. OMG, did I just say that?! Sacrilege.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)I see people make that accusation when they don't want to acknowledge the scientific evidence before them, however.
timdog44
(1,388 posts)And that is OK
Lets put the science back into progressive politics. Agreed as long as it is not corporate sponsored science.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)You have found a way to ignore whatever you want to ignore. That's very convenient.
The covers the general topic of the OP, quite well.
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/liberal-vs-conservative-antiscience/
This covers the more specific issue.
http://fafdl.org/gmobb/about-those-industry-funded-gmo-studies/
timdog44
(1,388 posts)to accept the things that I believe to be true. I am anti GMO for so many reasons that I have no need to expound on as I am sure you have an argument to all of them. I think that GMO should be labeled so that a choice can be made by those who wish to eat nonGMO foods to the extent that they can. I believe there is a big difference in the way the DNA has been manipulated in GMO crops from the way standard hybridization happens, and even then some of that is not good. The argument about poor little ole Monsanto vs big oil is not relevant. It is very easy to see the effects of big oil and its effects on the environment. The GMO effects are not just on the intake of the food but the dictates of farming practices which are enormous.
As far as vaccinations, I do not believe that I should be required to be vaccinated against my will. An example is the requirement for employment, and I am sure you can argue that also. But those requirements have been instituted after people are in professions prior to vaccine demands. For example, in the hospital setting. Employees are required or fired for taking or not taking vaccinations. But what about all the people who come and go in the hospital? What good does it do? Are we going to vaccinate visitors and patients prior to admission?
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)... was simply of matter of a misread reflection.
You chose to pick one piece from the second link and attack it, while ignoring everything else, and ignoring the context that piece shows about the ludicrous nature of anti-GMO nonsense, because it's clear that's all you have to hang your hat upon. Somehow, you don't see that as evidence that you can't really support your stance.
I'm just going to note that you really don't have any desire to understand either issue. You have just made that very clear.
timdog44
(1,388 posts)it very clear that you are one of the typical egotistical types who frequent this place. Pseudo intellectual.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Whatever.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)that pretty much sums up the problem.
lupinella
(365 posts)"Science is real".
My workplace has a lot of woo-fans, & I can tell you 1 completely non-scientific fact - the word 'homeopathy' causes me to have the same reaction as the word 'religion': headache, muscle tension & vague dyspepsia.
While anti-scientific belief is not nearly as pervasive on the left as on the right, we shouldn't ignore its existence. Irrationality comes in many guises from the seemingly harmless (crystal-massage) to the obviously horrific (FGM). It all starts with a leap of faith taking the place of scientific steps. They are not comparable in their societal effect, but hearing parents say they don't believe in medicine is a scary thing, whether it stems from Christian Science or the anti-vax conspiracy theories. Yes, we don't know everything, & scientific knowledge grows, sometimes in ways that overturn long-held theories, but it does so in a way that is provable & repeatable.
*looks at above paragraph*
Which is apparently something I've needed to say for a while.
Love Prof. Tyson!
Throd
(7,208 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Certainly, future sociology researchers will have a field day assessing the anti-vaccine and anti-GMO crusades.
Oneironaut
(5,491 posts)Historical science was also much better than pop culture portrays it. People have known the world is round and orbits the sun for thousands of years. The earth's circumference was calculated with surprising accuracy over a thousand or so years ago as well.
Secondly, because some things were not known a thousand years ago doesn't mean that any ridiculous idea is valid. It's vastly different to say that what we known about quantum physics will be different in 2216 vs disputing the simple fact that gravity exists, for example.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)"...
Regardless of whether or not there are statistical differences between Republicans and Democrats in terms of their acceptance or rejection of the scientific consensus, I don’t think this is a terribly important question. Most often it is a diversion, an argument over what is, at most, a small effect.
The far far bigger effect is ideology itself. People tend to reject science when it appears to conflict with their ideology, regardless of what that ideology is. We need to confront this fact, rather than argue endlessly about the presence of a possible asymmetry between left and right.
Even if we acknowledge there is an asymmetry, there are so many possible causes it would be extremely difficult to tease them apart, and I don’t think we have even begun to do so. Is it inherent to the ideology, is it the association with religion, is it temperament, or the effects of the current political climate? Perhaps pro-industry ideology is just much better funded than anti-industry ideology.
Let’s not get distracted from the giant issue – ideology trumping science. We need to shift toward greater respect for science, and greater awareness of how ideology motivates science denial, across the political spectrum."
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Gratifying to know that there's always someone somewhere willing to tell someone else they're full of shit. The human condition is odd that way...
sendero
(28,552 posts)The "science" that has unleashed a dozen or so deadly pharmaceuticals to the market over the last couple decades?
The fact is I believe in science. I do NOT believe in "science" that is bought at paid for by someone with a vested interest in the outcome because that "science" always seems to come up with the desired answer.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)
Quantess
(27,630 posts)Copper bracelets? Holy water? Healing Prayers? RW faves.
Liberals like medicinal marijuana, but at least, science is backing that!
NNadir
(33,512 posts)I've seen some real whoppers here, anti-GMO, anti-vaccine, anti-Nuke.
It's worse at Kos, I think.
I was amused when one of the prominent scientists they were always worshiping over there at Kos for his stance on climate change wrote a major scientific paper in a major environmental journal that disagreed with the official Kos line, and sort of fell off the radar screen and became a non-person.
Skinner, to his credit, does not speak on subjects he knows nothing about, but the management at Kos sure does.
We have a pretty nice science group here and, in general, the scientific talk is pretty good.
Despite the episodes of anti-science here by members, their anti-science views are not officially supported and, if one is not tired of doing so, evocations of scientific nonsense can be confronted here without penalty.
still_one
(92,116 posts)
LWolf
(46,179 posts)Science is, or should not be, a god nor a religion. It's a method. It's a tool.
And like all tools, it can be used for good, and it can be used for ill.
From my pov, I see that some people treat science like a devil, because it conflicts with their belief system.
Some people treat science like a belief system instead of a tool, giving "science" more power than proper, and taking human choice, human action, out of the equation. Science, not human intellect nor character nor values, will "save" us. Every problem will be solved, not by people, but by science.
Some people acknowledge the power of science while still recognizing it's the use of science in human hands that determines its value, and its positive and negative effects.
I could be wrong, of course, but I've always seen that first "devil" group as coming mostly from the right-wing, the conservatives, and especially the christians. I've seen the other two groups as coming mostly from the center and the left.
