Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: U.S. GMO food labeling bill passes Senate [View all]longship
(40,416 posts)I am a firm supporter of methodological naturalism. That will not likely change. But my beliefs in what is true about nature is malleable, subject to evidence and prior probabilities based on consistency with known basic science. The basic science is also subject to revision, albeit with a rather higher bar to jump over.
There are two good examples, a century ago, of the latter, relativity and quantum field theories. By then, the basic science had developed sufficient problems that it was ripe for change.
We may be on the verge of another such change if something interesting is found at the LHC. And dark energy has certainly upset an apple cart or two. But I have not seen anything new on the genetic modification front other than biased and flawed research by ideological sources, not a good sign as these things go. Hell! The retracted Seralini rat study -- yup! glyphosate again -- was not only fraudulent, it was condemned as unethical in its treatment of the animals. Yet one still sees it cited here. And Seralini himself still stands by it even though it has been thoroughly discredited. I've heard that he now apparently publishes in pay-to-play non-peer reviewed vanity journals hosted in Asia.
If one wants to convince, one has to do better.
Science is tough. One does not get away with gaming the system for long.
My best to you.