AN ASSAULT ON SCIENCE

"Science" is the new religion. It's like sectarian and denominational branches of the church. Everybody has god on their side, they all quote selectively from scriptural passages which "prove" that their narrow interpretation is absolutely correct, and nobody really knows what they're talking about. For about 90% of the population, their approach to science is faith-based.

As popularly used, the term "science," is about as well defined as "god" and is just as omnipotent, so long as it is "properly" understood to support the position I want to take. The modern approach to using and "understanding" science does not involve critical thinking. It involves adherence to dogma and is a tool for sophism.

Science doesn't have an ideology. I think any ideology will run afoul of good science somewhere... ideology is based on narrative rather than facts. Science is an objective search for things that are testable. In good science, measured facts are important. Meaning and ideology are not important.

It is a myth that only one side of our ideologically divided society uses psuedo-science. That just isn't true, there are countless cases where traditionally liberal causes, from GMOs, recycling and organic food are shown to pushing alleged "facts" that are either not supported by science, or at times contradict science.

There are two ways to use science...

1. You can use science to question your own beliefs and see where your own ideological narrative is off. In this way you will learn, become a better person and better reach your own goals.

2. Or, you can use science to attack the beliefs of others. In this way you will cherry-pick facts that support your ideology and ignore the scientific evidence contrary to your position.

The problem with #2 is that it never lets you change your own ideas (or theirs for that matter).

I am glad I picked the correct issue to use as an example.

YOUVE MISSED THE POINT ENTIRELY
1 YES evolution is very strongly evidenced.(Id call it a fact)
2 Evolution theory provides for changes at the genetic level that can either be "drifted" or be "Selected" into new and novel physiological appurtenances available to the species

3 By the same token, the very scientists that accept evolution seem to DENY that GMOS will not hqve similr effects . (This is even more surprising to me since most trqnsgenes are from species UNRELATED to the host).

4SO, evolution can occur in nature but WILL NOT OCCUR with GMOs??

Im sorry, e need to develop generational evidence.

That's an interesting 180 that you cannot sidestep.





Sez you.
Vaccine deniers are generally not the same as GMOS cautionary scientists


Remember-for years SMOKING WAS A HEALTHY HABIT and scientific research , sponsored by tobacco companies, was also published like a series of choirs in scientific publications including Journals of Medicine.

If you go back to my early posts on this subject, I was ALL IN as one who was gonna try GMO trqngenes to promote growth nd thriftyness of our aheep. After severaal years of using GMO seed, I was bitten by a huge unqvoidable fqct. MY FUCKIN FIELDS , UPON WHICH I WAS USING GMO SEEDS, were producing all kinds of weird results including resistqnt weeds, susceptible trees and "short stack" alfalfas that helped succor "super sized" leaf hoppers. (That took all of about 10 to 12 years).
You see all this **** going on with neonicitanoids?(thats non GM's but has set a Genetic disaater to going. That lin of chemicals was bandwagoned as "totally safe"twenty years ago, now we may lose all our honeybees if we cant insert genes into them to increase their resistance or bring in some species that are naturaqlly resistand (DUE TO THEIR OWN EVOLUTIONARY PATH).

I am a much more cautious client of my seed companies (NO MORE ROUNDUP READY **** FOR ME)


The problem with the internet is that everyone becomes an expert even though they have not one jot of experience. Sorry but your quoting "tobacco company" literature. The present bandwagoning for GMOs is unreal, weve seemingly gone from cautious introduction of transgenics to sweeping determinations of universal safety in just a few short years since the late 90's

WOW .

Hmmm, were have I seen that before, eh, Max? Some thread around this here joint, it seems.

I wasn't attacking anyone. I was defending Albert Einstein (although I suppose this is a matter of perspective, isn't it).

Everything I said on that thread was a matter of testable and objective facts... in fact I kept referring to experiments and encouraging you to do the same.

I am not saying anything here that I didn't say on the other thread too.

Farmerman,

Consider the AAAS Statement on Climate Change. http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/migrate/uploads/aaas_climate_statement.pdf

Then consider the AAAS Statement on GMOs. http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/AAAS_GM_statement.pdf

Both of these issues that concern big business. Both of these issues now have scientific consensus.

You accept the scientific consensus on one issue but not the other. That is my point.

Heh.

Referring to experiments which you don't understand to "prove" the wild-ass assertions that you made with no reasonable basis, ya mean? Refusing to acknowledge "experiments" which undermine and disprove your claims? Showing no interest in discussing, debating, or even understanding the subject matter? Quoting irrelevant scripture which you don't understand as conclusive "proof?"

Why not address yourself to the issues raised and the questions asked, I wonder?

I celebrate my skepticism. Youve missed the entire point about evolution .
Im a member of AAAS and we still have reports ofexaptational changes that seem to be resulting from Transgene insertions in plants (mostly)
Im not really following meat qnimqls other than Im not sure I want to ingest transgenes when they are not well (generationally) studied.

I do work in applied evolutionary sciences ( and to have doubts bout anthropogenic climate change and GMO safety as if its "immune" to evolutionary pressure is my MO . Im proud of it because its first hand derived.
If you wish to provide me with compelling proofs of generational safety of GMOs or where natural selection or horizontal gene transfers are NOT gonna happen , I will sit in your shadow and listen as a good student.

You cannot insult me on these issues. Ive spoken out of my concerns at symposia and have never been boo'd

Well, one thing clear my involvement in that thread didn't change your mind, did it? (For the record, in that thread I was defending Einstein's theory of relativity against Layman's assertion that Einstein was wrong.).

You can celebrate your skepticism. I celebrate my skepticism.

What I am pointing out is that ideology often trumps objective science. It is easy to point out when this happens to other people's ideology. That is why Setanta started this thread.

It is not so easy to see how your own ideology hurts your ability to objectively look at scientific evidence. Everyone has prejudices that can affect what evidence we accept, and what we choose to dismiss or ignore.

The GMO issue is just one example of this. There are many others.

Part of scientific literacy is being able to acknowledge and challenge your own preconceived notions objectively based on all the evidence.

as I said before, (AND I WILL NOW REPEAT)> I was a GMO fan in the early A2K days. My change is based upon my experience in evolutionary sciences and as a a partner ina family market farm.

Ive seen environmental changes that, when held singularly, could only have been affected by transgenegene insertion on the ROUNDUP READY plant seeds or the Bt genes in the oy and corn.
Evolution is the process by which gene transfer may be expressed with time (Mostly in ways that none of us can predict) Anyone who asserts they can predict these changes , is either not a friend with the truth or is defiantly ignorant.
I think my skepticism is on a bit of a higher plane of knowledge in this subject max.

Fine farmerman, I accept your anecdote and your higher plane of knowledge.

But data is not the plural of anecdote. I look at the scientific research as well as what looks an awful lot like a consensus from reputable scientific sources to me. You are right, my training is in Physics, I don't have much to say about farming or about evolution. But, I do know how science works and how a consensus forms.

I have never met you outside Able2know, sorry you are just a voice on the internet. When I look at what you are writing, it sounds to me an awful lot like the people who claim that their child's autism "could only have been affected" by a vaccine.

Maybe that isn't a fair comparison. But from where I am sitting and the information I have access to, which includes the assessment of AAAS and other reputable sources, you aren't convincing me.

Part of scientific literacy is knowing when you can trust the scientific community. I don't have time to get the expertise... but I am scientifically literate enough that I can read a paper and evaluate the data for myself.

Would you care to offer one?

Again the point is not the specific GMO argument.

The point is that different ideologies will view science in different ways, each will cherry pick findings that support them and explain away, dismiss or just ignore contradictory findings.

Good science is ideally objective. It is based on testable facts that are backed up by evidence. It isn't effected by the needs of one ideology or another.

Being able to make objective judgements based on scientific evidence when it contradicts your ideological narrative is difficult, but it is a valuable skill.

Yes

That wasn't helpful, Engineer. I wish you would explain your point rather than just this snarky answer. Let me ask the important question directly.

If an ideological narrative is contradicted by valid empirical data, do you change your beliefs? Or, do you dismiss the data?

You are an interesting person. You are obviously scientifically literate, but you also have certain ideas about what it means to be a good person in society. These don't always contradict each other, but sometimes they do... so how do you resolve this?

There probably are people who object to GMOs because of some anti-science narrative. But some are asking for more research (not funded by Monsanto), so those objectors aren't anti-science.

If we find out 20 years from now that Monsanto's corn plan was a bad idea, it will erode confidence in science.

Yyou should read some text on chemical evolution . My new fav is "Arrival of the Fittest", followed by "chemical Evolution Ed 5).
There are no real arguments that fully support long term GMO safety because all the laws that govern evolution also govern trqnsgenics and things like gene editing. We have not given it much time before we say that its entirely safe or is just the same as naturql gene editing (THAT is total scientific bullshit because we are doing horizontal gene tranfer with genes and SNPs from wholly different species that in the real world , have no bases for continued contqct so that gene transfer can occur (like a spider spinneret inserted into a goats lacteal complement), (or berry bushes with Bt genes that can prevent caterpillr attck)

As far as childrens autism, NO connectivity has been systematically proven based upon the diluents used in vaccines.
Thats totally different than what Im speaking about.
It may be that research will show a way to divert the many effects that GMO transgenics have wrought in the fields. TO state unequivocally that GMOS are '100% safe" is a lie.
Of course journals use a peer review system. But if you are in science and you understand the peer review system you must know that peer review DOES NOT guarantee accuracy or even repeatability. Peer review merely confers a basis for PUBLICATION based on concensus . One something is published, the real disputes begin. Its a great way to separate the truly dumb, from the promising. When, in the past, tobacco research was being funded by big tobacco, the researchers were all over themsellves publishing away about relative safety of smoking and how filters help . Peer review didnt stop the bullshit until few journals of medicine, not funded by tobacco, began asking needed questions. Then the tidal wave began to flow in the other direction.

Peer review has never been a way to guarantee that some science isnt quackery.
When geophysics began to collect data on plate tectonics, the entrenched journals would fight tooth and nail that the findings were bogus and that "science endorsed a stable earth wherein the geosyncline method of tectonics was the correct one"
Use of "Settled science" is something that science must try to avoid, since we always seem to later, find little "OOOPses" well after the science has been "Settled"

You should read more about GMO seeds and pest controls. This has purposely been removed from the results about GMO foods. The same things that affect GMO seed can affect GMO meat all by simple epigenetics and micro- evolution.

I can demand a much higher margin for my market lamb that goes to restaurants and ethnic markets. I can guarantee that no GMO products are used in their production and the meat is mostly grass fed (even though I keep several dozen lambs for grain finishing). THE MARKET DEMANDS IT.
To criticize scientific concerns about how natural processes(which, for some reason you have no problem accepting) are affected by artificial gene insertions is, IMHO, kinda missing the entire story of genes and evolution and epigenetics and how all these industrial applications are going down.

The real anti-science boys are laughing at how these types of disagreements appear to undermine the scientific method, when indeed, they are all part of the research process and the chase after facts and evidence.

You can read my sig line. ITS a real world statement that ole Werner made up.

At these point peer review means very little because of corruption. Check this out if you dont know this

http://www.nature.com/news/publishing-the-peer-review-scam-1.16400