Science Deniers are Everywhere

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Ok so there's 1 (one) study that has been done with 5 (five) subjects, each eating one serving of GR once... Booh to me for not knowing about it.

Still, it's only one study. With only five dudes eating one serving of GR once... Many more research seems in order. E.g. diets rich in carotenoids could lead to other problems.

http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/194525

The problem, as I understand it, currently surrounds the low yield when compared to other rice strains. You just don't get as much when planted in the same size field.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

The problem, as I understand it, currently surrounds the low yield when compared to other rice strains. You just don't get as much when planted in the same size field.

Indeed that seems to be the main issue.

The interesting point for me, in the context of this thread, is: How come Setanta came to write that "golden rice has saved the lives of more than half a million children every year since its introduction", when in actual fact the variety hasn't been released yet? Was he simply making that number up?

I suspect he wasn't. Rather, he might have been quoting something he heard or read, because Golden Rice has extensively been used by GMO promoters as the "poster boy" of GMOs, the GMO that nobody in his right mind could oppose. The GMO that saves kids' lives... :-) And from that perspective, the advertisement potential of GR for GMOs is far more important than whether or not the variety is agronomically/economically viable. So whenever a GMO proponent wants to make a killer point, he quote GR which "saved so many kids lives". Or "which has the potential of saving so many kids' lives".

Who cares if it hasn't been released yet, and might never be? It's good advertisement for GMOs, and that's why it's talked about.

0 Replies

People against gmos are often ridiculed because this stuff has been declared safe. But it had not been extensively tested before getting released on the public. One point against gmos, even if the untainted result is nutritious, the crops that reach the dinner tables have been given a bath in Roundup, a carcinogenic, and they killed the studies that were to determine how much Roundup we are eating. It is the unrestrained need for pesticides that keeps it from being approved in so many other parts of the world.

1 Reply

Ah-hahahahahahahaha . . .

The bullshit artist Olive Tree posts a link to a study of hip fractures in post-menopausal women and Vitamin A, and apparently we are to believe that he has solid evidence for the bullshit he's peddling. Maybe he just thought no one would check his bullshit.

There's another site that I used to post at. I stopped posting there, because I found the place boring. Before I did, however Olive Tree showed up there, and in one of his posts, he acknowledged that he comes on-line to look for things to argue about. He doesn't care about the right or wrong of anything, he just wants to argue.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Hey Set. I do care quite a lot about right or wrong but I'd rather be proven wrong and learn something new, than be right. What I don't like is liars.

Would you mind telling us why you wrote that "golden rice has saved the lives of more than half a million children every year since its introduction", when in actual fact the variety hasn't been released yet? Specifically, was this something you read, or did you invent the statistic?

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

Copernicus and Galileo were "deniers" of the then Aristotelian 'scientific consensus of their day. It turns out they were right but it was the educated elite of the day who opposed them.

I think Max and you use the term "denier" in a very loose way. To my knowledge, Galileo never went to great length to misrepresent the science of his times. He just supported and argued for a better theory. If the people who argue against global warming or evolution were offering a solid alternative explanation, a better theory like Galileo has done, there would be no problem. The problem comes when deniers can't do that and resort to misrepresenting and lying about scientists and their science.

2 Replies

@edgarblythe,

That's a problem of herbicide use, not GMOs.

Sure, the development of roundup resistant GMOs are a product of the heavy reliance on herbicides in agriculture, but herbicides would still be heavily used despite the development of these GMOs.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

I think Max and you use the term "denier" in a very loose way. To my knowledge, Galileo never went to great length to misrepresent the science of his times. He just supported and argued for a better theory. If the people who argue against global warming or evolution were offering a solid alternative explanation, a better theory like Galileo has done, there would be no problem. The problem comes when deniers can't do that and resort to misrepresenting and lying about scientists and their science.

There is no one here arguing against global warming (at least as far as I have seen). There are a couple of people arguing against GMOs. I think the GMO deniers present a great example of people who are rejecting science, but who are on the same side of the political spectrum that you are on. It is fundamentally dishonest to label a fight to silence a political stance by framing your objection as "science".

Deniers, whether they be GMO deniers or Climate Change deniers are human beings with a set of beliefs that are perfectly reasonable to themselves. I object to the parts of this thread that suggest that people who are labeled "deniers" in one issue lose credibility on any other issue.

People are complex, they believe different things for different reasons. All of them have the right to voice their opinion... and more importantly in a democracy, to vote and impact the direction of their society.

It seems like the point of this thread is to apply a label to people in an attempt to discredit them. This is not intellectually honest... intellectual debates are focused on ideas and evidence rather than on the people who make them.

2 Replies

@InfraBlue,

1. They can't grow it without drenching it in herbicides. That's not a problem with GMOs?
2. They never did any long term studies before releasing them publicly. So how do you know for sure?

1 Reply

Denying bad science is not rejecting good science.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

It seems like the point of this thread is to apply a label to people in an attempt to discredit them.

The point of this thread is exactly what the title says. I point out that science deniers are everywhere (including my family). The problem is widespread. And if one is able to ignore evidence in one area or subject, then it makes their judgement suspect in all areas. It demonstrates irrationality.
example. If I'm in a taxi and the driver tells me that all the buildings on 8th Avenue have turned upside down and so the sky sharks are able to attack the residents, I'm getting out of that car!

1 Reply

@TomTomBinks,

Quote:

The problem is widespread. And if one is able to ignore evidence in one area or subject, then it makes their judgement suspect in all areas. It demonstrates irrationality.

It doesn't demonstrate irrationality... it demonstrates humanity. All of us have irrational beliefs that we hold without evidence, or in spite of the evidence.

Our society is deeply divided between ideologies. Conservatives suspect the judgement of liberals. Liberals suspect the judgement of conservatives. That is the point I am making... it is easy to see the irrationality in the beliefs of the other side of the political spectrum, it is rare to see the irrationality in your own beliefs.

I try to be open minded to any idea, no matter who it comes from. If an idea is based on facts and reason, whether the person behind it believes in God, or UFOs or organic food doesn't matter to me. If someone has a sound argument, I strive to accept it.

Being able to question your own beliefs, or the beliefs of your political ideology, is a useful skill. Labels, such as "denier" serve as an excuse for closed-mindedness; it means you don't have to consider another point of view.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

How about if I pull a trick of yours, I'll go find a link that tangentially mentions vitamin A, and which is otherwise unrelated, and post a link to that. That should suit you, it's your trick and has been since you showed up here.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

I think the GMO deniers present a great example of people who are rejecting science, but who are on the same side of the political spectrum that you are on. It is fundamentally dishonest to label a fight to silence a political stance by framing your objection as "science".

Not sure I understand your reasonning here. Yes, some people on the left demonize GMOs in an irrational way. I suppose you and I would agree that GMO is but a technique, a tool, and not any more demoniac than any other. Like for any tool, some applications appear to be bad ideas while others seem promissing or already useful. GR for instance is potentially a good idea. Whether it makes sense in farmers' fields or in the market remains to be seen.

Quote:

I object to the parts of this thread that suggest that people who are labeled "deniers" in one issue lose credibility on any other issue.

I never said that.

Quote:

People are complex, they believe different things for different reasons. All of them have the right to voice their opinion...

Nobody has the right to misrepresent anybody else's position though, and least of all mascarade and caricature the expert opinion of the most qualified scientists of the time in order to debase them in the public eye. That's where I draw the line. Our societies are scientifically and technologically complex. They rely on expertise to keep going. Democracy in this day and age requires that the electorate and their leaders be competently advised by the scientific community on complex subjects, such as GMOs or climate change. We cannot afford the present proliferation of anti-science messages and campaigns. It is dangerous for all.

If enough people don't vaccinate, desease pressure grows for the whole population.

If enough people doubt GW, we will never do much about it.

If enough people doubt the holocaust, we will have it again.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

How about if I pull a trick of yours, I'll go find a link that tangentially mentions vitamin A, and which is otherwise unrelated, and post a link to that. That should suit you, it's your trick and has been since you showed up here.

Set, you can do better than that!

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

Democracy in this day and age requires that the electorate and their leaders be competently advised by the scientific community on complex subjects, such as GMOs or climate change.

Why? Democracy is government by the people. The people are free to accept the advice of the scientific community. They are also free to reject the advice of the scientific community.

Government by science wouldn't be a democracy... if you require people to be "advised by the scientific community" what you have is an oligarchy.

I want my society to be based on science, and policies to be informed by fact and evidence. But this has nothing to do with democracy.

Quote:

We cannot afford the present proliferation of anti-science messages and campaigns. It is dangerous for all.

If enough people don't vaccinate, desease pressure grows for the whole population.

If enough people doubt GW, we will never do much about it.

If enough people doubt the holocaust, we will have it again.

Humanity survived for tens of thousands of years without vaccinating.

You are making the assumption that your culture (i.e. the Modern Western Culture) is the only culture that has ever existed, and that your cultural ideas are the only ones that matter. There have been lots of other cultures with very different ideas on disease, and the environment, and what constitutes a barbaric act.

Modern Western culture is clear on these issues. Many other cultures have prospered in the history of humanity with very different ideas and perspectives than what you hold today.

1 Reply

Many of our so-called science moves are nothing more than big money flexing its muscle.

2 Replies

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

Many of our so-called science moves are nothing more than big money flexing its muscle.

Funny, that's exactly what the Climate Change deniers say.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Funny, that's the opposite of what I read.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Apparently, you can't.

1 Reply

Science Deniers are Everywhere

Quick Links

My Account

able2know