Today, it is humans who are the asteroid

You are confusing science and religion. The entire point of science.isnthat claims are testable and results are reproducible. There is are correct answers in science that have nothing to do with your politics.

You seem to view science as a way to back up your own.superstitions. You ignore the science on the negative health effects of colloidal silver, and the positive results about GMOs.

Science is only a benefit when it calls into question our prejudices. If you only accept science when it supports your prejudices, you might as well just stick to your prejudices.

My argument is that the institution of science should be kept separate from political ideology.

What are the negative effects of colloidal silver?

We'll get to the "positive results about GMOs" later.

I have had Max on ignore for a long time. Tell him he's being an asshole just to hijack another of my threads.

I'm sorry. I don't mean to hijack your thread, edgar. I will refrain.

Please inform Edgar that just because he has me on ignore doesn't mean that I can read his posts (actually never mind ... I am pretty sure he is reading this anyway.)

Edgar always makes me chuckle.

I caught that 😎

Psst Max, you make all of us chuckle.

Thank you Glitterbag!

You are okay, Glenn. Post what you like.

Just want to throw in 2 cents on the nonsense that Science should stay apart from Politics. To make such a statement is to entirely miss the point of what Science is good for and what are the obligations of politicians. Science should inform policies has best as it can through general consensus by a vast majority. Politicians should be informed such that their ruling provides wealth, growth and general well being. It is very unfortunate that such an obvious statement has to be put forward to people who call themselves scientists...but here we are having to restate the obvious time and again.

Let's make this clear...

1. Science informing political policy-- Good!

2. Political ideology influencing science-- Bad!

The problem on this thread is the latter. People are starting with an ideology and then googling for pop-acience articles to back what they already believe.

What are the negative effects of colloidal silver?

We'll get to the "positive results about GMOs" later . . . or sooner.

There was already a whole thread on colloidal silver. The point is that if you reject science when it contradicts your prejudices and accept it when it supports your prejudices... the science doesn't matter to you. In this case you are just going with your prejudices.

Science has value when it challenges our prejudices, but only if we accept facts that don't fit into our existing beliefs.

And how did that turn out?

What about the GMO thing? Where's the thread on that?

https://able2know.org/topic/250917-1

https://able2know.org/topic/420890-2#post-6524714

You really don't know about the search function? I shouldn't have to do this for you.

Um, there was nothing in that thread that showed the "positive results about GMOs". Do you have anything else?

Max thinking being somewhat in science makes him an expert on everything science related is a crock. The following is science, if he is a scientist.

Looks pretty scientific to me.