Politically liberal science is bad science.

@Olivier5,

We can measure the soil losses in our nation by looking at the buildup of what is called "legacy sediments" . We know really well how much topsoil weve lot due to timbering in the NE down through the Carolinas.
(We cut pretty much ALL the trees by the end of the 19th century and could measure the buildup of "legacy" soil down gradient in stream valleys an wetlands. We returned the forest and the duff has replaced much of the eroded topsoil)

The really biggest effect to topsoil we ever had in our history here in the NE USA, was caused by the 4 major glacial epochs of the Pleistocene. So much dirt was plowed up by these 2 mile high glaciers and piled up in eskers, kmes and drumlins that the earth was compressed and we lost all the earthworms (Earthworms never were known for migrating but a few feet per millenia. We got earthworms back by bringing them over from Europe during the Columbian Exchange). So, in the NE at least, "topsoil" is an industril product wrought by annelids

1 Reply

Let's ask the important question. This is a thread about political ideology versus science (it isn't a thread about GMOs).

What would it take for you to accept the consensus of the scientific community in a matter that doesn't fit with your political ideology?

This presents a problem for science (which is necessarily non-partisan). There are scientific findings that are rejected by political liberals. There are different scientific findings that are rejected by political conservatives.

Most scientific findings of any importance are going to conflict with one side or the other. What can be done about this? I have offered some objective criteria I use to evaluate claims regardless of which political narrative is best served. No one else seems to agree with this approach.

The ability to accept valid scientific findings even when they don't fit into a political narrative is part of scientific literacy.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Do you believe the claim that the Earth will be without any topsoil in 60 years is scientifically valid?

I googled for studies supporting this claim, and found that it has been widely debunked). You can google for yourself.

The other claims you are making may be correct, or they may not be. It doesn't matter when evaluating the validity of the 60 year claim.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

it isn't a thread about GMOs

Then stop claiming that they are safe. When you vouch for their safety, you will be asked to produce the long-term studies that prove it. And we both know that that's what you can't do.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

What would it take for you to accept the consensus of the scientific community in a matter that doesn't fit with your political ideology?

And what's your own answer to this question, honey bunny? What would it take for you to accept that Golden Rice is just a poor cultivar bringing no real value to farmers? That diet diversification is a more effective strategy to combat micro-nutrient deficiency than biofortification? Or that some GMOs have actually pretty disgusting effects on people and the environment?

You're just another positivist, i.e. a naive believer in science as a pure and ideal pursuit of truth and progress. This thesis treats science as a religion, and it has been debunked a long time ago. Sorry to break your bubble but science is a human affair. It is imperfect, political, and it can be used and misused to kill or exploit people, just as it can be used to help them.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

I have been pretty consistent about this. I would accept that Golden Rice is a poor cultivar bringing no real value if....

1. It were the consensus of reputable scientific institutions, in this case the WHO, FDA, NIH and National Academy of Sciences.

2. It were backed up by well-designed, independent, transparent research that shows this result taken as a whole.

I have a set of objective criteria that I apply to all claims equally. If these criteria are met, I will accept the claim regardless of what political narrative does or doesn't fit.

Being able to evaluate scientific claims objectively, and accepting valid claims even when they don't fit your political narrative, is an important part of scientific literacy.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

I have to admit that my knowledge of the safety of the food products produced by genetic ENgineering is only what Ive read .
HOWEVER, since most of the GMO research universities etc are mostly sponsored financially by the Cargills and Unite Fruits of the world, I need to see some effect from longr term reserch.

I am, however, quite aware of the results of plant engineering (mostly for convenience, like weed control etc), has been NOT SO GOOD.
I dont use ANY GMO seed because if it is used in a program of making Bt the "pest control" bullet, the concerns to pollinators , fish,and beneficial insects, as well as the "unnatural selection" for superweeds etc is something that the researchers clam up over.

Now whose funding research to look at long term effects. Apparently only a sources.

I am in the process of reading this. It seems an honest critique of the safety testing of GMOs; or more aptly, the flaws in the regulatory system.

http://web.archive.org/web/20081128100034/http://www.foe.org/camps/comm/safefood/gefood/testingregbackgrounder.pdf

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

On Golden Rice, I would encourage you to read what the International Rice Research Institute says about it, rather than the World Health Organisation.

IRRI are the guys who brought us short-stemmed rice varieties responding well to chemical fertisers, back in the 60's, thus underwriting the green revolution in Asia that ultimately helped feed billions of people in this part of the world. They a based in the Philippines, they know their stuff. Some of their earlier high producing varieties tasted like **** (literally) and reached low market value (so a farming household would have more to eat but of lesser quality) but they have kept working at it and have developed thousands of varieties used across the world, working together with many national researchers based in China, India, Vietnam, etc. to locally adapt their lines.

MORE IMPORTANTLY, IRRI are the producers of Golden Rice.

On their web page about it, in the section about future work, they say:

Quote:

Our work will:

Develop varieties suitable for Asian farmers

Breeders at the Philippine Department of Agriculture - Philippine Rice Research Institute (DA-PhilRice), the Bangladesh Rice Research Institute (BRRI), and the Indonesian Center for Rice Research (ICRR) are developing Golden Rice versions of existing rice varieties that are popular with their local farmers, retaining the same yield, pest resistance, and grain qualities. Golden Rice seeds are expected to cost farmers the same as other rice varieties. Once PhilRice, BRRI, and ICRR are able to secure an approval from their respective regulatory agencies, cooking and taste tests will be done to make sure that Golden Rice meets consumers' needs.

https://www.irri.org/golden-rice

So you see? That where they are: they have one single strand of rice with betacarothene ability, one strand that doesn't perform particularly well in farmers fields in dozens of different ecosystems and economies across Asia... What they need to do now is transfer this betacarothene gene to many more real-world varieties with real agro-economic potential (including yield, and taste).

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

This is a thread about political ideology versus science. The challenge is to accept scientific results even when they don't fit with your political ideology.

I don't see any science in your last post.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Do you at least agree that scientific claims should be evaluated based on facts according to objective criteria, and not by whether they fit into our personal ideological narrative or not? The point of this thread has nothing to do with GM foods.

If you agree that you should judge scientific claims according to the same criteria whether or not they fit your political ideology, then I feel we have made progress. Of course the challenge is that by evaluating scientific claims objectively, you will find that some of them don't fit nicely with your political beliefs (or any set of ideological beliefs).

In my opinion, this is a good thing. Science is at its best when it calls ideological beliefs into question.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Yes but do you at least agree that you were spreading BS about Golden Rice, accusing liberals of gode knows what, like the miserable, misinformed and naïve old fashioned positivist that you are? Because then I feel we have made progress.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

I gave my reason for believing the science about Golden Rice, and I gave me the objective criteria that led me to that belief. The science is supported by most scientists in the field and is accepted by the leading scientific institutions.

This is the same reason that I accept global climate change.

There's no need for name calling.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

Well, how is this Golden Rice measuring up?

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

The only person here who posted some science about Golden Rice is me.

You posted a hoax, fake science that fit your ideological narrative. So ironically, you provide an excellent example of what you lament in your OP: your emotional attachement to the ideology of positivism (or scientism) makes you incapable of accepting scientific truth.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

You are being silly Oliver. What you linked was a site saying that Golden Rice was safe and effective at addressing the problem of VAD in poor communities. You then wrote some words that seemed to argue that they really meant the exact opposite.

I will post the science again from reputable science organizations and scientists that has links to the well-designed, peer-reviewed research. Again notice that these are prominent scientific institututions, not political groups or conspiracy sites.

1. NIH (National Institute of Health) A study saying that Golden Rice is an effective source of Vitamin A to humans.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19369372

2. NIH. A review of the safety of existing GM crops including Golden Rice. There are several links to research you can follow at your leisure.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK424534/

3. University of Nebraska. A specific study on the safety of Golden Rice... specifically allergens.
http://www.allergenonline.org/Golden%20Rice%202%20Bioinformatics%20FARRP%202006.pdf

Golden Rice is backed by scientific organizations, is supported by most scientists in the field. It is promoted by the WHO, approved by the FDA. The people who are against Golden Rice are political organizations with an ideological (not scientific) opposition to the rice.

3 Replies

@maxdancona,

Max, how is the Golden Rice measuring up?

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

The people who are against Golden Rice are political organizations with an ideological (not scientific) opposition to the rice.

Or people who don't like how it tastes, people who don't think it will effectively supply nutrition to the target community, people who fear it will be thought of as "food for poor people", people who fear a loss of agricultural diversity, people who believe other non-GMO crops can supply beta-carotene without having to enter into restrictive contracts, etc. People may have practical reasons for opposing the introduction of a GMO crop which have nothing to do with ideology, politics, fear, or distrust of science.

2 Replies

@hightor,

Of course Hightor,

This is a thread about political ideology versus science. Non-scientific objections to any technology aren't relevant.

The issue is when people reject valid scientific claims and attack scientific institutions. Criticize Golden Rice if you want (this thread is not about Golden Rice).

Good science is good science. Sometimes it fits your political narrative, some times it doesn't.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

But max, let's talk about where the rubber meets the road. How has Golden Rice performed?

You say that this thread is not about GMOs, even though you certainly appear to be using this thread as a platform to vouch for them.

You also say that this thread is not about Golden Rice, though you certainly do appear to be using this thread as a platform to sing its praises.

So how has Golden Rice performed?

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

I was just trying to explain something to you. But you may have a point that it IS indeed silly to try and explain something to you.

0 Replies

Politically liberal science is bad science.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know