Politically liberal science is bad science.

Which facts do you think I am ignoring? Please tell me, and give me a list of individual facts I am ignoring (because facts are independent of ideological narrative). I don't think I am ignoring any scientific facts.

Again.... my objective criteria are "accepted by reputable independent scientific organizations" and "supported by well-designed, transparent, peer-reviewed research".

Having one set of scientific facts believed by political liberals and a separate set of scientific facts believed by political conservatives isn't very constructive... but that is where we are. I apply the same criteria for scientific claims that support a liberal narrative as I do for scientific claims that support a conservative narrative. I think that that is the way to have a discussion on policy supported by on objective scientific facts.

Do you at agree with this on principle?

I have been thinking about this for a while... how to have a fact-centered debate where each participant has to agree or disagree with each fact offered by the others.

After some discussion, each person could list a 4-6 declarative sentences. The other person will have to mark each as "Agree" or "Disagree" without modification. That way, hopefully, there will be some set of statements upon which both sides agree.

I think this would make fact-based arguments that are less ideological and less personal.

Particularly in scientific discussions, I think this may be a good thing.

Or alternatively we could go back to THE GOOD OLD DAYS when people made an effort to enter conversations in good faith, and very often succeeded.

You are apparently unable to entertain two or more conflicting sets of data and opinion at a time. Ive previously set up two very well understood arguments about why "environmental and health "safety" of GMO plants and seed is not "settled science"
Apparently you wish to ignore them an want to try like youre reasonably asking for evidence.
I congratulate you for inserting the "I only say the complete truth, but I cant hear what youre saying" , argument.

Such would be like a 'dialogue' between two computers: boring. What's interesting is the meaning of facts, their interpretation.

The nature of reality is what I find interesting, and because humans are both good and evil and rational and irrational and I got educated I dont subscribe to your infantile thinking.

The fact that you seem to have not the slightest inkling of how you embarrass yourself with your ignorance here I find interesting.

Huh huh? What part of my infantile thinking do you find most embarassing?

The good thing about true science is that it allows for propositions that completely contradict the truth and/or political leanings of anyone involved.

For example: it is perfectly acceptable in science to propose the hypothesis that climate warming is cyclical and/or not caused by human/industrial activities. Proposing such hypotheses are not supposed to result in any political/ideological effects; only more rigorous investigation of how to analyze and assess the hypothesis as true/false and/or how to deduce testable questions and properly analyze.

So proposing that humans/industry doesn't affect natural climate at all is an acceptable hypothesis, one that should lead to closer analysis of why it is reasonable to expect it to do so.

E.g. land covering affects how sunlight is absorbed by Earth's surface, as well as how CO2 is absorbed and transformed into various forms. Hydrology is also affected. These factors (sun-energy, carbon, and water/vapor) all interact to produce the greater climate, so any explanation of climate stability in the presence of human/industrial land-use should account for mechanisms that mitigate the changes caused by human/industrial activities.

So now the scientific method for dealing with the climate-stability-despite-humans/industry hypothesis is to more closely assess why/how climate would be affected by human activities and consider what factors (natural/artificial) would be offsetting those potentially climate-influencing factors.

The problem is that politics/ideology/media is very good at taking any hypothesis or other bit of information that appears in scientific discourse and spinning it for the sake of treating it as a political-ideological statement. E.g. if someone hypothesizes that climate is stable despite humans/industry, politics/media will treat the hypothesis as either 1) evidence that climate may not actually be changing; or 2) that the climate denialists are propagating denial by funding bad science.

Then the question becomes whether political ideologies are indeed funding bad science to advance their interests, and how. Obviously there is the possibility of simply funding bad science. But another possibility is to fund GOOD science, but to be selective and only fund/publish those studies that advance your favored political ideology. In this way, even good science can be politicized to advance ideological interests by simply promoting some studies and problematizing/censoring others.

The real question is how do we reach a point in democracy where we are more interested in having constructive critical discourse in the interest of truth-seeking, instead of using every tactic possible to advance our favored political stances over others. If climate is or isn't changing, for example, I would rather understand why and how than to simply advance one political ideology or another. This is not to say that I don't have my politics, but I am confident enough that truly reasonable discourse is sufficient for overcoming bias, at least when people don't deny facts and reasoning that should cause them to question current assumptions and consider others more openly.

Well, here is a study found in the International Journal of Biological Sciences. It is Titled: A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health.

Here is their conclusion:

Patho-physiological profiles are unique for each GM crop/food, underlining the necessity for a case-by-case evaluation of their safety, as is largely admitted and agreed by regulators. It is not possible to make comments concerning any general, similar subchronic toxic effect for all GM foods. However, in the three GM maize varieties that formed the basis of this investigation, new side effects linked to the consumption of these cereals were revealed, which were sex- and often dose-dependent. Effects were mostly concentrated in kidney and liver function, the two major diet detoxification organs, but in detail differed with each GM type. In addition, some effects on heart, adrenal, spleen and blood cells were also frequently noted. As there normally exists sex differences in liver and kidney metabolism, the highly statistically significant disturbances in the function of these organs, seen between male and female rats, cannot be dismissed as biologically insignificant as has been proposed by others. We therefore conclude that our data strongly suggests that these GM maize varieties induce a state of hepatorenal toxicity. This can be due to the new pesticides (herbicide or insecticide) present specifically in each type of GM maize, although unintended metabolic effects due to the mutagenic properties of the GM transformation process cannot be excluded. All three GM maize varieties contain a distinctly different pesticide residue associated with their particular GM event (glyphosate and AMPA in NK 603, modified Cry1Ab in MON 810, modified Cry3Bb1 in MON 863). These substances have never before been an integral part of the human or animal diet and therefore their health consequences for those who consume them, especially over long time periods are currently unknown. Furthermore, any side effect linked to the GM event will be unique in each case as the site of transgene insertion and the spectrum of genome wide mutations will differ between the three modified maize types. In conclusion, our data presented here strongly recommend that additional long-term (up to 2 years) animal feeding studies be performed in at least three species, preferably also multi-generational, to provide true scientifically valid data on the acute and chronic toxic effects of GM crops, feed and foods. Our analysis highlights that the kidneys and liver as particularly important on which to focus such research as there was a clear negative impact on the function of these organs in rats consuming GM maize varieties for just 90 days.
　
http://www.ijbs.com/v05p0706.htm

Amen!

Ah, the stench of an asshole. You should leave the room.

The question is not whether or not GMOs are perfectly advantageous to humanity. It is whether or not the pluses outweigh the minuses. They do.

No. The question is whether or not you understand what studies indicate. You don't.

And concerning the study referred to above:

Monsanto has immediately responded to the study, stating that the research is "based on faulty analytical methods and reasoning and do not call into question the safety findings for these products."

The IJBS study's author Gilles-Eric Séralini responded to the Monsanto statement on the blog, Food Freedom, "Our study contradicts Monsanto conclusions because Monsanto systematically neglects significant health effects in mammals that are different in males and females eating GMOs, or not proportional to the dose. This is a very serious mistake, dramatic for public health. This is the major conclusion revealed by our work, the only careful reanalysis of Monsanto crude statistical data."
___________________________________________________

But you keep talking; something's bound to come out.

I have personally no problem with the technique of insrrting a new gene in a plant. What I object to, is when this new gene allows the plant to withstand large amounts of carcinogenetic roundup or another herbicide, so that farmers can spay said herbicide like crazy, ie the so-called 'Roundup Ready' varieties. Monsanto has developed 'roundup ready' varieties of soy, corn, canola, alfalfa, cotton, and sorghum. It's a very bad use of the technology and it tared its reputation.

Sorta like sickle cell anemia or Bylers disease, or melanomas??

The point is that whether you accept or reject a scientific claim should not depend on your political ideology.

The argument over when science is settled science is an interesting one. I have opinions on this, and I have set forth some objective criteria (that have nothing to do with which political narrative the results favor).

Some people raise doubt about GM crops. Other people raise doubts about global climate change. If you start with a political ideology, it isn't that hard to google reports and even studies that seemingly support your pre-existing beliefs no matter what they are.

There are a set of scientific "facts" that are supported by political liberals. There is a different set of scientific "facts" that are supported by political conservatives. If people applied the same criteria for judging scientific claims whether they support one political agenda or another... this wouldn't be the case.

If GM foods is not a good example (and I still think it is) could someone propose another example of a scientific finding that is valid even though it doesn't support a political liberal ideological narrative? I don't see anyone here questioning the science behind global climate change.

If the claim is that science always perfectly fits with a political liberal narrative (or any other political narrative).... I think that is a big problem.

In any case, GMOs are more of a technique than a scientific finding. So they are not a good example for you thesis.

Thats a bit of hiding behind some smug assertion that "Everything I back IS scientifically valid. What you accept is not"

I dont think anyone here has doubted that science is science. My whole point has been based upon valid scientific objection to your pronouncement of GMO as "Settld science" when , if you read the ag-gen literature that is not self published, valid concerns exist. many of which have been presented by folks herein. Much of my own concern has been based on a 180 degree turn from several years ago when I started using GMO alfalfa and beans and withing 3 years could note a return of weeds that were Roundup reistant and complete metamorphosis insects that were slowly going "missing"
I quit using "Roundup Ready" and for the first two years, I rented tobacco plot steamers to kill the weed seeds and have had excellent results.

Next year, I will return a corn field to alfalfa and will only steam the field edges where some " knot weed and pigweed" have re entered from their hidey holes down gradient..

Now that Bt genetics is being understood in light of horizontal gene transfer of plasmids and mRNA , we can see that we dont really know as much as we thought about GMO's . Im thinking that the ag seed industry may have taken a tobacco producer like attitude with its customer base, I dont know.

I am no longer arguing the GM case. I am returning to the original question posed by this thread.

Can you give me an example where scientific findings don't fit with a liberal political narrative? If political ideology drives scientific understanding, then science is just politics.

How do you propose we fix the political divide when it comes to science... where what people believe about science is aligned with their political ideology.

Im not sure where you are trying to go here??

I can find where scientific findings agree wth conservative politics, and, in fact, the conservatives trot the findings to underpin their own assertions. You can take every argument, Flouridation, Global Warming, Evolution, etc. and Im assuming that the Conservatives are presenting some sort of "cientific evidence" NO??
(Unless you say that there arent any scientific findings that Conservatives use and that their arguments are pure emotionally driven??). Is that a reasonable extension of your argument?