6 ms·

> I think people get riled up about this stuff because Monsanto is a particular bête noire of some leftish anti-science people. The reverse is true as well. Mo

> I think people get riled up about this stuff because Monsanto is a particular bête noire of some leftish anti-science people. The reverse is true as well. Monsanto/GMO debates seem to be mostly about posturing/signaling, with the two sides throwing pseudoscience and FUD at each other and absolutely no chance of either side reconsidering their stances or taking a close look at the facts. It's more akin to the argument between different religious fanatics, and agnostics or non-believers don't have much to gain by getting in the middle of it.

davidw 10y ago
A lot of it seems to be the anti-science folks who are against GMO's and the like, and Monsanto is a convenient bad guy. Most of the actual science and law doesn't seem to look that bad for them once you get past the "outrage!" articles. Of course, like many a large company, they do have some ugly history in their past, and I'm sure they're not perfect, so I guess that makes it more convenient. However, yeah, it does make discussing specific things kind of difficult.
- Melk 10y ago
  No one commenting here are part of the anti-science folks and you're unlikely to find them on HC. Meanwhile /u/searine is a well-known reddit mod for /r/GMO and his argumentative style of writing isn't new either. IMHO it's people like him who give the industry a bad name.
  - davidw 10y ago
    HN is pretty big these days. There are plenty of anti-science folks of various kinds.
  - searine 10y ago
    > Meanwhile /u/searine is a well-known reddit mod for /r/GMO You flatter me. But seriously. Stop by https://www.reddit.com/r/gmo https://www.reddit.com/r/gmo . We actually try to be very inclusive of all opinions. So few people are interested in this topic that we really love to have everyone there. Usually its just kids asking for help on school projects... >his argumentative style of writing isn't new either. IMHO it's people like him who give the industry a bad name. See here's the thing. I know I won't ever change the mind of anti-science true believers. As a scientist, I've had to deal with climate change deniers, creationists, anti-vaxxers, and anti-gmo kooks. To me they are a lost cause. However, I can impact how the audience views them. I may be crass, but I cite my sources, and I expose poor arguments. Deal with it.
    - davidw 10y ago
      > I may be crass One of the guidelines we have on HN that works well is: pretend like you're saying something to someone in person. You could certainly state a strong opinion that way, but it's less likely that most people would be outright rude and vulgar about it. I think your're on firm enough ground, scientifically, that you can state things strongly without being crass.
    - scott_s 10y ago
      I'm glad you're here and, as an expert in the field, able and willing to explain why an article has poor scientific reporting. But, I agree with davidw: we take the guidelines seriously. Please consider them when responding: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - tptacek 10y ago
    These kinds of arguments may have force on Reddit, but they're verboten on HN. You need to engage the argument itself and not try to dredge things up about the arguer.
- Chathamization 10y ago
  The "anti-science" epithet that tends to get thrown at the people who are against GMOs is a good example of this. We don't see people who are against the use of other technology labeled as such, even if they are on similar weak footing (IE, the AI-apocalypse folks). It's somewhat arbitrary which technology it's OK to be against when your reasons are weak, and which technology it's anti-scientific to be against when your reasons are weak.
  - TeMPOraL 10y ago
    It's not arbitrary, it's about arguing against a working and beneficial thing because of fear instead of any reasonable argument. That's why peope who are anti-vaccination also get labeled anti-science, as well as those freaking out about nuclear energy or cellphone radiation. AI apocalypse, while plausible-sounding (at least to me), is still in the future. GMOs are useful here and now.
    - Chathamization 10y ago
      AI and automation (here and now) are probably a lot more beneficial to me than GMOs are (looking at Spain and Frances respective cereal yields, I'm not seeing a pressing need for GMOs). Yet I don't think it would benefit the discussion to start calling you anti-science just because you think the AI apocalypse is a threat while I think there's little evidence to show that it is. What purpose would calling you anti-science serve, other than throwing an ad hominem attack at someone who I disagree with?
      - scott_s 10y ago
        Because the main talking points against GMOs ignore the science around them, and are often antithetical to science itself. It's an accurate label. Regarding AI and automation, no one has made specific arguments, so it's possible the specific arguments could be anti-science.
        Chathamization 10y ago
- colordrops 10y ago
  One problem with these discussions is that even questioning GMOs (whether you generally accept them or not) will get you labeled as "anti-science". Stifling inquiry is the real "anti-science" stance. There are extremely powerful and moneyed interests that put a lot of effort into PR campaigns for their products and against anyone who finds fault with them, regardless of how sound the science is. Just because there may be subtle problems with a real scientific study on GMO safety done by a real scientist doesn't make the whole thing "anti-science". It's such a stupid label. Most scientific studies will reveal flaws with enough scrutiny.
  - davidw 10y ago
    "GMOs" is such a broad category that any real inquiry is not talking about it as a whole, but some particular aspect.
  - 13years 10y ago
    Agreed. "anti-science" has become the scientific communities "racism" term. Generally applied to shutdown an argument without any real discussion. Edit: consider any topic should have valid opposition. Does any valid opposition exist for GMO's? or is being critical automatically equate with anti-science? If you can't name a single valid opponent, then there is a problem. Either no one is challenging the science or anyone who is challenging the science is attacked. Either case would not be positive for scientific progress. All fields and subjects should have identifiable opposition. Health studies, genetics have many scientist on opposing sides without anyone being labeled anti-science. Physics string theory, gravitational theory the same. However, introduce private companies with lots of money into the mix with some politics and all of a sudden all opposition is anti-science. What is truly anti-science is that there can't exist opposition.
    - civilian 10y ago
      You're committing the balance fallacy. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Balance_fallacy http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Balance_fallacy I think that it's only in a few tech circles that being anti-GMO is immediately dismissed as anti-science. Living in Seattle, I run into a ton of anti-GMO people who don't have their false beliefs challenged. (And really, I can only do so much before I grow weary.) The anti-GMO crowd takes a strong and extreme stance. They are against all lab-modified organisms! As someone with a biochemistry degree, I see that GM is a tool. Yes, it would be a bad idea to put proteins for peanut allergens into soybeans. Yes, the overuse of pesticides are a problem. (Although, GMOs probably use fewer pesticides: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/nature/fewer-pesticides-farming-with-gmos/ http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/nature/fewer-pesticides-fa... ) From my perspective, it's the progressives that are hysterically lying about GMOs. So I punch back firmly! Most of these people don't have a solid understanding of the central dogma of biochemistry. If we were more rational beings, we would observe that whether we should use GMOs or not is simply an engineering problem.

davidw 10y ago

A lot of it seems to be the anti-science folks who are against GMO's and the like, and Monsanto is a convenient bad guy. Most of the actual science and law doesn't seem to look that bad for them once you get past the "outrage!" articles. Of course, like many a large company, they do have some ugly history in their past, and I'm sure they're not perfect, so I guess that makes it more convenient. However, yeah, it does make discussing specific things kind of difficult.

Melk 10y ago
No one commenting here are part of the anti-science folks and you're unlikely to find them on HC. Meanwhile /u/searine is a well-known reddit mod for /r/GMO and his argumentative style of writing isn't new either. IMHO it's people like him who give the industry a bad name.
- davidw 10y ago
  HN is pretty big these days. There are plenty of anti-science folks of various kinds.
- searine 10y ago
  > Meanwhile /u/searine is a well-known reddit mod for /r/GMO You flatter me. But seriously. Stop by https://www.reddit.com/r/gmo https://www.reddit.com/r/gmo . We actually try to be very inclusive of all opinions. So few people are interested in this topic that we really love to have everyone there. Usually its just kids asking for help on school projects... >his argumentative style of writing isn't new either. IMHO it's people like him who give the industry a bad name. See here's the thing. I know I won't ever change the mind of anti-science true believers. As a scientist, I've had to deal with climate change deniers, creationists, anti-vaxxers, and anti-gmo kooks. To me they are a lost cause. However, I can impact how the audience views them. I may be crass, but I cite my sources, and I expose poor arguments. Deal with it.
  - davidw 10y ago
    > I may be crass One of the guidelines we have on HN that works well is: pretend like you're saying something to someone in person. You could certainly state a strong opinion that way, but it's less likely that most people would be outright rude and vulgar about it. I think your're on firm enough ground, scientifically, that you can state things strongly without being crass.
  - scott_s 10y ago
    I'm glad you're here and, as an expert in the field, able and willing to explain why an article has poor scientific reporting. But, I agree with davidw: we take the guidelines seriously. Please consider them when responding: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- tptacek 10y ago
  These kinds of arguments may have force on Reddit, but they're verboten on HN. You need to engage the argument itself and not try to dredge things up about the arguer.
Chathamization 10y ago
The "anti-science" epithet that tends to get thrown at the people who are against GMOs is a good example of this. We don't see people who are against the use of other technology labeled as such, even if they are on similar weak footing (IE, the AI-apocalypse folks). It's somewhat arbitrary which technology it's OK to be against when your reasons are weak, and which technology it's anti-scientific to be against when your reasons are weak.
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  It's not arbitrary, it's about arguing against a working and beneficial thing because of fear instead of any reasonable argument. That's why peope who are anti-vaccination also get labeled anti-science, as well as those freaking out about nuclear energy or cellphone radiation. AI apocalypse, while plausible-sounding (at least to me), is still in the future. GMOs are useful here and now.
  - Chathamization 10y ago
    AI and automation (here and now) are probably a lot more beneficial to me than GMOs are (looking at Spain and Frances respective cereal yields, I'm not seeing a pressing need for GMOs). Yet I don't think it would benefit the discussion to start calling you anti-science just because you think the AI apocalypse is a threat while I think there's little evidence to show that it is. What purpose would calling you anti-science serve, other than throwing an ad hominem attack at someone who I disagree with?
    - scott_s 10y ago
      Because the main talking points against GMOs ignore the science around them, and are often antithetical to science itself. It's an accurate label. Regarding AI and automation, no one has made specific arguments, so it's possible the specific arguments could be anti-science.
      - Chathamization 10y ago
colordrops 10y ago
One problem with these discussions is that even questioning GMOs (whether you generally accept them or not) will get you labeled as "anti-science". Stifling inquiry is the real "anti-science" stance. There are extremely powerful and moneyed interests that put a lot of effort into PR campaigns for their products and against anyone who finds fault with them, regardless of how sound the science is. Just because there may be subtle problems with a real scientific study on GMO safety done by a real scientist doesn't make the whole thing "anti-science". It's such a stupid label. Most scientific studies will reveal flaws with enough scrutiny.
- davidw 10y ago
  "GMOs" is such a broad category that any real inquiry is not talking about it as a whole, but some particular aspect.
- 13years 10y ago
  Agreed. "anti-science" has become the scientific communities "racism" term. Generally applied to shutdown an argument without any real discussion. Edit: consider any topic should have valid opposition. Does any valid opposition exist for GMO's? or is being critical automatically equate with anti-science? If you can't name a single valid opponent, then there is a problem. Either no one is challenging the science or anyone who is challenging the science is attacked. Either case would not be positive for scientific progress. All fields and subjects should have identifiable opposition. Health studies, genetics have many scientist on opposing sides without anyone being labeled anti-science. Physics string theory, gravitational theory the same. However, introduce private companies with lots of money into the mix with some politics and all of a sudden all opposition is anti-science. What is truly anti-science is that there can't exist opposition.
  - civilian 10y ago
    You're committing the balance fallacy. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Balance_fallacy http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Balance_fallacy I think that it's only in a few tech circles that being anti-GMO is immediately dismissed as anti-science. Living in Seattle, I run into a ton of anti-GMO people who don't have their false beliefs challenged. (And really, I can only do so much before I grow weary.) The anti-GMO crowd takes a strong and extreme stance. They are against all lab-modified organisms! As someone with a biochemistry degree, I see that GM is a tool. Yes, it would be a bad idea to put proteins for peanut allergens into soybeans. Yes, the overuse of pesticides are a problem. (Although, GMOs probably use fewer pesticides: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/nature/fewer-pesticides-farming-with-gmos/ http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/nature/fewer-pesticides-fa... ) From my perspective, it's the progressives that are hysterically lying about GMOs. So I punch back firmly! Most of these people don't have a solid understanding of the central dogma of biochemistry. If we were more rational beings, we would observe that whether we should use GMOs or not is simply an engineering problem.