5 ms·

Agreed. "anti-science" has become the scientific communities "racism" term. Generally applied to shutdown an argument without any real discussion. Edit: cons

by 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.
- 13years 10y ago
  I think you are speaking of anti-gmo as a culture vs. anti-gmo as science. It is like vegan's who adopt the diet for spiritual reasons vs. health reasons. The fact that some adopt a position or practice based on non scientific reasoning doesn't negate that scientific reasoning does exist for other facets of the subject. IMHO, the "punch back firmly" attitude leads to reciprocation on both sides and a death spiral for any real dialogue.
  - civilian 10y ago
    Right, I am definitely talking about the culture. There are some valid arguments not to use GMO, and I never hear them. You should check this out: http://acsh.org/news/2016/05/17/pinterest-a-sewer-pipe-of-anti-science-propaganda/ http://acsh.org/news/2016/05/17/pinterest-a-sewer-pipe-of-an... As a culture, I believe that we are "punching back firmly" when it comes to vaccinations. California passed a law requiring vaccinations or a valid reason not to have one. Late-night comedy talk shows are mocking them. It sure as hell isn't polite, but measles isn't polite either. I guess that I try to educate when I meet people in-person who are anti-GMO. The last anti-GMO person was a friend of the family at an engagement party-- I wasn't going to be mean about it. But I was firm and explained what kind of genes are moved over, and how it only changes a few things. And how that it's really cool that we're harnessing one piece of nature to help another piece of nature! I'll be aware to try persuasion over mocking. This is a tangent, and I'm not a vegan, but you should be careful about conflating moral reasons with spiritual reasons. "I don't want to kill or cause the death of animals" is not a spiritual statement.
    - 13years 10y ago
      Just consider that some individuals who have concerns with GMO's are not scientist themselves, but are referring to information that they have identified as a vetted scientific source. Which may or may not be true. So, from their perspective, it is a science argument. Labeling their argument as anti-science is condescending in that it is received as a statement they are either not educated, have phobias of technology or their position comes from some religious or philosophical belief. We also have to recognize that we often get things wrong and that's why in a free society people are free to choose what they consume and should have knowledge of what is in a product. http://www.investors.com/politics/capital-hill/how-settled-science-caused-a-massive-public-health-crisis/ http://www.investors.com/politics/capital-hill/how-settled-s... The elephant in the room with vaccines is a credibility problem within the industry. Until that is addressed, doubt the dialog is going to improve. Whether the following are all true or not is irrelevant, these articles represent the lost of public trust which I believe is at the root of the problem that is never discussed. https://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/articles/vioxx/vioxx-preemption-01011.html#.Vlx2HueLT9I https://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/articles/vioxx/vioxx-p... At 6:30, mentions over 132,000 lawsuits filed against industry. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ch5OuzB9L48&feature=youtu.be&t=387 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ch5OuzB9L48&feature=youtu.be... Vaccines protected from lawsuits http://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-News/March-2011/No-Pharma-Liability--No-Vaccine-Mandates-.aspx http://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-News/March-2011/No-Pharma-L...
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > They are against all lab-modified organisms! No, they are against all transgenic organisms. They are often quite fine with all the other existing lab-modified organisms. Of course, this may be an awareness problem.
  - civilian 10y ago
    Sorry, semantics. I know they're are okay with corn that was bred using advanced breeding techniques. And bananas. But to hit you back with some semantics-- they're okay with certain transgenic organisms, like the yeast & mammalian cells we use for drug testing & production. I also bet they're okay with the glow-in-the-dark GFP kittens. So to be more perfectly exact, let's go with: Transgenic crops.

by 13years 10y ago

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.

13years 10y ago
I think you are speaking of anti-gmo as a culture vs. anti-gmo as science. It is like vegan's who adopt the diet for spiritual reasons vs. health reasons. The fact that some adopt a position or practice based on non scientific reasoning doesn't negate that scientific reasoning does exist for other facets of the subject. IMHO, the "punch back firmly" attitude leads to reciprocation on both sides and a death spiral for any real dialogue.
- civilian 10y ago
  Right, I am definitely talking about the culture. There are some valid arguments not to use GMO, and I never hear them. You should check this out: http://acsh.org/news/2016/05/17/pinterest-a-sewer-pipe-of-anti-science-propaganda/ http://acsh.org/news/2016/05/17/pinterest-a-sewer-pipe-of-an... As a culture, I believe that we are "punching back firmly" when it comes to vaccinations. California passed a law requiring vaccinations or a valid reason not to have one. Late-night comedy talk shows are mocking them. It sure as hell isn't polite, but measles isn't polite either. I guess that I try to educate when I meet people in-person who are anti-GMO. The last anti-GMO person was a friend of the family at an engagement party-- I wasn't going to be mean about it. But I was firm and explained what kind of genes are moved over, and how it only changes a few things. And how that it's really cool that we're harnessing one piece of nature to help another piece of nature! I'll be aware to try persuasion over mocking. This is a tangent, and I'm not a vegan, but you should be careful about conflating moral reasons with spiritual reasons. "I don't want to kill or cause the death of animals" is not a spiritual statement.
  - 13years 10y ago
    Just consider that some individuals who have concerns with GMO's are not scientist themselves, but are referring to information that they have identified as a vetted scientific source. Which may or may not be true. So, from their perspective, it is a science argument. Labeling their argument as anti-science is condescending in that it is received as a statement they are either not educated, have phobias of technology or their position comes from some religious or philosophical belief. We also have to recognize that we often get things wrong and that's why in a free society people are free to choose what they consume and should have knowledge of what is in a product. http://www.investors.com/politics/capital-hill/how-settled-science-caused-a-massive-public-health-crisis/ http://www.investors.com/politics/capital-hill/how-settled-s... The elephant in the room with vaccines is a credibility problem within the industry. Until that is addressed, doubt the dialog is going to improve. Whether the following are all true or not is irrelevant, these articles represent the lost of public trust which I believe is at the root of the problem that is never discussed. https://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/articles/vioxx/vioxx-preemption-01011.html#.Vlx2HueLT9I https://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/articles/vioxx/vioxx-p... At 6:30, mentions over 132,000 lawsuits filed against industry. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ch5OuzB9L48&feature=youtu.be&t=387 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ch5OuzB9L48&feature=youtu.be... Vaccines protected from lawsuits http://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-News/March-2011/No-Pharma-Liability--No-Vaccine-Mandates-.aspx http://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-News/March-2011/No-Pharma-L...
dragonwriter 10y ago
> They are against all lab-modified organisms! No, they are against all transgenic organisms. They are often quite fine with all the other existing lab-modified organisms. Of course, this may be an awareness problem.
- civilian 10y ago
  Sorry, semantics. I know they're are okay with corn that was bred using advanced breeding techniques. And bananas. But to hit you back with some semantics-- they're okay with certain transgenic organisms, like the yeast & mammalian cells we use for drug testing & production. I also bet they're okay with the glow-in-the-dark GFP kittens. So to be more perfectly exact, let's go with: Transgenic crops.