5 ms·

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

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
  It really depends on the talking points. There are certainly talking points that go against evidence on all sides - anti-GMO types ("GMOs cause tumors"), pro-GMO types ("Without GMOs a lot of the population would have starved to death by now"), people concerned about automation ("automation is occurring faster now that it's ever occurred before"), people concerned about AI ("Once we reach human level AI, AI development will grow exponentially"). If you decide to label anyone who's supportive of/concerned about/uninterested in GMOs/AI/automation/whatever anti-science simply because someone who is nominally on the same side with them is a crank, then you're going to end up throwing that insult at a lot of people who don't deserve it. And I probably still wouldn't call any of the people in the examples above anti-science, even if their arguments fly in the face of available evidence. It doesn't further the conversation, it only insults the person you're arguing with.
  - scott_s 10y ago
    I think your objection is that a person is being given a label, which I agree, that's usually not fruitful. But the sentiment must still come across: some objections go against not just the body of knowledge we have accumulated through the scientific process, but the basic philosophy of science itself. I'm also talking about specific positions or arguments, so I'm not concerned with your concern about over-labeling people.
    - Chathamization 10y ago
      Which is fine, but the posts I was responding to were labeling people critical of GMOs in general as anti-science, rather than labeling a particular argument as anti-science. But even if you limit yourself to particular arguments that are contradicted to available evidence, the "anti-science" epithet will gets applied to the anti-GMO bunk ("GMOs cause tumors"), but not pro-GMO bunk ("without GMOs billions would have starved to death") or bunk about automation ("automation is happening faster than ever before"). It doesn't tend to be used to generally describe people who are making claims that are contrary to available evidence. It tends to only be used to attack people who disagree with the user on certain specific issues. It's more posturing and veiled insult than legitimate argument. Then again, even if it was used in a intellectually honest and consistent way (which, again, it almost always isn't), it wouldn't be particularly useful. If someone is doing something that flies in the face of the underlying philosophy of science, address it directly ("How can we verify your claims?" "What evidence would you deem sufficient to decide that this is incorrect?"). Saying something is anti-science isn't useful; it only tells us that the speaker disagrees.

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
It really depends on the talking points. There are certainly talking points that go against evidence on all sides - anti-GMO types ("GMOs cause tumors"), pro-GMO types ("Without GMOs a lot of the population would have starved to death by now"), people concerned about automation ("automation is occurring faster now that it's ever occurred before"), people concerned about AI ("Once we reach human level AI, AI development will grow exponentially"). If you decide to label anyone who's supportive of/concerned about/uninterested in GMOs/AI/automation/whatever anti-science simply because someone who is nominally on the same side with them is a crank, then you're going to end up throwing that insult at a lot of people who don't deserve it. And I probably still wouldn't call any of the people in the examples above anti-science, even if their arguments fly in the face of available evidence. It doesn't further the conversation, it only insults the person you're arguing with.
- scott_s 10y ago
  I think your objection is that a person is being given a label, which I agree, that's usually not fruitful. But the sentiment must still come across: some objections go against not just the body of knowledge we have accumulated through the scientific process, but the basic philosophy of science itself. I'm also talking about specific positions or arguments, so I'm not concerned with your concern about over-labeling people.
  - Chathamization 10y ago
    Which is fine, but the posts I was responding to were labeling people critical of GMOs in general as anti-science, rather than labeling a particular argument as anti-science. But even if you limit yourself to particular arguments that are contradicted to available evidence, the "anti-science" epithet will gets applied to the anti-GMO bunk ("GMOs cause tumors"), but not pro-GMO bunk ("without GMOs billions would have starved to death") or bunk about automation ("automation is happening faster than ever before"). It doesn't tend to be used to generally describe people who are making claims that are contrary to available evidence. It tends to only be used to attack people who disagree with the user on certain specific issues. It's more posturing and veiled insult than legitimate argument. Then again, even if it was used in a intellectually honest and consistent way (which, again, it almost always isn't), it wouldn't be particularly useful. If someone is doing something that flies in the face of the underlying philosophy of science, address it directly ("How can we verify your claims?" "What evidence would you deem sufficient to decide that this is incorrect?"). Saying something is anti-science isn't useful; it only tells us that the speaker disagrees.