3 ms·
> the ones confusing technology with science, and insisting that GMOs must be perfectly safe I don't know if I fall in that group (I don't think I confuse the
by wfunction 9y ago
> the ones confusing technology with science, and insisting that GMOs must be perfectly safe
I don't know if I fall in that group (I don't think I confuse the two and I don't really talk about GMO much) but my prior belief would be that GMO products are probably safe, through some kind of hand-wavy mathematical argument: it's like modifying a program to do what you want; chances are if you mess up, it'll crash quickly and won't work rather than working almost-as-intended while injecting nefarious input into the next program.
Would LOVE to read evidence to the contrary though. So please share your citations.
- coldtea 9y ago>Would LOVE to read evidence to the contrary though. So please share your citations. Perhaps you've missed my whole initial argument?
- sakagami0 9y agolmao idk where u come from but no evidence means no ground for argument. even if you made a point that you cant find evidence. If you accept that lack of evidence is evidence, then a i have a proposal for you that begins with r and ends with eligion.
- coldtea 9y ago>even if you made a point that you cant find evidence. No, I made a point about the burden of proof. But of course that takes actually reading what has been written to tell.