9 ms·
Thank god we have you here to guess!
by john-radio 8y ago
Thank god we have you here to guess!
- reallydude 8y agoAnd you to second guess? The burden of proof is on the assertion.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- sushisushisushi 8y agoThe assertion that needs to be proven is "pesticides in the amounts that currently exist in the food supply chain do not have adverse effects on human health," wise guy.
- ben509 8y agoUnless discussion is just going to be about scoring points, the burden of proof is on anyone who is intellectually curious.
- stillbourne 8y agohttps://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof
- lostmsu 8y agoWell, he guessed correctly. They walk really hard around the topic to never mention the numbers.
- stillbourne 8y agoSkepticism is dead.
- dictum 8y agoSkepticism is a rather paradoxical word/concept to imply trust-by-default.
- stillbourne 8y agoSkepticism doesn't imply trust-by-default. This article is an example of the shoddy work that is often performed by bad science "journalists" and used by the Chemophobic to push bullshit such as essential oils, naturopathic medicines, and MLM crapware. If you can't recognize that this is bad journalism that's not my fault. Its not that I "trust" the herbicide/pesticide companies that produce and manufacture these chemicals. Its that there exists a body of evidence that shows "most" of these chemicals to be safe. When the evidence changes to show that the chemical is not safe, what the mechanism is that causes the safety issue and presents data to back that up, I will change my mind. Because that is how falsifiablity works. It is not trust by default. It is rather that, to the best of our ability, with the science and techniques that are currently available, we cannot find an issue with this substance. When the science changes and new things are learned about our biology and how chemicals interact with our body and we re-evaluate those criteria based on those findings then we change the science. This article... is not that.
- DTrejo 8y agoStillbourne, you seem to have a lot of trust in science funded by chemical companies. Remember how tobacco companies lied about the health impact of cigarettes?
- stillbourne 8y agoI know right, it almost like there are no studies conducted by the NIH, the EPA, the FDA, all major Universities including Yale, Harvard, Stanford or any other independent group such as NIEHS. NOPE, ALL pesticide and herbicide research on toxicological properties of chemicals is only ever conducted by BIGAG. You know, just like all of those vaccine studies that show efficacy and safety are only ever conducted by BIGPHARMA. Nope, if you support science, skeptical inquiry and chemicals other than those that occur in nature you must be a shill.
- coldtea 8y agoSo, by them "never mentioning the numbers" you derived that the parent "guessed correctly"?
- stillbourne 8y agoYes, let us thank the anthropomorphic deity that science has a discipline called Chemistry with a subdiscipline called Toxicology where we don't have to guess about these things. All hail the LD50 and likewise the LC50 so that we no longer have to engage in blatant chemophobia.
- KidComputer 8y agoYeah neither of those metrics are by which we measure the effects of carcinogens and endocrine disruptors.
- stillbourne 8y agoI am sorry I didn't include the every caveat to the massive body of Toxicology/Carcinogenicity in my anecdotal witticism designed to be a snide dismissal of an idiot response to a stupid article.