3 ms·

The balance of power is so unbelievably skewed that "the science" simply cannot be trusted. I don't think this is an argument you want to be making, as it woul

The balance of power is so unbelievably skewed that "the science" simply cannot be trusted. I don't think this is an argument you want to be making, as it would legitimize most forms of quackery.

freeopinion 7y ago
Name one study that sides with Monsanto that wasn't paid for by Monsanto. Now name a study that was paid for by Monsanto that puts them in a bad light. Now look at the final draft after the scientists were done and see if it hasn't been flipped on its head. You can pile up a hundred studies that cheer for Monsanto, and one that goes against them and I will choose the 1 if they were all paid for by Monsanto. If you think there are multi-national gazillion dollar companies out there willing to go to almost any lengths to build their empire, you might be susceptible to many forms of quackery. Or you could be entirely reasonable.
wtallis 7y ago
No, it doesn't legitimize any quackery or pseudoscience. Inspecting the financial motivations for bias behind studies can only reveal them to be weaker evidence than they appeared to be at first glance, but it cannot reverse their conclusions. If removing from consideration the Monsanto-funded studies changes the balance of evidence from "probably safe" to probably unsafe" instead of merely changing it to "I don't know", then that's only because there was already credible evidence on the unsafe side of the scale.
- Karunamon 7y ago
  >Inspecting the financial motivations for bias behind studies can only reveal them to be weaker evidence than they appeared to be at first glance, but it cannot reverse their conclusions. Strictly speaking, you're absolutely right, but in the court of public opinion where policy battles are fought, financing is commonly used as grounds to dismiss entire studies outright, without the slightest thought given to the actual scientific methodology used in the papers.
  - cco 7y ago
    As well it should be? We've shown time and time again that the source of funding control a) whether or not results get published, e.g. 99 "bad results" don't ever get published but the 1 "good result" is, and b) the extent to which the design and execution of the study is biased towards a "good result". The pendulum has swung very wide in favor of controlling interests, in fact I would argue that a large portion of the "anti-science" sentiment we are seeing is due to the perceived rigging of the scientific landscape. I say perceived here because even if 95% of science produced today is good the ones that directly affect the public and garner headlines are going to be related directly to a corporate interest, e.g. pharma, chemical companies etc. Also of note, guess who doctored the results about vaccines and autism? A credentialed scientist, obviously retracted at this point but I would put it to you that the very fact that this got published represents to the laity that there is a fundamental problem in science today. Science was the belle of the ball in the early/mid 20th century, then had the benefit of the doubt as the century ended but now clearly has a public reputation problem. Getting money(the wrong kind) out of science is just as important as getting money out of politics, you should not trust the result of an article paid for by Monsanto anymore than you should trust the politician that they have bought as well.
    - Karunamon 7y ago
      >As well it should be? Absolutely not! The moment you're discounting the science and dismissing stuff based on fallacious reasoning is the moment you place opinion over empiricism. If the Monsanto-funded studies suck, it will 100% be possible to point to the reasons why in those studies.
      - wtallis 7y ago
        > If the Monsanto-funded studies suck, it will 100% be possible to point to the reasons why in those studies. You can't read a study to determine that it's wrong because of something like survivorship bias, because you're not reading all the conflicting results that didn't get published. The only way to determine that kind of cause is to conduct a lot of independent research seeking to replicate the questionable study. That's more likely to happen if you discount and throw out the questionable studies, leaving you with a more realistic picture of the quantity and quality of evidence you have on the issue. If you take questionable studies at face value, you're more likely to decide that you have enough evidence to come to a conclusion.

The balance of power is so unbelievably skewed that "the science" simply cannot be trusted. I don't think this is an argument you want to be making, as it would legitimize most forms of quackery.

freeopinion 7y ago

Name one study that sides with Monsanto that wasn't paid for by Monsanto. Now name a study that was paid for by Monsanto that puts them in a bad light. Now look at the final draft after the scientists were done and see if it hasn't been flipped on its head. You can pile up a hundred studies that cheer for Monsanto, and one that goes against them and I will choose the 1 if they were all paid for by Monsanto. If you think there are multi-national gazillion dollar companies out there willing to go to almost any lengths to build their empire, you might be susceptible to many forms of quackery. Or you could be entirely reasonable.

wtallis 7y ago

No, it doesn't legitimize any quackery or pseudoscience. Inspecting the financial motivations for bias behind studies can only reveal them to be weaker evidence than they appeared to be at first glance, but it cannot reverse their conclusions. If removing from consideration the Monsanto-funded studies changes the balance of evidence from "probably safe" to probably unsafe" instead of merely changing it to "I don't know", then that's only because there was already credible evidence on the unsafe side of the scale.

Karunamon 7y ago
>Inspecting the financial motivations for bias behind studies can only reveal them to be weaker evidence than they appeared to be at first glance, but it cannot reverse their conclusions. Strictly speaking, you're absolutely right, but in the court of public opinion where policy battles are fought, financing is commonly used as grounds to dismiss entire studies outright, without the slightest thought given to the actual scientific methodology used in the papers.
- cco 7y ago
  As well it should be? We've shown time and time again that the source of funding control a) whether or not results get published, e.g. 99 "bad results" don't ever get published but the 1 "good result" is, and b) the extent to which the design and execution of the study is biased towards a "good result". The pendulum has swung very wide in favor of controlling interests, in fact I would argue that a large portion of the "anti-science" sentiment we are seeing is due to the perceived rigging of the scientific landscape. I say perceived here because even if 95% of science produced today is good the ones that directly affect the public and garner headlines are going to be related directly to a corporate interest, e.g. pharma, chemical companies etc. Also of note, guess who doctored the results about vaccines and autism? A credentialed scientist, obviously retracted at this point but I would put it to you that the very fact that this got published represents to the laity that there is a fundamental problem in science today. Science was the belle of the ball in the early/mid 20th century, then had the benefit of the doubt as the century ended but now clearly has a public reputation problem. Getting money(the wrong kind) out of science is just as important as getting money out of politics, you should not trust the result of an article paid for by Monsanto anymore than you should trust the politician that they have bought as well.
  - Karunamon 7y ago
    >As well it should be? Absolutely not! The moment you're discounting the science and dismissing stuff based on fallacious reasoning is the moment you place opinion over empiricism. If the Monsanto-funded studies suck, it will 100% be possible to point to the reasons why in those studies.
    - wtallis 7y ago
      > If the Monsanto-funded studies suck, it will 100% be possible to point to the reasons why in those studies. You can't read a study to determine that it's wrong because of something like survivorship bias, because you're not reading all the conflicting results that didn't get published. The only way to determine that kind of cause is to conduct a lot of independent research seeking to replicate the questionable study. That's more likely to happen if you discount and throw out the questionable studies, leaving you with a more realistic picture of the quantity and quality of evidence you have on the issue. If you take questionable studies at face value, you're more likely to decide that you have enough evidence to come to a conclusion.