3 ms·

I find this "science can't be trusted" attitude incredibly worrying. Without science, all you have is a witch-hunt.

• freeopinion 7y ago
  The point is that Kool-Aid can release the results of some study they funded that shows that Kool-Aid is healthier than orange juice. They can say it is scientific because it used scientific techniques. I'm saying that it can't be trusted. It's not that "science can't be trusted". It's that "not everything can be trusted to be scientific". Any study paid for by Monsanto goes in my "untrustable" book until it can be independently verified by competent scientists who do not have a conflict of interest and do not rely on any party for funding or publication that has a conflict of interest.
  • nearbuy 7y ago
    I agree with you there. The problem was you seemed to be implying that because Monsanto is a rich corporation, they control all the science on glyphosate, and we therefore can't rely on science at all. Court rulings have to rely on science to have any legitimacy. There are countless reasons why judgements based on emotions without science are a very bad idea.
    • freeopinion 7y ago
      In this case, it seems that the jury discounted the scientific value of all the studies that were bought by Monsanto. That didn't leave them much. What was left was not incredibly compelling, but seemed to lean away from Monsanto. Some studies have leaned away from Monsanto and demonstrably been tampered to lean back towards Monsanto. So if you're trying to weed out the noise and get down to real science, things don't look good for Monsanto. They don't look terrible for Monsanto until you see how much Monsanto works to bury, obscure, or tamper with real scientific findings. At that point, you bring the hammer down.