4 ms·

I feel they have a big confounder in their study that I wonder may spoil their results. They only used two examples of scientific stories, and one of them is a

by hannob 5y ago

I feel they have a big confounder in their study that I wonder may spoil their results. They only used two examples of scientific stories, and one of them is an issue around the health effects of GMOs. Here's the thing: I think you'll likely find more people on the left/liberal (US-meaning of the word liberal) spectrum that will say they trust in science. You'll also find more people on the left being skeptical about GMOs. In fact, if you'd if there's one issue where you'll have views disagreeing with science on the left, it's probably GMOs. It's simply the classic and most prominent example for that. So I wonder if that study didn't tell much more than "People tend to believe what they believed before, even if they say they trust in science".

sharikous 5y ago
Also nuclear power is a big taboo for the European left, often spoken of in fear-mongering/puritan language, even if most scientists support it.
- antod 5y ago
  It's also possible that objections from some left leaning people to (for example) GMOs or nuclear power aren't scientific objections as such. They may very well believe that those things work the way "science" says they work, but have downstream fears about the corporations that control them, or people implementing them properly, or taking long term care into the future, greed, shortcuts etc Well, in my head that is one way someone could still generally agree with "science", but be against some of those things and stay somewhat consistent.
  - sharikous 5y ago
    Sure. At the end we are speaking of political decisions. One thing is measuring how much energy you can get from 1 g of uranium (science), another thing is building a nuclear plant with safety constraints (engineering) but deciding whether to build a nuclear plant or not is a political decision. It's just that in my experience some people in this camp make objections that are very emotional and the gist is that this is the vibe that dominates the discussion. Of course there are concerns with GMO and nuclear power and you can trust science and still object to them on the grounds you cite. It's just that there are many people who behave, actually, inconsistently in that topic. At least from what I experienced.
  - pfdietz 5y ago
    In my experience, the pro-nuclear arguments have become more BS filled lately. It's a tell that a position is bad when the arguments used to justify it are bad. If there were good arguments, why didn't they use them?
  - pydry 5y ago
    GMO objections are 95% objections about what's done with GMO (e.g. engineering crops to be more resistant to cancer causing roundup). Reporting on GMO objections is 95% about repeating the same studies that GMO crops themselves are safe to eat. Both sides are scientific, neither are lying but one is profit driven, disingenuous and has a far larger megaphone to not just drown out the other side, but entirely misrepresent its objections in the eyes of the public (and link it to astrology, antivaxxers, climate change denial, etc.)
- ggm 5y ago
  Quite a lot of anti nuke is anti statist. If you worry about authority, nuclear power empowers the state above and beyond the norm. It led to increases in armed police in Britain, and a huge rise in secretive policing. Personally, having opposed Torness AGR nuclear power in the 70s I find I've returned to a more open minded view. I would hope we can build cheap reliable nuclear power but the legals cost more than the build, almost. It's not on a declining cost of build, where wind and solar are. GMO is bound up in the obscenity of IPR in genetics. Mostly, people ignore benign routine genetic modification as in breeding and concentrate on Monsanto and roundup. Golden rice and the like have huge upsides. I agree the left is a bit conflicted on this. Communism is Soviet power and electricity!
- datavirtue 5y ago
  NPR ("Science" Friday) ran a segment on a nuclear plant decommission the other day. All fear mongering and swooning over the "waste" issues. No mention of the dire need to roll out new nuclear plants (for clean energy!) that run on...nuclear waste. I was appalled but not surprised. I have seen much better science coverage on YouTube by indie content producers.
  - pfdietz 5y ago
    That's because there is no dire need to roll out new nuclear plants that run on nuclear waste. BTW, the idea that all nuclear waste can be recycled is a lie. Fission products cannot be recycled. Some actinides can be recycled, but only to a limited extent (one-through-again for MOX fuel) in any reactor that's approved for building today.
- watwut 5y ago
  This one is more about engineering and trust toward regulatory bodies. Science alone won't make nuclear plan not to break or leak. It is about trust toward companies that build the stuff. Also, "scientists" is kind of nebulous group. I am unsure who exactly you mean and what exactly they support.
ren_engineer 5y ago
>You'll also find more people on the left being skeptical about GMOs I've found it very strange that the same people who talk about the greed of Big Pharma and their price gouging and selling prescriptions to people who don't need them think the same big pharma companies wouldn't take advantage of a pandemic to make a fortune oh well, my Pfizer and Moderna stock is doing great. Make sure to tell your friends to get your booster
- ericbarrett 5y ago
  This has been my take on it. Not that GMOs will poison your body or anything woo like that. Rather, it's an enormous amount of power to give to an industry with tight margins and few scruples. I can't help but envision vegetables full of simple sugars, pesticides, and so forth in their very DNA. It's a complex picture and there are no doubt great cases for its use, e.g. golden rice. But this is the same industry that sprays RoundUp on wheat just to ripen it[0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_desiccation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_desiccation
  - destitude 5y ago
    And also sues farmers who save seeds from the plants to use next year. You have to pay the company every year for new seed instead of being able to just save some seed back and never having to purchase more again. Gives complete power to the companies and dependency on them.
    - UncleMeat 5y ago
      There are a number of reasons to be skeptical of agribusiness, but this one is especially overblown. The widely known suits around "saved seeds" were not about that specifically.
    - pfdietz 5y ago
      So, you're against hybrid crop varieties? Because you can't save the seeds of those and get the same results. You aren't at the mercy of the companies supplying the seeds because they compete with each other. Also, presumably if this were the objection then something like Roundup-Ready soybeans would now be ok, since those are now off patent. You're ok with those now, right?

by hannob 5y ago

sharikous 5y ago

Also nuclear power is a big taboo for the European left, often spoken of in fear-mongering/puritan language, even if most scientists support it.

antod 5y ago
It's also possible that objections from some left leaning people to (for example) GMOs or nuclear power aren't scientific objections as such. They may very well believe that those things work the way "science" says they work, but have downstream fears about the corporations that control them, or people implementing them properly, or taking long term care into the future, greed, shortcuts etc Well, in my head that is one way someone could still generally agree with "science", but be against some of those things and stay somewhat consistent.
- sharikous 5y ago
  Sure. At the end we are speaking of political decisions. One thing is measuring how much energy you can get from 1 g of uranium (science), another thing is building a nuclear plant with safety constraints (engineering) but deciding whether to build a nuclear plant or not is a political decision. It's just that in my experience some people in this camp make objections that are very emotional and the gist is that this is the vibe that dominates the discussion. Of course there are concerns with GMO and nuclear power and you can trust science and still object to them on the grounds you cite. It's just that there are many people who behave, actually, inconsistently in that topic. At least from what I experienced.
- pfdietz 5y ago
  In my experience, the pro-nuclear arguments have become more BS filled lately. It's a tell that a position is bad when the arguments used to justify it are bad. If there were good arguments, why didn't they use them?
- pydry 5y ago
  GMO objections are 95% objections about what's done with GMO (e.g. engineering crops to be more resistant to cancer causing roundup). Reporting on GMO objections is 95% about repeating the same studies that GMO crops themselves are safe to eat. Both sides are scientific, neither are lying but one is profit driven, disingenuous and has a far larger megaphone to not just drown out the other side, but entirely misrepresent its objections in the eyes of the public (and link it to astrology, antivaxxers, climate change denial, etc.)
ggm 5y ago
Quite a lot of anti nuke is anti statist. If you worry about authority, nuclear power empowers the state above and beyond the norm. It led to increases in armed police in Britain, and a huge rise in secretive policing. Personally, having opposed Torness AGR nuclear power in the 70s I find I've returned to a more open minded view. I would hope we can build cheap reliable nuclear power but the legals cost more than the build, almost. It's not on a declining cost of build, where wind and solar are. GMO is bound up in the obscenity of IPR in genetics. Mostly, people ignore benign routine genetic modification as in breeding and concentrate on Monsanto and roundup. Golden rice and the like have huge upsides. I agree the left is a bit conflicted on this. Communism is Soviet power and electricity!
datavirtue 5y ago
NPR ("Science" Friday) ran a segment on a nuclear plant decommission the other day. All fear mongering and swooning over the "waste" issues. No mention of the dire need to roll out new nuclear plants (for clean energy!) that run on...nuclear waste. I was appalled but not surprised. I have seen much better science coverage on YouTube by indie content producers.
- pfdietz 5y ago
  That's because there is no dire need to roll out new nuclear plants that run on nuclear waste. BTW, the idea that all nuclear waste can be recycled is a lie. Fission products cannot be recycled. Some actinides can be recycled, but only to a limited extent (one-through-again for MOX fuel) in any reactor that's approved for building today.
watwut 5y ago
This one is more about engineering and trust toward regulatory bodies. Science alone won't make nuclear plan not to break or leak. It is about trust toward companies that build the stuff. Also, "scientists" is kind of nebulous group. I am unsure who exactly you mean and what exactly they support.

ren_engineer 5y ago

>You'll also find more people on the left being skeptical about GMOs I've found it very strange that the same people who talk about the greed of Big Pharma and their price gouging and selling prescriptions to people who don't need them think the same big pharma companies wouldn't take advantage of a pandemic to make a fortune oh well, my Pfizer and Moderna stock is doing great. Make sure to tell your friends to get your booster

ericbarrett 5y ago
This has been my take on it. Not that GMOs will poison your body or anything woo like that. Rather, it's an enormous amount of power to give to an industry with tight margins and few scruples. I can't help but envision vegetables full of simple sugars, pesticides, and so forth in their very DNA. It's a complex picture and there are no doubt great cases for its use, e.g. golden rice. But this is the same industry that sprays RoundUp on wheat just to ripen it[0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_desiccation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_desiccation
- destitude 5y ago
  And also sues farmers who save seeds from the plants to use next year. You have to pay the company every year for new seed instead of being able to just save some seed back and never having to purchase more again. Gives complete power to the companies and dependency on them.
  - UncleMeat 5y ago
    There are a number of reasons to be skeptical of agribusiness, but this one is especially overblown. The widely known suits around "saved seeds" were not about that specifically.
  - pfdietz 5y ago
    So, you're against hybrid crop varieties? Because you can't save the seeds of those and get the same results. You aren't at the mercy of the companies supplying the seeds because they compete with each other. Also, presumably if this were the objection then something like Roundup-Ready soybeans would now be ok, since those are now off patent. You're ok with those now, right?