5 ms·

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 wel

by 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.)

by antod 5y ago

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.)