3 ms·
The abstract itself is already contradictory. How can a "controversial scientific issue" at the same time have "expert consensus"? If there was a consensus, the
by tsss 4y ago
The abstract itself is already contradictory. How can a "controversial scientific issue" at the same time have "expert consensus"? If there was a consensus, then it would not be controversial. Or perhaps there's often not as much consensus as some people would like to believe.
- sidlls 4y agoPolitically controversial issues (e.g. GM foods, COVID related practices) frequently have scientific consensus.
- upsidesinclude 4y agoBut that's why this whole study is really trash. The point of this paper is to conflate two issues. One is disagreement with consensus, based on underlying problems with adoption of the practices such a consensus might seem to support. As others have mentioned, GM crops are likely fine to eat, however it is not trivial to ask whether we should adopt the uses of gm linked pesticides etc. Roundup causes cancer - they paid the fees from the court cases they lost. Now it is being replaced by an even less understood insecticide. It is not trivial to ask whether we should have a high level of scrutiny toward recently generated vaccines and methods. That is not the same as disregard for vaccination. By conflating these issues, in the commonly arrogant (overconfident?) tone of academia, this is more of the same Newspeak garbage that has become all too common
- joemazerino 4y agoDepends who you include in the consensus. Plenty of doctors and researchers were shut out of the public debate regarding COVID safety measures.