5 ms·

Are you implying that we should only be reading articles by Liberal/Progressive think tanks?

by radiator 3y ago

coding123 3y ago
At this point I'm already dismissing CNN and NPR out of hand, I guess it only makes sense for it to go the other way too. 3 Years ago I was actually on the other side too. Wow what a journey.
tzs 3y ago
He's implying that we should be more skeptical of articles from sources that have gotten basic science wrong in other articles. It's not a liberal vs conservative thing per se. There are plenty of liberals and progressives who get basic science wrong. Liberals are more likely to reject nuclear power or GMO food for reasons that are not scientifically justifiable, for example [1]. Liberals have historically also been more likely to believe in medical nonsense like healing crystals and homeopathy and anti-vaccination. The things liberals are more anti-science on though are also less likely to be the kind of things that require national or international solutions and so attract fewer think tanks. Hence there is a better correlation between libertarian/conservative think tanks and scientifically unsound positions than there is between liberal/progressive think tanks and such positions. [1] There is a decent argument against GMO food in places where food is abundant and cheap so avoiding GMO doesn't mean famine, but it has nothing to do with the science of GMO itself. It is that GMO gives food companies much more ability to customize and tweak foods in ways that are great for business but bad for public health. We already know when it comes to money vs health they go for money, which is a big contributor to rising obesity. They can still accomplish many of the same things without GMO that they would use GMO for but it is slower and more expensive which reduces the amount of harm they can do and gives more time to get regulations to catch up.

5 ms·

Are you implying that we should only be reading articles by Liberal/Progressive think tanks?

by radiator 3y ago

Are you implying that we should only be reading articles by Liberal/Progressive think tanks?

coding123 3y ago
At this point I'm already dismissing CNN and NPR out of hand, I guess it only makes sense for it to go the other way too. 3 Years ago I was actually on the other side too. Wow what a journey.
tzs 3y ago
He's implying that we should be more skeptical of articles from sources that have gotten basic science wrong in other articles. It's not a liberal vs conservative thing per se. There are plenty of liberals and progressives who get basic science wrong. Liberals are more likely to reject nuclear power or GMO food for reasons that are not scientifically justifiable, for example [1]. Liberals have historically also been more likely to believe in medical nonsense like healing crystals and homeopathy and anti-vaccination. The things liberals are more anti-science on though are also less likely to be the kind of things that require national or international solutions and so attract fewer think tanks. Hence there is a better correlation between libertarian/conservative think tanks and scientifically unsound positions than there is between liberal/progressive think tanks and such positions. [1] There is a decent argument against GMO food in places where food is abundant and cheap so avoiding GMO doesn't mean famine, but it has nothing to do with the science of GMO itself. It is that GMO gives food companies much more ability to customize and tweak foods in ways that are great for business but bad for public health. We already know when it comes to money vs health they go for money, which is a big contributor to rising obesity. They can still accomplish many of the same things without GMO that they would use GMO for but it is slower and more expensive which reduces the amount of harm they can do and gives more time to get regulations to catch up.