4 ms·
No, evaluate the evidence, not the people presenting it.
by AlbertCory 3y ago
No, evaluate the evidence, not the people presenting it.
- joshvm 3y agoGLP is a Monsanto-fronted publication [0], so there is a significant bias and I'd take anything they say (i.e. a company that really would like you to buy crop treatments) with a pinch of salt. [0] https://usrtk.org/industry-pr/jon-entine-genetic-literacy-project/ https://usrtk.org/industry-pr/jon-entine-genetic-literacy-pr...
- AlbertCory 3y agoParaphrasing: "ok, but I am going to evaluate the person presenting it."
- petee 3y agoSince its so easy to misrepresent data, it'd be irresponsible not to consider the presenter at all, especially one with a reputation such as Monsanto. All those ads/studies saying cigarettes were safe, also had evidence Edit: wont let me reply to you, but evidence can be cherry picked by the presenter to make it lean their way. Again, its irresponsible to not consider who is providing you that evidence. That said, I haven't seen you cite anything
- AlbertCory 3y agoYou still haven't said anything about the actual evidence. The reason there was no reply button is just that not enough time had elapsed. Clever of you to try to turn it around, but sorry, no dice: the article you're dismissing IS the evidence. What do you have?
- smegsicle 3y agoyou bring a compelling argument, however, has "monsanto is pushing it, so it's probably warped" ever led us wrong?
- AlbertCory 3y agoI expect they've sponsored a lot of research. So you've read it all?
- hooverd 3y agoHoneybees aren't declining because they're managed. Other bees are. The evidence is that honeybees are doing okay- nothing about other bees. You should still ask yourself "is this a propaganda shop", because facts are only impartial devoid of context.
- AlbertCory 3y ago"context" : another word for ad hominem argument you did at least respond to some arguments, so I'll give you that.
- hooverd 3y agoI don't think they're bad people. I think the "center for promoting an agenda" type organizations have an incentive to promote their agendas.
- AlbertCory 3y agoSo no environmental or climate group's "research" is trustworthy either?
- hooverd 3y agoWhat are their incentives? I'd be weary of an environmental group that was focused on downplaying the byproducts of solar manufacturing. So, yes, their research would bias towards saying that climate change is a threat. Maybe they even stand to make money from it. It really depends on the group. I'd be more likely to trust an ag extension than a first party manufacturer on issues of pesticides. Edit: I'd apply the same thinking to say someone being paid to review hardware by a company vs a reviewer not being paid to.
- AlbertCory 3y agoIncentives for a nonprofit are almost entirely about getting donations and grants. Without those they're out of business. So for the aforementioned groups, sending out exaggerated warnings about disaster are a constant temptation. If they sponsor or perform research, what are the chances it'll fail to support their public positions?
- havershank 3y ago[dead]