22 ms·

Funny that you mentioned thalidomide. It's one of the first that popped to my mind as well; perhaps because it was not only touted as safe, but it was also spec

Funny that you mentioned thalidomide. It's one of the first that popped to my mind as well; perhaps because it was not only touted as safe, but it was also specifically promoted to the population in which it would cause the most harm. History is, of course, replete with such examples. Thalidomide was actually a "fortunate" case to some extent, because the degree and the immediacy of the harm done enabled relatively swift acknowledgment of the causative agent. But, your parent seems unable or unwilling to understand how his line of reasoning produces such short-sighted outcomes. Instead, he continues to exemplify the very problem by repeatedly demanding evidence for harm, and assuming safety until such evidence is provided. It's pefectly circular reasoning and is especially dangerous in cases wherein a causative agent is not readily identified or works within a complex, multi-variable system such as nature.

JoeAltmaier 12y ago
At some point is crying 'the sky is falling' to assume everything is dangerous, or that you know where the danger is coming from. I know GMO has a bad rap; but it seems like a reach to blame everything from butterflies to cancer on it.
- unclebucknasty 12y ago
  At some point our hubris in assuming that everything is safe (or believing the claims of those who have a vested interested in stating as much) will come back to haunt us. Again.
  - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
    I believe the point is, don't believe every unsubstantiated claim by default. Some plausible evidence is required. The vested interest is often a sign of an unreliable claim; I would argue back that GMO-haters have just as much (more) vested interest in hanging SOME crime on GMOs, and are too willing to believe anything bad said about them.
    - coldtea 12y ago
      >The vested interest is often a sign of an unreliable claim Well, we do know that companies can throw science to the side and rush to push products to market. They can even pay researchers for favorable studies (tons of tobacco industry sponsored studies back in the day, showing how smoking was a-ok). We also know that GMOs have vested interests of trillions of dollars, from companies such as Monsanto. The "vested interests" of GMO-haters are what? At best their ideology -- which is not a tangible interest.
      - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
        In a venue such as this, there are only ideology and debate-points to be earned, they are the only coin. Its not all about the money for most folks - its about righteous indignation and following a dogma.
    - unclebucknasty 12y ago
      >I believe the point is, don't believe every unsubstantiated claim by default. Some plausible evidence is required. Let's make a bet. I'm going to mix a vat of chemicals. Then, I'm going to tell you that it's safe and "prove" it to you by feeding it to a mouse and, together, observing it go "unaffected" for 15 minutes. Next, I will challenge you to prove that it is unsafe. If you cannot provide some "plausible evidence" that it is unsafe, then you will drink a gallon of my concoction every day for a year. Do we have a bet? Simplification? Yes. But, the line of reasoning is the same. Of course I don't believe every unsubstantiated claim. That's a straw-man. And, I won't contest your point about whatever vested interests GMO-haters may have in "hanging some crime on GMOs". Instead, I'll object to your implicit characterization that the issue is binary. The world is not just comprised of GMO-lovers and GMO-haters. Some simply hold reasonable concerns. In fact, I don't recall even stating in my comments that GMOs are unsafe. I've only said that we don't know that they are safe; yet we often behave as if we do. We then challenge others to prove otherwise as a condition of constraining their use, even when we've seen this approach end in disaster time-and-again. That's my point.
      - Oletros 12y ago

JoeAltmaier 12y ago

At some point is crying 'the sky is falling' to assume everything is dangerous, or that you know where the danger is coming from. I know GMO has a bad rap; but it seems like a reach to blame everything from butterflies to cancer on it.

unclebucknasty 12y ago
At some point our hubris in assuming that everything is safe (or believing the claims of those who have a vested interested in stating as much) will come back to haunt us. Again.
- JoeAltmaier 12y ago
  I believe the point is, don't believe every unsubstantiated claim by default. Some plausible evidence is required. The vested interest is often a sign of an unreliable claim; I would argue back that GMO-haters have just as much (more) vested interest in hanging SOME crime on GMOs, and are too willing to believe anything bad said about them.
  - coldtea 12y ago
    >The vested interest is often a sign of an unreliable claim Well, we do know that companies can throw science to the side and rush to push products to market. They can even pay researchers for favorable studies (tons of tobacco industry sponsored studies back in the day, showing how smoking was a-ok). We also know that GMOs have vested interests of trillions of dollars, from companies such as Monsanto. The "vested interests" of GMO-haters are what? At best their ideology -- which is not a tangible interest.
    - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
      In a venue such as this, there are only ideology and debate-points to be earned, they are the only coin. Its not all about the money for most folks - its about righteous indignation and following a dogma.
  - unclebucknasty 12y ago
    >I believe the point is, don't believe every unsubstantiated claim by default. Some plausible evidence is required. Let's make a bet. I'm going to mix a vat of chemicals. Then, I'm going to tell you that it's safe and "prove" it to you by feeding it to a mouse and, together, observing it go "unaffected" for 15 minutes. Next, I will challenge you to prove that it is unsafe. If you cannot provide some "plausible evidence" that it is unsafe, then you will drink a gallon of my concoction every day for a year. Do we have a bet? Simplification? Yes. But, the line of reasoning is the same. Of course I don't believe every unsubstantiated claim. That's a straw-man. And, I won't contest your point about whatever vested interests GMO-haters may have in "hanging some crime on GMOs". Instead, I'll object to your implicit characterization that the issue is binary. The world is not just comprised of GMO-lovers and GMO-haters. Some simply hold reasonable concerns. In fact, I don't recall even stating in my comments that GMOs are unsafe. I've only said that we don't know that they are safe; yet we often behave as if we do. We then challenge others to prove otherwise as a condition of constraining their use, even when we've seen this approach end in disaster time-and-again. That's my point.
    - Oletros 12y ago