4 ms·

> (All that said, I do still support GMO labelling laws. People should be able to know what they're eating, even if they overreact to that information.) Why do

by wdr1 11y ago

> (All that said, I do still support GMO labelling laws. People should be able to know what they're eating, even if they overreact to that information.) Why do there have to be laws? Kosher food isn't handled by federal inspectors. Why should GMO labeling? Listen, if a bunch of people want to get together, found an organization for a GMO-free labeling, and you can choose to only buy products that go through that inspection process, go nuts. I have no problem with that. But if you're saying you want to take my money, my tax dollars, to do something based on anti-science lunacy, excuse my french, but no fucking way.

coldtea 11y ago
>Kosher food isn't handled by federal inspectors. Why should GMO labeling? Because corporations would sell cyanide labeled as children food if it was allowed and they could make a profit out of it. In fact, even with laws, they frequently break them worldwide, lowering quality inspections below standards, etc. >to do something based on anti-science lunacy, excuse my french, but no fucking way. Well, if the majority asks for it, fucking way. Besides, with all the big tobacco sponsored research in the 50's to 70's, one could be led believe that "scientifically" smoke is good for you too. It's neither empirical nor scientific to believe that scientists don't lie, and facts can't be distorted to sell stuff to huge markets. It doesn't have to be some big conspiracy, after all scientists working in the field have an inherent bias to consider the stuff that gives them a paycheck as "safe". "Thalidomide? Sure, it's great, release it already".
- wdr1 11y ago
  > Well, if the majority asks for it, fucking way. Besides, with all the big tobacco sponsored research in the 50's to 70's, one could be led believe that "scientifically" smoke is good for you too. > It's neither empirical nor scientific to believe that scientists don't lie, and facts can't be distorted to sell stuff to huge markets. It doesn't have to be some big conspiracy, after all scientists working in the field have an inherent bias to consider the stuff that gives them a paycheck as "safe". "Thalidomide? Sure, it's great, release it already". This is the same "you can't trust scientists" rhetoric from climate change deniers. Please show me peer reviewed evidence that GMO are dangers & we can talk. Until then, I'm simply point to the MOUNTAIN of peer review evidence saying they don't.
  - coldtea 11y ago
    >This is the same "you can't trust scientists" rhetoric from climate change deniers. While I'm not a "climate change denier" (in fact, I believe the opposite), that's not an counter-argument (as it doesn't address the arguments made or the core of the matter). There's a mystical idea about science, as some pure field, that works in abstracto outside of financial, political, commercial and ideological influences, and that because of "peer review" the end result will always converge rapidly to the truth (e.g. we would never get BS ideas prevailing for 10 or 50 years before we get to the truth). I don't ascribe to that. >Please show me peer reviewed evidence that GMO are dangers & we can talk. Until then, I'm simply point to the MOUNTAIN of peer review evidence saying they don't. You can publish Markov generated BS in a peer reviewed journals: http://www.nature.com/news/publishers-withdraw-more-than-120-gibberish-papers-1.14763 http://www.nature.com/news/publishers-withdraw-more-than-120... http://www.naturalnews.com/028194_Scott_Reuben_research_fraud.html http://www.naturalnews.com/028194_Scott_Reuben_research_frau... But, here's some non-markov generated paper, that provides some healthy scepticism: >The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among the relationships probed in each scientific field. In this framework, a research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a field are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there is a greater number and lesser preselection of tested relationships; where there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes; _when there is greater financial and other interest and prejudice_; and when more teams are involved in a scientific field in chase of statistical significance. Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply _accurate measures of the prevailing bias_. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]

by wdr1 11y ago

coldtea 11y ago

>Kosher food isn't handled by federal inspectors. Why should GMO labeling? Because corporations would sell cyanide labeled as children food if it was allowed and they could make a profit out of it. In fact, even with laws, they frequently break them worldwide, lowering quality inspections below standards, etc. >to do something based on anti-science lunacy, excuse my french, but no fucking way. Well, if the majority asks for it, fucking way. Besides, with all the big tobacco sponsored research in the 50's to 70's, one could be led believe that "scientifically" smoke is good for you too. It's neither empirical nor scientific to believe that scientists don't lie, and facts can't be distorted to sell stuff to huge markets. It doesn't have to be some big conspiracy, after all scientists working in the field have an inherent bias to consider the stuff that gives them a paycheck as "safe". "Thalidomide? Sure, it's great, release it already".

wdr1 11y ago
> Well, if the majority asks for it, fucking way. Besides, with all the big tobacco sponsored research in the 50's to 70's, one could be led believe that "scientifically" smoke is good for you too. > It's neither empirical nor scientific to believe that scientists don't lie, and facts can't be distorted to sell stuff to huge markets. It doesn't have to be some big conspiracy, after all scientists working in the field have an inherent bias to consider the stuff that gives them a paycheck as "safe". "Thalidomide? Sure, it's great, release it already". This is the same "you can't trust scientists" rhetoric from climate change deniers. Please show me peer reviewed evidence that GMO are dangers & we can talk. Until then, I'm simply point to the MOUNTAIN of peer review evidence saying they don't.
- coldtea 11y ago
  >This is the same "you can't trust scientists" rhetoric from climate change deniers. While I'm not a "climate change denier" (in fact, I believe the opposite), that's not an counter-argument (as it doesn't address the arguments made or the core of the matter). There's a mystical idea about science, as some pure field, that works in abstracto outside of financial, political, commercial and ideological influences, and that because of "peer review" the end result will always converge rapidly to the truth (e.g. we would never get BS ideas prevailing for 10 or 50 years before we get to the truth). I don't ascribe to that. >Please show me peer reviewed evidence that GMO are dangers & we can talk. Until then, I'm simply point to the MOUNTAIN of peer review evidence saying they don't. You can publish Markov generated BS in a peer reviewed journals: http://www.nature.com/news/publishers-withdraw-more-than-120-gibberish-papers-1.14763 http://www.nature.com/news/publishers-withdraw-more-than-120... http://www.naturalnews.com/028194_Scott_Reuben_research_fraud.html http://www.naturalnews.com/028194_Scott_Reuben_research_frau... But, here's some non-markov generated paper, that provides some healthy scepticism: >The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among the relationships probed in each scientific field. In this framework, a research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a field are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there is a greater number and lesser preselection of tested relationships; where there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes; _when there is greater financial and other interest and prejudice_; and when more teams are involved in a scientific field in chase of statistical significance. Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply _accurate measures of the prevailing bias_. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]