The Demise of Science

[chadn737]

 

The first link contains a pretty crappy set of arguments, which I would be happy to expound upon, but your claim was not that the left is opposed to nuclear power, it was that the left is cherry-picking its claims in its opposition to nuclear power. I see nothing in any of those links that points out a single instance of cherry-picking. So it is still unclear to me that the left's opposition to nuclear power is based on cherry-picking.

Given your last post, it was not clear whether you were arguing against the claim that it is the Left opposing these technologies or if you were attacking the claim of cherry picking. These sources were meant to demonstrate the former, not the latter.

 

As far as cherry picking, there is inherent evidence of such in the anti-GMO arguments made. For instance Occupy Wallstreet cites health effects, which the overwhelming evidence suggest that there is none, as well as statements from scientific bodies both in the US and Europe. They cite colony collapse disorder, of which there is absolutely no evidence. Claiming unsubstantiated health ir environmental effect on largely discredited studies while ignoring numerous studies to the contrary is by definition cherry picking.

Edited December 12, 2014 by chadn737

[swansont]

Given your last post, it was not clear whether you were arguing against the claim that it is the Left opposing these technologies or if you were attacking the claim of cherry picking. These sources were meant to demonstrate the former, not the latter.

 

As far as cherry picking, there is inherent evidence of such in the anti-GMO arguments made. For instance Occupy Wallstreet cites health effects, which the overwhelming evidence suggest that there is none, as well as statements from scientific bodies both in the US and Europe. They cite colony collapse disorder, of which there is absolutely no evidence. Claiming unsubstantiated health ir environmental effect on largely discredited studies while ignoring numerous studies to the contrary is by definition cherry picking.

 

Wouldn't choosing one anecdote form a group that is not representative of the whole also count as cherry-picking?

[chadn737]

 

Wouldn't choosing one anecdote form a group that is not representative of the whole also count as cherry-picking?

I am not saying that everyone on the political left agrees to these views. Some prominant politicians on the Left (Hillary Clinton for example) have sided with GMOs. Given that most of my colleagues are academic scientists firmly on the political left and also firmly in support of GMOs, I am not so simplistic or stupid as to make such generalizations to the Left as a whole. Also....technically the correct fallacy that you are trying to pin on me here would be a "hasty generalization" not "cherry picking".

 

I actually have tried in previous posts to specify that I am talking about certain parts of the political Left:

 

The primary source of political opposition to GMOs and nuclear power comes from the environmental left/green movements and/or anti-corporatist movements like the Occupy Movement.

 

However, there is no denying what the primary political persuasion of these groups are. Occupy Wall Street, Greenpeace, March Against Monsanto, others....these groups fall on the political Left. Its like saying that it is the Right who opposes stem cell research or evolution, although this is more properly limited specifically to those who oppose these views on religious grounds which is not at all true of the entire Right.

 

Do you not agree that these groups are primarily of the political Left? Why are you also not calling those posters in this very thread who have made clear hasty generalizations of the political "Right"? After all ~40% of those on the political Left reject Evolution while ~30% of those on the political Right accept it. http://www.gallup.com/poll/27847/majority-republicans-doubt-theory-evolution.aspx Certainly there is a political divide here, but the numbers are significant enough that it would be wrong to make hasty generalizations regarding whether or not a conservative or liberal "believes in evolution". You stand a very high chance of being wrong in either case. Yet for some reason the hasty generalizations regarding conservatives and liberals regarding evolution are accepted without question by other posters in this thread while my pointing out the political opposition of the environmental left towards GMOs or nuclear power has generate much contention. The unwillingness to apply equal skepticism to the "other side" in this thread is disappointing...especially so of a "science forum".

Edited December 12, 2014 by chadn737

[swansont]

I am not saying that everyone on the political left agrees to these views. Some prominant politicians on the Left (Hillary Clinton for example) have sided with GMOs. Given that most of my colleagues are academic scientists firmly on the political left and also firmly in support of GMOs, I am not so simplistic or stupid as to make such generalizations to the Left as a whole. Also....technically the correct fallacy that you are trying to pin on me here would be a "hasty generalization" not "cherry picking".

 

I actually have tried in previous posts to specify that I am talking about certain parts of the political Left:

 

However, there is no denying what the primary political persuasion of these groups are. Occupy Wall Street, Greenpeace, March Against Monsanto, others....these groups fall on the political Left. Its like saying that it is the Right who opposes stem cell research or evolution, although this is more properly limited specifically to those who oppose these views specifically on religious grounds which is not at all true of the entire Right.

 

Do you not agree that these groups are primarily of the political Left? Why are you also not calling those posters in this very thread who have made clear hasty generalizations of the political "Right"?

 

In most cases, the so-called hasty generalizations I've seen are referring to the people in political power, not the masses. That's one of the big differences. The left has their wacky, little-grasp-of-science groups. But how many people are getting up to speak in front of the house or senate spouting that nonsense? because I can name a bunch on the right that not only hold discredited scientific views, but also serve on the science committee.

[chadn737]

 

In most cases, the so-called hasty generalizations I've seen are referring to the people in political power, not the masses. That's one of the big differences. The left has their wacky, little-grasp-of-science groups. But how many people are getting up to speak in front of the house or senate spouting that nonsense? because I can name a bunch on the right that not only hold discredited scientific views, but also serve on the science committee.

 

Are you saying that these views do not make it to the highest levels of politics? You should catch up on current events:

 

http://www.ibtimes.com/gmo-labeling-debate-headed-congressional-committee-1734922

 

There has been legislature on GMOs passes or put up to vote in Hawaii, Vermont, California, Colorado, Oregon, and more.

 

In Europe, political pressure from these very groups led to the EU kicking out their top science advisor and obolishing the position altogether:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/11229774/Jean-Claude-Juncker-sacks-EU-scientific-adviser-over-her-pro-GM-views.html

 

That's the equivalent of someone forcing out a director of the NIH or NSF over stem cells or climate change....

 

If you think this is just a bunch of small-timers with no political influence, then you haven't been paying attention. Both of those linked stories have been only from the last couple of months! I've been observing this debate for ~20 years now and that is only a fraction of how political it has been.

Edited December 12, 2014 by chadn737

[swansont]

Are you saying that these views do not make it to the highest levels of politics? You should catch up on current events:

 

http://www.ibtimes.com/gmo-labeling-debate-headed-congressional-committee-1734922

 

No, I am saying exactly what I said. I also never mentioned GMO in my objection. I mentioned nuclear power.

But, which party is in charge in the house, who would be responsible for scheduling hearings?

 

And could also ensure a bill never make it out of committee? Meaning if this is the left's doing, you have nothing to worry about.

 

Also, that's a bill about labels. As your link notes "more than 60 countries, including China, the European Union's 28 members and even Syria, require that genetically modified foods be labeled." China and Syria, those freedom-loving liberal bastions.

 

 

There has been legislature on GMOs passes or put up to vote in Hawaii, Vermont, California, Colorado, Oregon, and more.

 

In Europe, political pressure from these very groups led to the EU kicking out their top science advisor and obolishing the position altogether:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/11229774/Jean-Claude-Juncker-sacks-EU-scientific-adviser-over-her-pro-GM-views.html

 

That's the equivalent of someone forcing out a director of the NIH or NSF over stem cells or climate change....

 

If you think this is just a bunch of small-timers with no political influence, then you haven't been paying attention.

 

Jean-Claude Juncker was part of Occupy Wall Street and serves in the US government? I missed that. I guess I should catch up on current events. And the goalposts, as they move.

 

Still waiting for that nuke cherry-picking data.

[chadn737]

 

No, I am saying exactly what I said. I also never mentioned GMO in my objection. I mentioned nuclear power.

 

So do you admit that the science of GMOs is being politicized by people on the Left?

 

 

But, which party is in charge in the house, who would be responsible for scheduling hearings?

And could also ensure a bill never make it out of committee? Meaning if this is the left's doing, you have nothing to worry about.

 

Not the point I am made and I think you know it. You claimed that:

 

"The left has their wacky, little-grasp-of-science groups. But how many people are getting up to speak in front of the house or senate spouting that nonsense?"

 

.....enough said.

 

 

 

Also, that's a bill about labels. As your link notes "more than 60 countries, including China, the European Union's 28 members and even Syria, require that genetically modified foods be labeled." China and Syria, those freedom-loving liberal bastions.

 

 

So? There is no scientific basis for labeling GMOs and the arguments used to support labeling are premised on misreprenting the truth. See again the previous links where outright lies were made regarding the health and environmental facts regarding GMOs as support of banning. This argument is also an argument ad populum. Just because other countries do something does not mean that it is right or scientifically valid. Saudia Arabia outright bans GMOs and also women from driving. This is a scientific issue. Either there is evidence of GMOs being harmful or not. Misuse of science in these debates is exactly the issue at hand.

 

Jean-Claude Juncker was part of Occupy Wall Street and serves in the US government? I missed that. I guess I should catch up on current events. And the goalposts, as they move.

 

 

Since when is this only about the US government? Does Europe not have political parties? Do those political parties not misuse scientific information? The fact that political advocasy from groups like Green Peace led to the EU sacking the highest scientific position in the EU over GMOs is clear evidence of how high this goes politically. You are simply dismissing the evidence.

 

Still waiting for that nuke cherry-picking data.

 

 

Groups like Greenpeace spread an incredible amount of misinformation and cherry-picked data regarding nuclear power....such as the claim of a "Cherynobl-scale accident" every decade.

 

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/nuclear/

[swansont]

So do you admit that the science of GMOs is being politicized by people on the Left?

I made zero claims on the matter. I am not particularly involved in the debate, but I haven't seen people on the left running on an anti-GMO platform (or anti-nuke platform) the same way that I see anti-global warming and creationism being hefty planks of the right's platform.

 

 

Not the point I am made and I think you know it. You claimed that:

 

"The left has their wacky, little-grasp-of-science groups. But how many people are getting up to speak in front of the house or senate spouting that nonsense?"

 

.....enough said.

I specifically stated congress, and you gave me state, so not the point I was making, either.

 

So? There is no scientific basis for labeling GMOs and the arguments used to support labeling are premised on misreprenting the truth. See again the previous links where outright lies were made regarding the health and environmental facts regarding GMOs as support of banning. This argument is also an argument ad populum. Just because other countries do something does not mean that it is right or scientifically valid. Saudia Arabia outright bans GMOs and also women from driving. This is a scientific issue. Either there is evidence of GMOs being harmful or not. Misuse of science in these debates is exactly the issue at hand.

Labeling ≠ banning

 

There are a lot of things that are done in politics that have nothing to do with science, or are done despite the science, but that is not the same as denying the science. There's no clear science behind ethanol in gasoline, for example — that's not why the laws exist. But there's no anti-science behind it, either. I don't see a label law as being anywhere close to being on par with denialism, or unconstitutional agenda-pushing.

 

 

Since when is this only about the US government?

The examples I gave were about US politics. If you're going to rebut what I said, that's where the boundary is.

 

 

Groups like Greenpeace spread an incredible amount of misinformation and cherry-picked data regarding nuclear power....such as the claim of a "Cherynobl-scale accident" every decade.

 

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/nuclear/

And the greenpeace-sponsored US congresscritters are…?

 

But about that claim — how "wrong" is it? We've had two bad nuclear accidents in the last 40 years, and one slightly less bad. If we more than tripled the number of plants (which is their claim), how is it cherry-picking to claim that the risk doubles?

[BusaDave9]

 

I haven't seen people on the left running on an anti-GMO platform (or anti-nuke platform) the same way that I see anti-global warming and creationism being hefty planks of the right's platform.

 

 

I agree with Swansont on this. Of all the scientific topics that have been brought up in this thread I think the evolution debate has some of the most outdated opponents. To believe in creationism or to deny evolution you have to discard over 150 years of science. Simply looking at fossil records in rock layers shows that plants and animals have changed over billions of years. To doubt evolution you must discard whole branches of science such as geology, radioactive and carbon dating. Even so called scientists dont even learn evolution before they write books to discount it. One example is Stephen Meyer who writes books saying before evolution could have taken place amino acids would have had to create spontaneously and that would take a trillion years, far longer than the age of the Earth. Stephen Meyer and other evolution deniers evidently dont understand evolution (or have heard of the Miller–Urey experiment)

[overtone]

I've seen people cite research and use pretty good logical arguments as reasons to disagree with anthropomorphic globabl warming or Darwinian evolution. But they are still unscientific because they cherry pick the data and ignore the larger body of data.

That's a self-sontradiction. It's not possible to construct a "pretty good logical argument" that cherry picks data and ignores the larger body of data.

 

I see the EXACT same thing everyday in opposition to GMOs.

Not here. That kind of argument - ignoring the larger body of data, or in this case ignoring the larger body of theory and the huge gaps in the data - is what we see from GMO proponents around here.

 

And it is disturbing, also relevant to the thread, because it is coming from the scientific and technological elite - not the ignorant and unfortunately confused regular citizenry.

 

 

 

 

Fortunately science does not seek to prove either one, nor should it. Science instead quantifies the risk.

The matter of urgency is what the scientific community recommends, or supports, when it lacks the research and data necessary to quantify obvious risks. That is the arena we are dealing with in any thread on the topic of the demise of science - the adoption of the rhetoric and authority of "science" when the science isn't there, the creation of a self-justifying Potempkin body of "scientific" verdicts on matters not quantified or even researched well.

 

Science is only threatened politically by creationism, or absurd denial of the hazards of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere. That is serious threat, especially in the US these days, but it pales beside the self-destruction of granting authority to poor reasoning and inadequate knowledge. It is threatened internally, in its own infrastructure and credibility, by claiming consensus or verdict without having performed the body of research necessary to back such assertions, and in defiance of its own major theories and procedures.

 

We can hope for future self-correction - the major virtue of scientific as opposed to other human endeavors and intellectual pursuits, the glory of real science - but when it comes late in significant matters that "scientific consensus" has weighed in on (the latest example: the effect of artificial sweeteners on sugar metabolism in mammals) bystanders are justified in asking what happened, and how such disasters of recommendation and credibility can be prevented or avoided in the future. Having the scientific elite in effective control of policy refuse to even recognize such situations is not a good sign.

 

Richard Feynman is deservedly famous for his accomplishments, but it's a shame that he is not also honored for his wonderful and succinct response to queries about how the atom bomb he helped develop came to be used to incinerate the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki so gratuitously and shamefully and in defiance of humane reason: he said "We just didn't think, ok?".

Edited December 24, 2014 by overtone

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

Hijack on the inability/unwillingness of certain members to use the quote function split to Suggestions and Support so that the more sinned against overtone can say his piece without fear of reprisals from the thought-police.

[overtone]

The issue of the lack of self-awareness among self-identified scientists is the aspect of the OP topic - the demise of science - addressd. There are other aspects - the political threat from creationists and other religion-backed sources of power, especially - but others have noted them adequately. This is my focus:

 

 

 

- - - - - - - - - That kind of argument - ignoring the larger body of data, or in this case ignoring the larger body of theory and the huge gaps in the data - is {too often} - -

 

- disturbing, also relevant to the thread, because it is coming from the scientific and technological elite - not the ignorant and unfortunately confused regular citizenry.

 

 

It is my proposition that vulnerability to the very human factors succinctly described in their mercenary aspect by Upton Sinclair - “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” - but not limited to money only, is a danger to science and a proper discussion subject in this thread.

 

That is: the kinds of intellectual compromise and corruption and self-serving self-deception and bizarre obliviousness that brought us "scientific" certification of safety for leaded gasoline, industrially created trans fats in our diet, food colorings of certain dangerous kinds, artificial sweeteners, genetic uniformity in food crops, DDT and 2-4D and the rest, asbestos, mercury preservatives in children's vaccines, Fukushima's power plants, physically dangerous drugs that underperform placebos being overprescribed for poorly characterized behavioral problems, and so forth,

 

are a subtle but pervasive, serious, and growing, danger to science itself.

 

We can see more easily how commercial and political pressures damaged biological science and economics in the Soviet Union, anthropology and history and probably (had it lasted) a few others in the Third Reich, because we are outsiders looking back. As insiders looking forward, we find our own systematic threats are not as immediately apparent, must be deduced by reason and dispassionate identification of irrationality.

 

GMOs should be the perfect modern example, because the claims from so much of the scientific elite are so flagrantly lacking in scientific support or even ordinary reason - we get a clear look at the factors of interest. So that would be handy. But if that is too contentious, the certification of safety in the siting of nuclear power plants (and the "scientific" response to both mishaps and the soundly reasoned contemporary questioning of their safety) should be far enough in the past but close enough to current situations to be useful. Any others preferred?

Edited December 31, 2014 by overtone

[daBee]

What is with people today? Some people discount hundreds of years of scientific research and data. They think the greatest minds in science have flaws in their reasoning. We have morons like this woman.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32mxZxv3dYM

I get aggravated just watching this woman.

She says she doesn't want to hear scientific theories. She only wants to be shown fossils and let her make up her own opinion of what the fossils mean.

She constantly says "how do they know this?" "Did they have a video camera?" "This is all guessing"

 

I really think the problem is education. As an American I am ashamed to show this graph but the problem is worse in the U.S.

evolution.jpg

Here's where I got this: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060810-evolution.html

 

 

A couple of points:

 

1. Everybody is born stupid. From that point forward, stupid is free. More people thought (not spoke) of Nikki Minaj (sp?) today than those that discussed the ramifications of active organic chemistry found on Mars. How many schmoes know the relevance of PCR?

 

2. Education is not free. It's an uphill struggle to attain knowledge. Most people that get schooling choose useless avenues.

 

3. Religion & government. There are lots of organizations that don't want people smart. Because then they think for themselves. Education is one of them.

 

If there's one thing I'm finding truly evident, is that a lot of people are lost out there. It baffles me how many people simply have no clue. The arguments against science are ridden with holes and have absolutely no basis whatsoever. The vast majority of it is based out of fear. That's the hook part 3 above takes advantage of.

 

Rise above it. This is my first post in here. The reason I joined is to ask for some guidance on something that could provide concrete evidence of evolution. I do expect the lemmings to just downplay that as well.

 

Cheers

[ZVBXRPL]

What is with people today? Some people discount hundreds of years of scientific research and data. They think the greatest minds in science have flaws in their reasoning. We have morons like this woman.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32mxZxv3dYM

I get aggravated just watching this woman.

She says she doesn't want to hear scientific theories. She only wants to be shown fossils and let her make up her own opinion of what the fossils mean.

She constantly says "how do they know this?" "Did they have a video camera?" "This is all guessing"

 

I really think the problem is education. As an American I am ashamed to show this graph but the problem is worse in the U.S.

evolution.jpg

Here's where I got this: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060810-evolution.html

 

 

Reminds me of this

 

PHOEBE: That's fine. Go ahead and scoff. You know, there're a lot of things that I don't believe in, but that doesn't mean they're not true.

JOEY: Such as?

PHOEBE: Like crop circles, or the Bermuda triangle, or evolution?

ROSS: Whoa, whoa, whoa. What, you don't, uh, you don't believe in evolution?

PHOEBE: Nah. Not really.

ROSS: You don't believe in evolution?

PHOEBE: I don't know, it's just, you know...monkeys, Darwin, you know, it's a, it's a nice story, I just think it's a little too easy.

ROSS: Too easy? Too...The process of every living thing on this planet evolving over millions of years from single-celled organisms, too easy?

PHOEBE: Yeah, I just don't buy it.

ROSS: Uh, excuse me. Evolution is not for you to buy, Phoebe. Evolution is scientific fact, like, like, like the air we breathe, like gravity.

PHOEBE: Ok, don't get me started on gravity.

ROSS: You uh, you don't believe in gravity?

PHOEBE: Well, it's not so much that you know, like I don't believe in it, you know, it's just...I don't know, lately I get the feeling that I'm not so much being pulled down as I am being pushed.

ROSS: How can you not believe in evolution?

PHOEBE: Just don't. Look at this funky shirt!

ROSS: Pheebs, I have studied evolution my entire adult life. Ok, I can tell you, we have collected fossils from all over the world that actually show the evolution of different species, ok? You can literally see them evolving through time.

PHOEBE: Really? You can actually see it?

ROSS: You bet. In the U.S., China, Africa, all over.

PHOEBE: See, I didn't know that.

ROSS: Well, there you go.

PHOEBE: Huh. So now, the real question is, who put those fossils there, and why?

ROSS: Ok, Pheebs. See how I'm making these little toys move? Opposable thumbs. Without evolution, how do you explain opposable thumbs?

PHOEBE: Maybe the overlords needed them to steer their spacecrafts.

ROSS: Please tell me you're joking.

[overtone]

So this showed up two years ago: http://www.enveurope.com/content/24/1/24

 

There's a couple of things to object to in that - the author refers to "GMOs"collectively, although his survey and conclusions were restricted to two established modifications (Bt expression and glyphosate resistance) as adapted to only a handful of crops (cotton, maize, and soybeans predominantly); the author accepts Bt expression in cotton and maize as not being "insecticide" application in the landscape; and some minor problems in the political rhetoric etc.

 

Also, it was published before the latest surge in Bt resistance and the latest release of a 2-4D resistance GM (to make up for the erosion of glyphosate effectiveness) in a couple of crops - so its findings underestimate the bad news by quite a bit.

 

But the contrast between that ill funded and obscure article published in Europe, and the wide US publicity given to exactly the claims of exactly the specific benefits from exactly the specific GMs it shows to be contradicted by the data, is stark.

 

Here is leftwing standard magazine invoking the American Association for the Advancement of Science as the voice of "science" in the matter of GMOs: http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/09/left-science-gmo-vaccines

 

and here's what "science" says, in consequence:

 

Genetically modified foods: Now let's move on to the GMO issue. Here, it is less obvious what a clear-cut anti-science belief would actually be, but perhaps the most obvious case is the belief that genetically modified foods are harmful if consumed by humans. This position has been rejected by the board of American Association for the Advancement of Science, which assures us that "crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe."

 

The money backing the self-described "scientific" side of even just these two specimens of GM is in the hundreds of millions, and the vacuous or even misleading nature of the headlines and expert opinions that money buys is not surprising - but it's becoming the face of "science" in this matter. That can't be good for science - there's an old marketing proverb bearing on this: "The name acquires the attributes of the thing. Not vice versa"

Edited January 6, 2015 by overtone