We need a name (Godwin's Law, Poe's Law)

[overtone]

Reference here. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/6408927/Internet-rules-and-laws-the-top-10-from-Godwin-to-Poe.html

 

A half dozen threads here have crashed on one obstacle, it seems to be a characteristic problem of science oriented discussion in particular, and it would be handy to have a reference term for the next time it comes up.

 

The pattern:

 

The demand for "evidence" to support a misrepresented argument, used to block by repetition attempts to make an existing argument or even discuss some issue.

 

Examples:

 

The demands for documented examples of one step "macroevolution", complete sequences of transitional forms, disappearance of original forms, etc, to support the argument that species turn into other species. Used to derail discussions of Darwinian evolution on creationist forums. Sample: Where are the transitional fossils Darwin requires? Where are the new species Darwin says should be produced?

 

The demand for evidence of harm directly and only from environmental domination by increased levels of CO2, suitable to support arguments that it is poisonous, that it has eliminated natural variations in the weather, that it has no beneficial effects, that its effects will cover Florida in ocean water within ten years, that its effects are directly and linearly tied to its rising levels, that its effects will be the same everywhere and at all times, etc. Used in attempts to derail discussion of the various potential side effects of boosting CO2 levels in the air. Sample: See this graph of steadily rising CO2 - where is your evidence of steadily increasing temperature everywhere? You don't have it, do you.

 

The demand for evidence of demonstrated harm from eating food made using one or two particular GMs of one or two particular GMOs. Used to derail discussion of the various risks incurred by the current practices of genetic engineering and deployment of organisms, the worrisome lack of research or information regarding these risks, etc. Sample: The consensus of scientists is that GMOs are safe - where is your evidence proving this consensus wrong?

 

The demand for evidence of demonstrated harm from exposure to Fukushima emissions. Used to derail discussion of the risks and possible damaging effects of the Fukushima emissions on the ecosystems of the Pacific Ocean. Sample: The data shows that the open water Fukushima emission plume tracked by researchers is very dilute, with radiation level boosting negligible compared with background levels. Where is your evidence that this data is wrong, or these levels are harming anything?

 

In honor of the common mediation of discussion derailment from this Internet pattern, my first thought was to name it "The Moderation Fallacy"

 

But that does not capture the thug oddity, the central feature of self-deceived trolling, the bizarrely blatant obliviousness to reason in people demonstrably familiar with reasonable argument elsewhere, characteristic of this pattern.

 

And it isn't a "Law".

 

So maybe: "The Techwit Rule" - Anyone, or any group, who repeats three times a demand for scientific evidence that cannot exist in support of an argument not being made, can be ignored in the actual discussion from then on without penalty.

 

Anybody got a better name, or rule?

Edited May 10, 2015 by overtone

[John Cuthber]

As fas as I understand what you are saying, it would already be covered here.

The first example you cite - about gaps in the fossil record- is blatant strawmanning and, as a logical fallacy, is banned here by section 2 part 4 of the site's rules.

The others seem to be a misunderstanding of the nature of science- it's always uncertain, but it's the best we have.

Scientific truths are based on (always limited) studies of the issues.

The science stands until someone comes up with evidence that they are wrong. just saying "they might be wrong" is redundant. Of course they might.

 

We get stacks of people saying "I have a new theory that's better than relativity", and they never manage to show what's wrong with relativity in the first place. Eventually, the Mods block the thread citing section 2 parts 8 or 10.

[imatfaal]

There is already a name that describes the root problem of the scenarios described above - unfortunately it isn't what you were driving at; it is called the Dunning-Kruger Effect. I have seen examples of all of the above in this forum and the root cause is ignorance and a lack of self awareness of said ignorance. Funnily in your examples the sites of the cognitive bias of illusory superiority are not consistent - but then you knew that when you constructed that set of narratives.

 

You have given one example regarding those who deny evolution, which is playing to the crowd in a science forum, none of our members would argue the need for a moderation in that case and to be honest I would not be at all surprised if rational wiki do have a cute name for the described action. But the fundamental reason it occurs is creationists not realising how ignorant they are of the facts, how blinkered their outlooks, and fundamentally misinformed they are. We can say the same about the second set of "facts".

 

It seems that the purpose of the first and second examples was to poison the well against those claiming proof in the the subsequent stories. And let's be honest - you have omitted the fact that you were involved in long running threads with a uncanny similarity to the examples and that have attempted to paint the hidden protagonist as sinned against by pedlars of logical fallacies; nothing could be further from the truth. I could add at least two more examples in which your threads have followed similar trajectories - they have all been locked by staff because of your intransigence and refusal to acknowledge (inability to understand) that you were wrong; this lead to the topic getting bogged down in circular arguments and insults.

 

I haven't bothered to recheck but I seem to remember you arguing genetics against two of our members both of whom are practising post-doc researchers in the area being discussed, the dangers of GM crops in similar circumstances, ditto problems with spillage from nuclear power stations. You have strongly held views which you do not let facts get in the way off.

 

These threads each reach a point at which an unsustainable claim/counter-claim is made - and when you are challenged on said claim you refuse to acknowledge (or maybe you do not realise) that you are wrong and you double down. What is frustrating is that these points are often tangential and relatively unimportant. It is the nature of the members here not to allow blatant falsehoods to lie unchallenged - it is Science Forums dot net after all. I do not know how many of your threads have been locked for these reasons - but I would estimate at least four.

 

The origin of the problem in all the above situations is one party to the argument is oblivious to the fact that they do not understand the science and facts which govern the situation. I understand that you will not accept that it is you who is unaware of the gaps in your knowledge but the preponderance of evidence makes me believe that it is you at fault.

 

I regret having personalized this issue but I felt any other approach would be disingenuous.

[overtone]

There is already a name that describes the root problem of the scenarios described above - unfortunately it isn't what you were driving at; it is called the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

DK doesn't apply to any of them, unless the field you are talking about is rhetoric and argumentation.

 

I explicitly ruled out Dunning-Kruger, by noting that these botches of argumentation are being posted by people demonstrably capable of reason and logic elsewhere.

 

As you, among them, consistently fail to recognize, these situations do not pivot on expertise or scientific knowledge and understanding. They pivot on the failure of the perp, however expert, to follow the argument they are claiming to address with their expertise.

 

 

I haven't bothered to recheck but I seem to remember you arguing genetics against two of our members both of whom are practising post-doc researchers in the area being discussed, the dangers of GM crops in similar circumstances, ditto problems with spillage from nuclear power stations.

Your memory is of your assessments of the situations at the time, which were wrong. I have never "argued genetics" against anyone in any technical sense, for example.

 

As with you in a couple of those, the obliviousness of experts in scientific fields to their employment of this rhetorical tactic is one of the most striking features of it. Expertise is of no use to someone who hasn't followed the argument they claim to be addressing. And it almost seems to be a barrier to recognizing the nature of the situation - which may explain the prevalence of this nasty little pattern on a forum like this one.

 

Like this:

 

 

The origin of the problem in all the above situations is one party to the argument is oblivious to the fact that they do not understand the science and facts which govern the situation.

No, it isn't. It specifically and explicitly is not, ruled out in advance. And that assertion reveals a failure to follow the logic of the OP.

 

The origin of the problem described, the thing we need a name for, is in the initial failure of the perp to understand the argument being made, and their substitution of some claim or argument. The accuracy of the science and facts they demand as evidence then have no bearing on the original argument, neither does their own expertise in any field relevant or irrelevant.

 

 

 

 

It is the nature of the members here not to allow blatant falsehoods to lie unchallenged

Regardless of their source, unfortunately. That's the exact problem - the refusal to let "blatant falsehoods to be unchallenged" and the insistent demand for "evidence" supporting them, when they are not present in the first place except in the confusion of the perp.

 

And it is, as you point out, the nature of several members here - including you - to do that. Hence the expectation that the situation will arise again, and it would be handy to have a term with which to dismiss it, so that it derails fewer discussions.

 

That's what we need the name for.

 

Do you have any suggestions? I'm warming to "The Techwit Rule".

 

 

 

As fas as I understand what you are saying, it would already be covered here.

The first example you cite - about gaps in the fossil record- is blatant strawmanning and, as a logical fallacy, is banned here by section 2 part 4 of the site's rules.

The entire pattern is of course a specific kind of strawmanning, a subset of that category of fallacy, and often blatant in the extreme. What would you say are the odds that will get the next example of it chastised by an enforcer of forum rules? My guess: 0. Edited May 10, 2015 by overtone

[studiot]

In fairness to overtone, I have observed the application of the 'rules of the scientific method' to be subjectively applied generally (including on this forum) in support of a particular person's view.

 

That is, unfortunately human nature. It is really difficult to be truly objective.

 

Here is a good summary discussion of the scientific method, including the difference between deductive and inductive routes.

There are also good sections on the limitations of the method, types of evidence and fallacies.

 

http://www.scientificpsychic.com/workbook/scientific-method.htm

Edited May 10, 2015 by studiot

[hypervalent_iodine]

Your memory is of your assessments of the situations at the time, which were wrong. I have never "argued genetics" against anyone in any technical sense, for example.

Except here, where you did exactly that.

[swansont]

Examples:

 

The demands for documented examples of one step "macroevolution", complete sequences of transitional forms, disappearance of original forms, etc, to support the argument that species turn into other species. Used to derail discussions of Darwinian evolution on creationist forums. Sample: Where are the transitional fossils Darwin requires? Where are the new species Darwin says should be produced?

 

The problem here is the demand for specific pieces of evidence, instead of allowing one to build the case. A demand for fossils that may not have been preserved, artificially narrowing what science may present.

 

The demand for evidence of harm directly and only from environmental domination by increased levels of CO2, suitable to support arguments that it is poisonous, that it has eliminated natural variations in the weather, that it has no beneficial effects, that its effects will cover Florida in ocean water within ten years, that its effects are directly and linearly tied to its rising levels, that its effects will be the same everywhere and at all times, etc. Used in attempts to derail discussion of the various potential side effects of boosting CO2 levels in the air. Sample: See this graph of steadily rising CO2 - where is your evidence of steadily increasing temperature everywhere? You don't have it, do you.

 

Again, a demand for specific evidence. One is being asked to show a specific outcome (Florida, linear increase, same effects everywhere, etc.) that are not part of the theory.

 

The demand for evidence of demonstrated harm from eating food made using one or two particular GMs of one or two particular GMOs. Used to derail discussion of the various risks incurred by the current practices of genetic engineering and deployment of organisms, the worrisome lack of research or information regarding these risks, etc. Sample: The consensus of scientists is that GMOs are safe - where is your evidence proving this consensus wrong?

 

Not, I think, and example of the above, since no specific evidence is being demanded.

 

The demand for evidence of demonstrated harm from exposure to Fukushima emissions. Used to derail discussion of the risks and possible damaging effects of the Fukushima emissions on the ecosystems of the Pacific Ocean. Sample: The data shows that the open water Fukushima emission plume tracked by researchers is very dilute, with radiation level boosting negligible compared with background levels. Where is your evidence that this data is wrong, or these levels are harming anything?

 

Again, no specific evidence is being demanded. Nobody is asking that you catch Charlie the Tuna and check for Cesium levels, and only Charlie will do. You are were free to make your case that damage is being done.

 

 

The problem is that science does demand evidence for a claim. And there are restrictions on what counts as evidence (e.g. you can't make a statistical case based on anecdotes, unless one is trying to rebut a negative)

[overtone]

Your memory is of your assessments of the situations at the time, which were wrong. I have never "argued genetics" against anyone in any technical sense, for example.

Except here, where you did exactly that.

First, they fail to follow the argument being made, and substitute their own claims etc.

 

 

 

Again, no specific evidence is being demanded. Nobody is asking that you catch Charlie the Tuna and check for Cesium levels, and only Charlie will do. You are were free to make your case that damage is being done.

 

Then, they demand evidence suitable for the argument they have invented. (In that case, considerable evidence in support of various arguments had been scattered over the previous five pages of thread, none of it refuted - but none of it counted toward the invented argument).

 

 

 

The problem is that science does demand evidence for a claim.

 

Which means, in Techwit world, that the person demanding evidence is speaking for science, and it's science, not their confusion, that has determined what that claim is and what evidence for it looks like.

That's how you get educated, competent, expert, professional scientists posting something like this: "It is the consensus of science that GMOs are safe", and then demanding evidence of accomplished direct medical harm to humans from "GMOs" in order to argue that this consensus is wrong.

 

Meanwhile, is the name settled? "Techwit Rule" invoked, thread restored to relevance - sounds like a win.

Edited May 11, 2015 by overtone

[StringJunky]

..That's how you get educated, competent, expert, professional scientists posting something like this: "It is the consensus of science that GMOs are safe", and then demanding evidence of accomplished direct medical harm to humans from "GMOs" in order to argue that this consensus is wrong.

The scientists are saying GMOs are safe because they've tested them. They didn't just pull it out of a dark place. A contrarian needs to do the same that they've done, or some other revealing test, to demonstrate otherwise.

 

Your main problem seems to be that you, too often, argue from a position of belief or personal principle... cognitive bias is the result. The danger is that one cherry-picks the data that supports a principled position.

Edited May 11, 2015 by StringJunky

[swansont]

Which means, in Techwit world, that the person demanding evidence is speaking for science, and it's science, not their confusion, that has determined what that claim is and what evidence for it looks like.

That's how you get educated, competent, expert, professional scientists posting something like this: "It is the consensus of science that GMOs are safe", and then demanding evidence of accomplished direct medical harm to humans from "GMOs" in order to argue that this consensus is wrong.

 

StringJunky is absolutely correct here. Consensus is the result of experimental confirmation. A claim to the contrary requires evidence, just as the consensus required evidence. Contrary claims probably require more at that point, because of the volume of evidence behind the consensus.

 

That you may be unaware of the experimental evidence behind the consensus does not mean it's not there.

[Strange]

That's how you get educated, competent, expert, professional scientists posting something like this: "It is the consensus of science that GMOs are safe", and then demanding evidence of accomplished direct medical harm to humans from "GMOs" in order to argue that this consensus is wrong.

 

Why wouldn't we ask for evidence of potential harm? If there is no such evidence (and there is evidence of safety) why would you continue to believe they are harmful?

 

This seems to be another example of you thinking that your personal opinions/fears don't require evidence while demanding that others produce evidence that you are wrong. Is that an example of the "law" you are trying to name? Or is it a different one?

[iNow]

^If so, then I nominate as a potential naming option OH-NOES!! - Obvious Hubris / Narcissistic Onus Evasion Syndrome

Edited May 11, 2015 by iNow

[overtone]

The scientists are saying GMOs are safe because they've tested them.

But they aren't saying "GMOs are safe". They aren't idiots.

 

Will you just read the damn link the whole silly, stupid claim was based on? Seriously - this is simple stuff. Read the statement actually made by the scientists themselves. The link is in the thread.

 

A consensus of scientists said that there was no evidence of direct risk to human health from consuming food made from the particular two - count 'em, two ( BT expression and glyphosate resistance inculcated using Monsanto's approach) - genetic modifications of food crops currently proposed for European deployment. That's what they were talking about, that's what all the research they referenced addressed.

 

Human health only. Consumption of food only. Direct harm only. Short term only. Research performed only. Corporate research with sequestered or selected data completely accepted in good faith. Controversial research of dubious statistical power not accepted at all. The opinions of corporate and corporate funded researchers fully accepted without qualification.

 

They were talking about direct danger to physical human health (the economic, ecological, political, etc issues involved in "safety" set aside) from consumption of food (farming practices, etc set aside) made from crops featuring one or both of those two GMs (the more recent ones not yet researched, of course).

 

And I agreed with them, provisionally, for argument's sake. I fully recognized that claim in that thread and on this forum, and repeatedly accepted it as verified and solid,

despite some caveats surrounding certain research of insufficient statistical power but troubling implications, despite the obvious problems with such a consensus given the recent discoveries in the influence of human biotic flora and so forth,

 

I gave you that, for the sake of the discussion. I stipulated, completely, to the validity of the actual consensus published by the actual scientists.

 

Meanwhile, the context of that statement was the fact that researchers had done no - that's none, zero, zip - long term research into the human health effects of even just those two GMs. There has been still, to this day, no long term study of the overall effects on any mammal's health of food made from any GMs in any of the GMOs featuring them. That is the background for the "no evidence" consensus, which was and is perfectly reasonable as far as it goes.

 

Which is not very far, was the point. It doesn't begin to address the larger matter of the safety of GMOs as they are currently being developed and marketed and deployed. So the thread discussion was set to continue relatively unaffected.

 

Instead, it was shut down as settled, with demands for evidence of accomplished harm sufficient to support a denial of a scientific consensus - Techwit Rule.

 

 

StringJunky is absolutely correct here. Consensus is the result of experimental confirmation. A claim to the contrary requires evidence, just as the consensus required evidence. Contrary claims probably require more at that point, because of the volume of evidence behind the consensus.

Which highlights the completely obvious, simple, in your face fact that there was and has been and will be in our lifetimes no experimental confirmation of "the safety of GMOs".

 

Null set. No relevant and adequate research. No volume of evidence. No consensus evaluation of evidence produced by experiment. None of that. It does not exist.

 

It's not even realistically possible. I can't even imagine what kind of research it would take to establish the "safety" of a category of innovations like that, or even the subcategory of the ones not deliberately designed to be dangerous (iirc weaponized anthrax was the first GMO) It would be like establishing the "safety" of flowering plants, or something. It's a ridiculous concept, and it's obviously a ridiculous concept.

 

What you could experimentally confirm now, if you did the research, would be the low risk of a particular GMO in a particular context, one that you had actually researched. In the near future, you could probably compile and analyze that research and confirm the low risk of a particular GM (in any organism) in that particular context, establish a basis for presumption. But GMOs? All of them? In all contexts? Don't be silly.

 

And this was pointed out to you, several times. In plain English.

 

So review the discussion, including your contribution, in that light. There's a pattern, and it's a problem. That is why I started this thread.

 

 

Why wouldn't we ask for evidence of potential harm?

Damned if I know.

 

You keep demanding evidence of actual, accomplished, harm, I keep pointing out that the issue is risk and potential, that part of the risk comes from the failure to do the research and monitoring that would discover the actual harm you demand, that lack of evidence of actual harm is in such cases evidence of greater risk rather than lesser, etc.

 

In the GMO threads I even provided examples of such potential in exactly that context, dismissed, featuring a similar limited scientific consensus within a context of no research, doing great harm - trans fats, potato fungus famine, leaded gasoline, artificial sweeteners, there's a long list just in the direct human health damage from consumption area that the scientific consensus focused on.

 

Never mind the much larger arena of GMO safety in general.

 

And those examples were, of course, ->evidence<- of potential harm from GMO consumption in our current state of knowledge. That's what evidence, for that argument, looks like. I provided quite a bit of it, and it's pretty convincing if I do say so myself. The parallel with trans fats and the role of the labeling nailed it, the parallel with the artificial sweeteners hitting the news brought in the gut biotic ignorance factor right on cue, it was a little brick outhouse of an argument;

 

and the response was similar to what appears on this thread, above. Look at it. Those are knowledgable, scientifically sophisticated, often liberal arts educated posters on a scientific forum. Moderators, experts. And utterly clueless, in this one particular manner.

 

How does one deal with the Techwit situation?

Edited May 11, 2015 by overtone

[CharonY]

First of all, all papers indicating no adverse effects will report it as such. The claim of safety is something for policy makers to do as it is a value judgement. At best researchers will claim that based on existing research no grounds for safety concerns are found. This is a trivial thing and that is how science is supposed to work.

 

Now with regard to human health, this is generally tricky to assess as any kind of cohort study in humans has severe limitations, including the fact that you cannot force people to a specific diet for a very long time. It is just an unrealistic demand. As with all toxicity studies we rely on animal models. And here we see no effects in long-term studies with animals exposed to much higher levels of GMO food than you can realistically expose humans to. In fact long-term studies exist on rodents that have been exposed over several generations (see review by Snell et al. Food and Chemical Toxicology 2012). While several studies only had limited numbers, the variety of approaches have not yet found any potential effects nor potential paths of toxicity.

 

Based on your unreasonable expectations there would be no way to declare anything safe, including breathing (which has known toxic effects). Listen, as wit all things consuming GMOs, as well as non-modified food includes risk. To the best of our knowledge GMOs that are in use today are not more harmful than eating bacon, probably less so. Is it zero risk? No, nothing is. But does it pose dangers above the baseline that we are comfortable with in everyday life? No.

Will further research find new potential pathways of effects? Maybe. But so will dedicated research into processed meats, pollutants in your home etc.

The real question is what are the risks relative to the overall risks we are taking and it is significantly higher. If it is is we may want to encourage policy-makers to put it under special regulation (which includes mode of exposure amount etc). If it is not it may be worthwhile to discuss some emerging dangers by pollutant that we release into the environment in the tons which have known pathways of exposure and toxicity (including release of massive amounts of antibiotics, for example).

 

Being unable to see that distinction significantly hinders meaningful discussion of these quite relevant issues.

Edited May 11, 2015 by CharonY

[swansont]

What you could experimentally confirm now, if you did the research, would be the low risk of a particular GMO in a particular context, one that you had actually researched. In the near future, you could probably compile and analyze that research and confirm the low risk of a particular GM (in any organism) in that particular context, establish a basis for presumption. But GMOs? All of them? In all contexts? Don't be silly.

 

And this was pointed out to you, several times. In plain English.

 

 

To me? I don't recall getting into many GMO discussions.

 

Anyway, the problem I see here is "But GMOs? All of them?" is part of a straw-man argument. Is anyone actually arguing that any possible GMO will be safe? Or are the arguing something else? And this whole "techwit situation" can't really be analyzed when people are talking past each other, about two different scenarios.

 

I could ask how, for instance, can there be research showing "low risk of a particular GMO in a particular context" when you just got done saying there was no research (null set). Before you complain about how I'm not getting the argument, I do understand the two statements are meant to apply to different situations. Maybe you should consider that what people mean is NOT a blanket "every GMOs that could ever be made will be safe". Such a position is obtuse, and a straw man. (Whether it's deliberate or not doesn't matter)

 

So instead of attacking a position that nobody is proposing, you could be a part of the discussion they are actually having.

[Strange]

A consensus of scientists said that there was no evidence of direct risk to human health from consuming food made from the particular two - count 'em, two ( BT expression and glyphosate resistance inculcated using Monsanto's approach) - genetic modifications of food crops currently proposed for European deployment. That's what they were talking about, that's what all the research they referenced addressed.

 

Was their area of expertise? Were there other people looking at the potential economic impacts (which I wouldn't expect a biochemist or biologist, for example, to have any special knowledge about)?

 

Meanwhile, the context of that statement was the fact that researchers had done no - that's none, zero, zip - long term research into the human health effects of even just those two GMs.

 

Maybe the long term research is ongojng? (After all, it takes a long time, by definition.)

 

Null set. No relevant and adequate research. No volume of evidence. No consensus evaluation of evidence produced by experiment. None of that. It does not exist.

 

But it does sound, again, as if you are assuming GMOs are dangerous when there is no evidence of that (and no particular reason to assume they are dangerous).

 

Yes, we should be cautious with new technology. Yes, there should be more research and testing, particularly in the longer term. But unless you have some reason to suggest they are dangerous, or some mechanism by which they could be, it sounds like you are over-reacting.

 

You keep demanding evidence of actual, accomplished, harm,

 

No me. In fact I have never heard anyone demanding that. <shrug>

[overtone]

In fact long-term studies exist on rodents that have been exposed over several generations (see review by Snell et al. Food and Chemical Toxicology 2012).

Those studies did not evaluate overall health effects. The maximum length of any of them was 2 years, and most were much shorter. Several of them involved only a few rats ("We examined 12 long-term studies (of more than 90 days, up to 2 years in duration) and 12 multigenerational studies (from 2 to 5 generations)").

 

That comprehensive literature review found no studies covering the upper end lifespan, from conception, of a lab rat, and no studies evaluating overall health. So my claim is pretty solidly confirmed, although it's been three years.

That journal, btw, did publish at one time a study that did cover the lifespan of an entire cohort of lab rats, and did evaluate overall health (not the gut biota etc, but such concerns are recent). That unique and never replicated study was later retracted, because in the view of some influential people it had too few rats of the kind chosen to support its statistical conclusions at the necessary publication level. So we will assume it was omitted from the literature review because of that retraction. Right?

 

 

 

 

While several studies only had limited numbers, the variety of approaches have not yet found any potential effects nor potential paths of toxicity.

Short term, LImited numbers, limited scope of evaluation, and therefore limited implications of safety.

 

Based on your unreasonable expectations there would be no way to declare anything safe,

Your description of my expectations is unreasonable.

 

The expectation that claims of experimental confirmation of safety be derived from research involving at least the known arenas of harm at the known scales of exposure, at a minimum, is hardly "unreasonable", eh?

 

So when nobody has performed research capable of detecting, say, what trans fats or artificial sweeteners did to the people who ate them, the claimed experimental confirmation of safety is at best no more reliable than it was for trans fats or artificial sweeteners - and since both of those modifications of the food supply were in fact researched much more diligently than any GMO has been, labeled and followed epidemiologically, the sweeteners being certified as food additives even, the qualification "at best" is generous. No GMO has been as well certified for safety as saccharin or aspartame.

 

 

 

 

 

To the best of our knowledge GMOs that are in use today are not more harmful than eating bacon, probably less so. Is it zero risk? No, nothing is. But does it pose dangers above the baseline that we are comfortable with in everyday life? No.

Begging the question. The status of the "best of our knowledge" is exactly the issue.

 

Bacon is labeled, and the hazardous additives it incorporates likewise individually labeled. It is not 3/4 of the diet of an entire population, or incorporated cryptically and unavoidably into most foodstuffs. Bacon consumption has been evaluated epidemiologically for health effects, as well as thoroughly studied in the lab, for a century or more. So have its economics, politics, and ecological influences. It has been part of the ordinary human diet for hundreds of years. We do have experimental confirmation of the level of its safety, short term and long term and in most major respects. And in that situation of much greater confidence and much more complete information, nobody has ever stated "the scientific consensus is that bacon is safe", and I doubt anyone ever will.

 

Meanwhile, the use of this dubiously claimed status for "GMOs that are in use today" - ( grossly overstated, the situation you describe is true for only a couple of them ) - to make claims about "GMOs", is not a slip of the tongue, in the outer world. It's a marketing tactic, a deliberately promulgated leap of inference and attribution by corporate profiteers deflecting regulation and imposed curbs on their operations. That is not scientific reasoning, and does not belong here.

 

 

 

Maybe you should consider that what people mean is NOT a blanket "every GMOs that could ever be made will be safe".

I have. That assumption is not a safe one, here. So far all arguments I have made based on assuming such hidden reasonableness have been met with demands for evidence sufficient to support my denial of a scientific consensus, the data presented by a legitimate research program, or the like.

 

By the evidence, the people here claiming a scientific consensus that GMOs are safe mean all existing GMOs, in all contexts. Not necessarily the future ones, maybe, but certainly all the ones being developed and marketed, in every context in which they might present any serious risk.

 

And objections to that are met with demands for evidence sufficient to support my denial of the scientific consensus that GMOs are safe. Techwit Rule.

Edited May 11, 2015 by overtone

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Back on topic, please. Any more GMO posts wil be removed.

[John Cuthber]

Poe's law is named after Poe. Godwin's law is named after Godwin.

I Guess this is Overtone's law.

Any objections?

 

(You may wish to note that not all "laws" are always followed.)

[Strange]

The status of the "best of our knowledge" is exactly the issue.

 

All theories, all evaluations of the safety and efficacy of technology (electronics, medical procedures, food additives, whatever) are based on the best of our knowledge, by definition. Maybe a long-term study of the effects of WiFi or mobile phones will show them to have deadly effects, but there is currently no reason to think that is the case: there is no evidence of significant harm and no mechanism for harm. In some cases, there are known mechanisms for harm, so the risks are evaluated more seriously.

 

The problem still seems to be that there are a small number of subjects where you think your opinion that they are more dangerous than the evidence suggests should be taken seriously. If I were to insist, just as vociferously, that there weren't enough long term studies looking at the effects of Bluetooth, for example, (and in particular, that so far they have only looked at the effect on the brain) and that therefore the safety of this technology hasn't been established and we should assume it might be dangerous, would you think that was reasonable?

[CharonY]

I could make the point for virtually anything, including plastics, personal care products etc.

In fact is actually data for potential health hazards of common flame retardants and plastic materials. Yet, we still happily use them. For the outlined position to be internally consistent one would either have to call to the dangers of everything (including oxygen) which is clearly unrealistic.

 

And yes we also have negative data on bacon. We still use it freely. What is your point? Just because we used it for a long time its health effects we should consider it safer? We have evidence that it has negative health impacts, why do you label it as safer than something for which we have no evidence?

 

As can be seen, the whole basis of risk assessment in OP is essentially gut feeling and therefore not conducive to scientific discussions.

[swansont]

 

As can be seen, the whole basis of risk assessment in OP is essentially gut feeling and therefore not conducive to scientific discussions.

 

Reminiscent of the "is nuclear power safe" discussions that go nowhere because "safe" is never adequately defined. "Safe" is always a relative term, and risk has to be compared to other risk, because everything has risk associated with it. Relative risk and safety at least has the hope of being quantified and treated in a scientific fashion. Perhaps the term of the OP should be applied to people who try and apply relative assessments in absolute terms.

[CharonY]

And even that only in a very narrow, arbitrarily defined context.

[overtone]

 

For the outlined position to be internally consistent one would either have to call to the dangers of everything (including oxygen) which is clearly unrealistic.

And yes we also have negative data on bacon. We still use it freely. What is your point?

What does the fact that we use bacon, or flame retardants, despite the known dangers, have to do with anything at all that I have posted anywhere on this entire forum?

Is anyone denying the existence of dangers from oxygen? Has anyone been demanding evidence of harm from oxygen in some new situation as a prerequisite for discussing its risks in that new situation? Are the properties of oxygen poorly understood by the techies who are promoting its use in something they claim is safe?

You make some irrelevant comments, you ask questions that make no sense, and you join the demand for "evidence" that is supposed to be provided for some invisible argument you appear to have made up - "oulined" - yourself. My point?

My point is that this pattern begins with a tech expert not following an argument of a particular kind.

 

In some cases, there are known mechanisms for harm, so the risks are evaluated more seriously.

If even just the cases involving known mechanisms for harm were taken seriously, and discussions of the risks joined without this bizarre Techwit pattern, this thread would not exist.

 

The problem still seems to be that there are a small number of subjects where you think your opinion that they are more dangerous than the evidence suggests should be taken seriously.

No such evidence suggests any such thing, is part of the issue.

Those studies of cesium's effects on northern Pacific Ocean ecosystems, for example, whose results would be reassuring - they don't exist. Neither do the long term consumption studies of "GMOs" fed to mammals. Neither did the earthquake studies relevant to the progression of big ones up the coast of Japan - Fukushima was designed and declared safe (no evidence of danger) on the basis of data from exactly one 9+ earthquake and tsunami monitored by modern science, off the coast of South America. Trans fats and artificial sweeteners were declared safe on the basis of no evidence of harm from studies no one had performed.

And the list of subjects in which that error is made is not all that small, and certainly not insignificant. But that error is not the topic of this thread. This thread is about the pattern of response to the quite reasonable observation that in areas of demonstrated possibility of grave danger and demonstrated certainty of great ignorance, arguments of hazard and risk are in order;

and they are not settled by demands for evidence of harm that by presumption does not exist.

And then there's this:

 

Reminiscent of the "is nuclear power safe" discussions that go nowhere because "safe" is never adequately defined.

Never happened. No discussion of nuclear power safety on this forum in the past three years foundered on the definition of "safe". They mostly foundered on the refusal of nuke proponents to acknowledge risk, recognize evidence of it, or respond relevantly to arguments based on it (such as cost comparisons). They usually ended with a Techwit Rule violation - somebody demanding a body count as evidence of probable deaths from Three Mile Island, for example, or proof that radiation from Chernobyl caused the increased cardiovascular disease visible in the overall stats before allowing it as evidence of possible harm and its deaths etc as attributable in any fraction.

[iNow]

These threads each reach a point at which an unsustainable claim/counter-claim is made - and when you are challenged on said claim you refuse to acknowledge (or maybe you do not realise) that you are wrong and you double down. What is frustrating is that these points are often tangential and relatively unimportant.

Turns out you were also foreshadowing what was about to happen right here in this very thread. Fancy.