People with extreme anti-science views know the least...

[Sound Doctrine]

Nobody says they are relevant (to the question of whether GMOs are safe to consume). However, on their own, as a matter of psychology, these views can be an object of study. Hence, the study, which discovered some interesting and valid correlations.

GMOs may or may not be safe. The problem is, there are no regulations regarding testing for safety. They should be clinically tested like drugs are, before being allowed to market. Therefore, we have no idea if and what consequences there may be if consumed. Common sense is all it takes. Monsanto is an evil company, and they are one of the biggest players. They got away with the harmful Agent Orange effects on US soldiers in Viet Nam. The product Roundup contains carcinogenic chemicals made by Monsanto, yet Roundup is still on the shelves. No good. This is a matter for science to answer and science is not being employed to answer.

 

[Sound Doctrine]

Cool story.

Yes, it is. Like the shades.

 

[Hieronymus]

Well, since I know the answer, here it is.

Of course I, Hieronymus, do not object to celestial mechanics. It accurately predicts and explains past and future events throughout the solar system. However, I believe God set all these planets and asteroids and whatnot into motion at some point and oversaw everything to the minutest detail to ensure that things unfolded according to her plan. This does not detract in any way from the naturalistic explanation, nor does it contradict the scientific explanation in any detail.

Similarly, when we turn to biology, I think God had her hand in everything, but given that the theory of evolution is extremely well-established based on the evidence, I would be rash to contradict it. My theism is entirely compatible with biology on a great many issues. While God in some sense oversees everything, just like she does the motions of the planets, the mechanics of cellular respiration follow all the naturalistic explanations to a T. But in other areas, like evolution, I have some objections to the theory, but no evidence to offer that contradicts the established theory. Mostly, I have alluded to 'purpose'. If I thought about it for a while, I might come to see that the same divine purpose I see in the solar system can also be seen in the things of biology -- and in neither case, would I necessarily have to reject the scientific explanations of these things.

You're more intelligent than this, obsolete salts.
But somehow something forces you to do the ol' ridicule thing.
Welcome to my ignore list.
You will find many friends there.

 

[essentialsaltes]

You're more intelligent than this, obsolete salts.

Ooof. Give me some time to recover.

But somehow something forces you to do the ol' ridicule thing.

No, that answer is a rational response to the question. I can't help that your actual nonanswer is irrational.

Welcome to my ignore list.
You will find many friends there.

Too bad you won't learn a thing or two from all these well-informed and beautiful people.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

GMOs may or may not be safe. The problem is, there are no regulations regarding testing for safety. They should be clinically tested like drugs are, before being allowed to market.

Agreed, there should be testing on a case-by-case basis.

The product Roundup contains carcinogenic chemicals made by Monsanto, yet Roundup is still on the shelves. No good. This is a matter for science to answer and science is not being employed to answer.

Science has been employed, and the answer is that, like many common substances (alcoholic drinks, processed meats, mineral oil, wood dust, car exhaust, etc.) glyphosate is carcinogenic, but not significantly so at the exposure levels likely to be encountered in normal use; i.e. the increase in cancer risk is small, and the base cancer risk (absent glyphosate) itself is very small. Like the other common carcinogens above, it increases a very small base risk by a small amount.

This study explains why the European Union health assessments differ from those of the IARC in terms of glyphosate cancer risk:

"The EU assessment did not identify a carcinogenicity hazard, revised the toxicological profile proposing new toxicological reference values, and conducted a risk assessment for some representatives uses. Two complementary exposure assessments, human-biomonitoring and food-residues-monitoring, suggests that actual exposure levels are below these reference values and do not represent a public concern."​

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It is false science to leave God out of the equation

The exact opposite is true.

False science, is science that includes a priori faith based beliefs for which there is no evidence whatsoever.

This is why science doesn't include pots of gold at the base of rainbows.
It's also why Thor isn't invoked to explain thunder.
It's also why your particular god of choice isn't invoked to explain anything.

The Bible (something you as an atheist don't believe in) says to beware of carefully contrived fables and science falsely so-called. This does not condemn all science, just that which is false. That which is false is that which tries to explain away God. But you see, no matter how hard you try, you can't.

Whatever makes you sleep at night.

Meanwhile, there is exactly zero objective verifiable evidence for your god and therefor, as a direct result, exactly zero reason to include this god into any scientific model.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

While I agree with this re: any kind of direct inquiry, I do think that science can address evidence that should be available were the deity in question real and it performed the acts ascribed to it.

A global flood, for example - if that occurred, evidence for it should be abundant, yet it is not.

I don't entirely agree though.

Suppose we have evidence of a global flood.
That would only mean that a global flood happened. It would not be a validation of biblical claims concerning the cause and reason of this flood.

It wouldn't tell us how it occured nore would it tell us that the bible is correct about what it claims concerning that flood.


Let's bring that into modern times to illustrate....
The hurricane that ravaged new orleans.

I remember some pastor claiming that that hurricane was a "punishment from god" because of abortion or same sex marriage or what-have-you.

Just because this hurricane actually occured, in no way means that what that pastor claimed about it, is also correct...

Granted, a global flood as described in the bible is a vastly more extra ordinary event then a mere hurricane. Yet, it seems to me that the same logic applies.

The causal chain of events must be demonstrated, not just asserted.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Science is not a "consensus". When it becomes such, it is no longer really science, but fullfilling the expectations of the crowd.

A consensus in science, is not the same as popular opinion.

Not a single scientific discovery we have ever had that turned into a viable discipline or theory, was due to the "consensus".

If there wasn't consensus concerning the discovery, then it wouldn't become a viable discipline or theory.

Ideas in science become theories after these ideas have been verified and accepted by the community. That's kind of the whole point of a consensus....

Take big bang theory. Do you even know where that name comes from? It was called that, not by LeMaitre who came up with the idea, but by other scientists who were unconvinced of it in the beginning and who called it a "big bang" as a form of ridicule of the idea.

But then the data poured it and the hypothesis was reviewed by the community. They then realised that they were wrong and that the hypothesis is valid. They then accepted that idea. They reached a ....-drumroll-.... consensus.

And suddenly, the Big Bang hypothesis got promoted to theory.

This is how science works.

Individuals don't get to promote their own ideas to theory or viable disciplines or what have you. It is a community effort.

in fact, every single science we have today overturned the then "consensus"....

Yes. And in the process, formed a NEW consensus.
This is how science makes progress.
It's called "learning". You should give it a try some time.

but how easily people forget that, in their zeal to be part of the "in crowd".....

Nobody here forgets that. You just like to pretend as if learning / making progress is a problem. Somehow.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Every knee shall bow, every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. This is why there are no nonbelievers in hell. By the time you are sent there, you will know who sent you, unless of course you turn from sin and to the Savior of our sins. We are all sinners, and faith and belief in Jesus Christ as Lord who resurrected from the dead saves us from our sins and from eternal torment (the second death, the first being physical death).

The science sub forum, is not a place to preach.

 

[tas8831]

GMOs may or may not be safe.

Can you explain why they might not be safe?

What is your understanding of the issue? What is your understanding of what a GMO is?

 

[tas8831]

I don't entirely agree though.

Suppose we have evidence of a global flood.
That would only mean that a global flood happened. It would not be a validation of biblical claims concerning the cause and reason of this flood.

Excellent point.

That was just one easy example, but without even evidence of the event at all, then there is really no corroboration for the 'claim' (the flood happened, and God caused it).

It wouldn't tell us how it occured nore would it tell us that the bible is correct about what it claims concerning that flood.


Let's bring that into modern times to illustrate....
The hurricane that ravaged new orleans.

I remember some pastor claiming that that hurricane was a "punishment from god" because of abortion or same sex marriage or what-have-you.

Just because this hurricane actually occured, in no way means that what that pastor claimed about it, is also correct...

Granted, a global flood as described in the bible is a vastly more extra ordinary event then a mere hurricane. Yet, it seems to me that the same logic applies.

The causal chain of events must be demonstrated, not just asserted.

Agreed to all - I guess my general point was (or should be) that if a miraculous claim from the bible were to even be considered as having occurred, then when possible (e.g. a world-wide event) there should at least be clear evidence that the event even occurred.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

A consensus in science, is not the same as popular opinion.

It's exactly the same thing....

If there wasn't consensus concerning the discovery, then it wouldn't become a viable discipline or theory.

Such as the consensus things evolve over time, yet the discoveries have shown the exact opposite.... Fossils that always remain the same for every type of creature over millions of years..... E coli that remain E coli.... Fruit flies that remain fruit flies.....

it is merely the popular opinion that keeps it afloat....

Ideas in science become theories after these ideas have been verified and accepted by the community. That's kind of the whole point of a consensus....

What verification? Fossils that remain the same across millions of years and are only connected to different fossils by "missing" common ancestors one and all?

verification says there is no such thing....

Take big bang theory. Do you even know where that name comes from? It was called that, not by LeMaitre who came up with the idea, but by other scientists who were unconvinced of it in the beginning and who called it a "big bang" as a form of ridicule of the idea.

They should have remained unconvinced......

But then the data poured it and the hypothesis was reviewed by the community. They then realised that they were wrong and that the hypothesis is valid. They then accepted that idea. They reached a ....-drumroll-.... consensus.

What data? Fully mature galaxies were only newly forming galaxies should be?

Giant clusters of galaxies were none should exist?

And suddenly, the Big Bang hypothesis got promoted to theory.

Everybody needed something to believe in, even if the data told them they were wrong.....

This is how science works.

no, it works by popular opinion. And when the data doesn't fit, why just add as much Fairie Dust as you need to make the numbers crunch. 95% of it to be precise....

Individuals don't get to promote their own ideas to theory or viable disciplines or what have you. It is a community effort.

it's the individuals that made all the discoveries.....

Yes. And in the process, formed a NEW consensus.
This is how science makes progress.
It's called "learning". You should give it a try some time.

i have. perhaps you should give it a try sometime and stop relying on popular consensus. You might start to realize that 15 null results in the hunt for Fairie Dust is telling you something..... You might realize that GR is 99.8% correct without any Fairie Dust "inside" the solar system to non-ionized matter. And that only when you attempt to apply it to plasma in the non-concentrated state does it require 95% Fairie Dust to be made into a semblance of accuracy..... Maybe you'd learn that those mature galaxies where they should not exist should be a wake up call to you, along with those giant clusters of galaxies.....

Nobody here forgets that. You just like to pretend as if learning / making progress is a problem. Somehow.

it's not a problem. the problem is they don't want to learn. they have their beloved theories and no new data is going to persuade them that they are wrong. 15 null results hasn't mattered. The fact that GR is 99.8% correct inside the solar system and needs 95% Fairie Dust added to it outside the solar system hasn't mattered....

popular opinion and belonging to the good ole boys club is all that matters today in what you call science and in reality is made up of 95% pseudoscience.....

 

[durangodawood]

It's exactly the same thing....

Scientific consensus comes about when the bulk of scientists in a field have reviewed and understood the science.

Popular opinion is just a bunch of lazy minds blowing in the breeze.

Its popular opinion that the two are the same.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It's exactly the same thing....



Such as the consensus things evolve over time, yet the discoveries have shown the exact opposite.... Fossils that always remain the same for every type of creature over millions of years..... E coli that remain E coli.... Fruit flies that remain fruit flies.....

it is merely the popular opinion that keeps it afloat....


What verification? Fossils that remain the same across millions of years and are only connected to different fossils by "missing" common ancestors one and all?

verification says there is no such thing....


They should have remained unconvinced......


What data? Fully mature galaxies were only newly forming galaxies should be?

Giant clusters of galaxies were none should exist?


Everybody needed something to believe in, even if the data told them they were wrong.....


no, it works by popular opinion. And when the data doesn't fit, why just add as much Fairie Dust as you need to make the numbers crunch. 95% of it to be precise....


it's the individuals that made all the discoveries.....



i have. perhaps you should give it a try sometime and stop relying on popular consensus. You might start to realize that 15 null results in the hunt for Fairie Dust is telling you something..... You might realize that GR is 99.8% correct without any Fairie Dust "inside" the solar system to non-ionized matter. And that only when you attempt to apply it to plasma in the non-concentrated state does it require 95% Fairie Dust to be made into a semblance of accuracy..... Maybe you'd learn that those mature galaxies where they should not exist should be a wake up call to you, along with those giant clusters of galaxies.....



it's not a problem. the problem is they don't want to learn. they have their beloved theories and no new data is going to persuade them that they are wrong. 15 null results hasn't mattered. The fact that GR is 99.8% correct inside the solar system and needs 95% Fairie Dust added to it outside the solar system hasn't mattered....

popular opinion and belonging to the good ole boys club is all that matters today in what you call science and in reality is made up of 95% pseudoscience.....

I don't have the energy today to deal with all this denial.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I don't have the energy today to deal with all this denial.

Maybe he's butthurt upset at all of science because physicists & cosmologists don't subscribe to the 'plasma universe' idea he read on the interwebs, and he doesn't have the science background to understand why...

 

[essentialsaltes]

Similar study on anti-vaxxers.

We found that 34 percent of U.S. adults in our sample feel that they know as much or more than scientists about the causes of autism. Slightly more, or 36 percent, feel the same way about their knowledge relative to that of medical doctors.

We also found strong evidence of Dunning-Kruger effects in our sample. Sixty-two percent of those who performed worst on our autism knowledge test believe that they know as much or more than both doctors and scientists about the causes of autism, compared to only 15 percent of those scoring best on the knowledge test. Likewise, 71 percent of those who strongly endorse misinformation about the link between vaccines and autism feel that they know as much or more than medical doctors about the causes of autism, compared to only 28 percent of those who most strongly reject that misinformation.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Similar study on anti-vaxxers...
71 percent of those who strongly endorse misinformation about the link between vaccines and autism feel that they know as much or more than medical doctors about the causes of autism, compared to only 28 percent of those who most strongly reject that misinformation.

That's pretty much stating the obvious - only someone who thinks they know better than the experts is likely to support contradicting them. Those that think the experts know better are likely to accept expert opinion and reject the misinformation.

 

[sjastro]

Leaving aside the extremists who equate Science with Atheism and is therefore an attack on religion, I wonder if the Tall Poppy Syndrome is the main motivation for the anti science which exists at more moderate levels.

I suspect your anti vaxxers, Electric Universe nutters, opponents to GM food etc are not fixed on single issues but are anti science in general.
If scientists are perceived as existing at a higher elitist class then it is human nature to readily accept anything to undermine the scientists to bring them down to your level, or lower.

On a related topic the science writer Sarah Scoles wrote a rather damning article on the Electric Universe.
I provided some feedback for Sarah in the preparation of her article that she wasn’t simply addressing pseudoscience but anti science in general.
It’s no coincidence that your average Electric Universe nutter is an anti vaxxer, anti maths, climate change denier amongst a list of anti mainstream ideas.

 

[durangodawood]

....I suspect your anti vaxxers, Electric Universe nutters, opponents to GM food etc are not fixed on single issues but are anti science in general....

I'm sure there's some of that.

But also people are justifiably suspicious of commerce corrupting science in the medical and gmo arenas.

 

[Mountainmike]

It seems you have an inadequate grasp of science if you use the concept " correct" to describe its philosophical significance. ( so speaks a postgrad now retired professional scientist)

You will probably notice that most people that deny the sciences often benefit themselves by going to doctors, driving cars, using the internet, watching TV, using cell phones, etc. But then there are the Amish colonies. Some people choose not to advance with technology. And I find that technology is proof that science is reality. In other words if a cell phone works to communicate around the earth, then perhaps science is correct.

Perhaps some just think scientific enlightenment is evil? Something worldly?

Some tend to not want to take advantage of what the world has to offer.