11-23-2013, 04:51 AM
One quote from Greg's Buzzfeed article (not a terribly bad article overall) indicates both the problems with journalism in the GMO area and why those ideologically wedded to the idea that GM foods are inherently unsafe will never be satisfied:
Second, the quote illustrates the problem arguing with any ideologue: they demand science (or whatever) to prove* a negative. So they endlessly say this study isn't adequate, that study isn't adequate and so forth. One of the characteristics of anti-science diatribes is a list of references pointing to specific articles supposedly demonstrating some point. What they don't get is that science over the long term operates on a body of knowledge, not a few cherry-picked articles predisposed to a certain point of view. That's why the GMO meta review several of us have pointed to covers over 700 studies created over a number of years. These studies were evaluated on both their methodology and whether their conclusions were supported by their methodology and results. It is a large body of knowledge that overwhelmingly points to the food safety of GM crops. But it's never enough for the ideologue. This rampant anti-science ideology is perhaps even more obvious in climate change discussions where the huge body of evidence points to anthropogenic alterations in the Earth's climate, but that is simply dismissed as a "hoax."
*proofs exist in mathematics, not nature; science observes and tries to discover concepts that have good predictive probability consistent with their observations.
quote:One, the "verdict" is not still out on the food safety issue if you have any respect for the independent science developed over the last 20 years on this topic. This is a journalism issue that doesn't seem to go away. If you have no respect for science there's not much to say.
The verdict is still out on whether GMOs are harmful for consumption: Those against legislation say there is no scientific evidence showing GMOs are bad, while supporters say there isn’t adequate research or independent scientific verification of industry assessments.
Second, the quote illustrates the problem arguing with any ideologue: they demand science (or whatever) to prove* a negative. So they endlessly say this study isn't adequate, that study isn't adequate and so forth. One of the characteristics of anti-science diatribes is a list of references pointing to specific articles supposedly demonstrating some point. What they don't get is that science over the long term operates on a body of knowledge, not a few cherry-picked articles predisposed to a certain point of view. That's why the GMO meta review several of us have pointed to covers over 700 studies created over a number of years. These studies were evaluated on both their methodology and whether their conclusions were supported by their methodology and results. It is a large body of knowledge that overwhelmingly points to the food safety of GM crops. But it's never enough for the ideologue. This rampant anti-science ideology is perhaps even more obvious in climate change discussions where the huge body of evidence points to anthropogenic alterations in the Earth's climate, but that is simply dismissed as a "hoax."
*proofs exist in mathematics, not nature; science observes and tries to discover concepts that have good predictive probability consistent with their observations.