Now, 'science' is 'religion'. A person who has a title -- "scientist" -- tells something to an interpreter -- "journalist" -- and they pass the accepted teaching -- "exoteric" -- to you, the laity. That is a literal, top to bottom exoteric religion. It even presents itself in such a form with it's declaratives. "Social identities DO CONSIST OF..." instead of the more accurate "We believe social identities may be comprised of..."

So yes, many people do still reject science as religion. Unsurprisingly, those who do not follow crowd trends are less likely to...follow the crowd trend. I don't. And perhaps I 'believe' a few things that most don't, or disagree with. That's alright. They can signal how good and pure they are by giving their proferred devotionals ("DAMN I love science!&quot and heretical accusations ("That one is a SCIENCE DENIER!&quot , and I will go on my way without giving them, or their idiocy, a second thought.

And I will do so until the religious trappings of science are gone. I have my own religious ways, I do not need Katie Couric to suggest more to me based on what someone's agenda says.

You remind me of a maid my mother had many years ago while I was in college.

She saw my organic chemistry notebooks, showing the Krebs cycle neatly drawn in india ink, and ran to tell my mother that I was a sorcerer practicing black magic.

E.T.A:

Dr. Mack is the real deal. Check out her website:

http://www.astrokatie.com

This is a very smart scientist. Gray P. Johnson is a bit of an idiot.

I just hope you'll stop your sorcerous ways!

Science does not include the supernatural in its explanations of the world, and is not considered valid unless its investigations are repeatable and verifiable. Religion is all about the supernatural, and is neither repeatable nor verifiable. Science requires years of education, training, and apprenticeship. Religion requires neither.

"Declaratives" aren't a problem if they refer to earlier, established research which has not been falsified. Stating "we believe" is also inappropriate because science is not about belief at all. It is about presenting repeatable, verifiable evidence that constitutes knowledge, not belief.

I would hesitate to call you a science denier, because I don't think you know enough about science to deny it in the first place. What you're doing instead is denying a straw man that you're calling science. I'd say a more appropriate term for you would be scientifically illiterate. Not in a pejorative sense, but a literal one.

1. for your definitions to work, we'd first need to define 'supernatural'. FWIW, I do not believe in the 'supernatural'.
2. As a side note, seminary school does indeed have years of education, training, and apprenticeship. I personally know two graduates (and am not a member of their church, I'd note in passing)
3. Append 'so long as it CAN BE falsified' and I'll agree with you. However, many fields of science at present deal in unfalsifiable information. I am, of course, not referring to STEM sciences.
4. Yes, science is also based on beliefs to some degree (or, more appropriately, has room FOR beliefs, which means it can not describe everything; the moment you are aware it cannot describe everything is the moment you become aware that at some point, you will only have belief to go on). Alternately, 33% of the practitioners of science fail so fundamentally horribly that they choose to foolishly believe in the god (/spirit/entity/alien/universe/cosmic force/et al) that there is no evidence of whatsoever of any kind. Your pick.
5. I said others might call me a denier. I don't think poorly of actual, experimental, write-down-the-data science (in fact, I respect it greatly as it is one of the things, along with faith and family, that got the human race this far). I reject 'science', the politically-driven, agenda-pushed recitation of lies, 'facts', factoids, half-truths, misinformation, disinformation, and profit-grubbing religion that has been foisted on the masses while it's defenders try to equate it with actual science. I reject it wholeheartedly and, as I intimated above, will continue to do so.

Perhaps that will help some.

Scientists tend to be specialists in one field or another, as the amount of accumulated knowledge is fairly vast, as is the complexity of the physical world.

On the other hand, a great deal of the human mind evolved to make us functionally social animals, which happened in the absence of the scientific method and endures in our thought patterns, cultures and language. A study or orientation toward religion is, in a sense, an orientation toward human social functionality, and doesn't require much in the way of physical science to be internally consistent and externally (dealing with the problems of individuals and groups) functional.

Perhaps I'm overly charitable in that, but I prefer ("prefer" being a basically unscientific mental posture) to think that people are basically good and valuable, and well-intentioned. Which requires some level of understanding toward people who have no interest or an active disinterest in the "real world", as science in general often describes its subject.

It does seem to fit a bit better than the split that we so often see pushed that suggests that 'science and religion are opposites' (and that, naturally, fits more aptly to the problem-reaction-solution model than two concepts remaining eternally opposed but not having a synthesis). I find value in your last paragraph, as that is also much more in line with how I tend to think of things (now; I'd be lying if i said I'd always thought that way. In fact, it's a somewhat recent occurrence), although from a functional point of view I do find 'preference' to be scientific, as there is some evidence of a (as of yet not fully known) mechanism affects how the things you think of appear in your life (and that's before you get into neuroplasticity).

Thank you for the thoughtful comment.

Nor is there any path of discussion that leads to an interesting topic borne from this one. As such, I'll simply thank you for your time and go on my way.

Well, maybe one. It IS worth a passing mention that this post I made (the original one that you replied to; subposts are not counted in this, nor are subreplies) has more replies than any post I've ever made in 13 years on DU. A post that mentions that science, as presented to the normal person, is a religion. And it gets the most responses. All of them rejecting the theory.

All of them religiously swearing that they're not following a religion and pulling out scientifically-approved definitions (that they learned from a book, in most cases; a book so important to modern communication as to be essential; a 'bible' of communication, if you will) to 'prove' it. There IS some humor in that.

Have a pleasant night.

Recanting his heresy to the infallible SCIENCE?

First, for myself, I would disagree strongly that religion is mainly about the supernatural.

To me, religion is primarily about ethics.

Secondly, it is about hope - the hope that there is something for us after death.


Then back to science. Well there is physics, and sub-branches of physics like chemistry. Then there is biology, and perhaps math. Not sure if that is a science, as much as its own field and something that is used in sciences.

Then there are social sciences, or should I say social "sciences"?

Are you writing them off as NOT-science? That's all well and good, I suppose, except that as a person who has studied math, physics, chemistry, astronomy and economics, I would say that the problems involved in social sciences are somewhat more important than those involved in physical sciences.

That kind of a value judgement is, of course, unscientific, but one that is pre-supposed in the premise of this thread. The value judgement that "science is important to the human race".

See, you use the phrase "hindered the human race". As if there is ONE direction, one clear definition of "progress" (perhaps a scientific one). Except there really is not.

Yeah, the hope that you dont piss off some supernatural god who will punish you for eternity for making a silly mistake. Some hope. And ethics? Oh, I will do the right thing not because it is the right thing, but because the aforementioned god will punish me if I don't.

and to some degree the one from the Christian bible.

But it does not have to be that way.

As for ethics and fear. Well if some unprincipled person is looking to harm me, I would rather have him fear a god than to not fear one.

And he needs to fear something, because my operatives will avenge me.

"And some of my operatives are Vulcans."

Most of us quickly move beyond the whole fear thing, although it is perhaps a step on the right path.

Funny thing about "doing the right thing" though - what is it? And where do you learn about it? In chemistry class? In math class? Does it need to be learned? Or should we just teach math, physics and biochemistry?

I have no need for supernatural beliefs in my life.

Maybe Catholicism, but most protestants go from John 3: 16. They do not have to DO anything to avoid hell. They avoid hell by BELIEVING. "Whoever BELIEVES in him".

Do you think you need ethics in your life?

Along with silly stuff like John 3: 16 and virgin births Joshua knocking over walls with trumpets and Moses parting the Red Sea and people being swallowed by giant fish and whatnot, the Bible also teaches things like

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
"love your neighbor as yourself"
"I was hungry, and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was sick and you took care of me."
"look after widows and orphans in their distress"

Not the only source, of course, since there are other religions which teach some of the same things.

Do we need ethics? Or do we just need science?

to have ethics in your life. "Do unto others" is not unique to religion. Do you really think that some religion that started only 2000 years ago came up with this "unique" idea?

but who else is teaching it?

Of course, my complaint with many of the churches is the same as Franklin's - they seem to spend more time teaching phlogiston instead of ethics.

But I still think there is a baby in that bath water.

Phlogiston plus ethics is still better than no phlogiston and no ethics. Sure, you CAN, in theory have ethics without religion, but if science is your religion (or similarly if not having a religion is your highest value), then why will you? Ethics, after all, are non-scientific. So why have them? Why consider them more important than the great god nollij?

If you can't act like a decent human being without threat of punsihment then I don't know what to tell you.

then humans should be far more decent than they are.

It's also NOT about fear of punishment, although you are fixated on that for some reason.

It is about teaching the standards. You just claimed that they do NOT need to be taught.

I strongly disagree. I think ethical behavior needs to be taught just like mathematics does- and that unlike mathematics, it is very important.

he did a good job of explaining it.

you jest.

I read Hans Kung's 700 page book "Does God Exist". While taking a full load of classes, I also read my roommate's anthropology textbook and the text used for a whole year class of European history.

On the other hand I did not get very far into "Being and nothingness".

A good explainer he is not.

And what exactly is "IT"?

but i take your point about his denseness.

the argument from authority in a non-belief setting.

To even claim that science is based on "faith" or just belief is easily proven false because it's not based on rationality, and scientists value rationality over any belief or faith. Scientists require proof, which is not a matter of an experience that only you had, and nobody else had.

Using the scientific method (a non-faith) attitude of only accepting as real things that are observable based on evidence. That does not require belief since (what you believe could be wrong ) if the facts and the evidence dispute the claim it is dismissed. That is using critical thinking (not faith or belief) it's not superstitious, irrational, having faith, or having a system of beliefs, et al."

There might be a lot of things that exists that we have not yet discovered like radio waves that were not known about until scientists discovered them; but your opinion that since we didn't know something at one point in time would lead to the conclusion that we should now believe illogical claims without evidence is preposterous.

Nothing existed outside of time and space because there was nothing outside of time/space to exist in, and time had a beginning and there was no time before time. If there is something who created it or the supernatural realm that it existed in before the beginning of time and space?

Scientists and scholars do not try to prove anything about an illogical claim, which is why they do not try to prove anything about the supernatural. Those who believe in the supernatural should produce a hypothesis that is logical to science, that is what Darwin did with the theory of evolution, and then let the experts examine the evidence. What you have written is not logical.

The view that you believe things on "faith" is rejected by science and the form of the argument is not the same in both cases. What is the argument based on - another belief without evidence? "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Science is based on a little more than hoping and not seeing.

In 2001 the Los Angeles Times published an article entitled "Doubting the Story of Exodus". Archeological evidence shows that the story of Exodus, as told by the Bible, never happened. Every attempt to discredit their findings has failed. This is one (among many) reasons that people who want to believe find science very disturbing.

The idea seems to be that belief is more important than finding out what the facts are, and nobody can question anything no matter how ludicrous, anti-intellectual, or anti-scientific those beliefs may be. Obviously, it is more important to maintain a "belief system" than it is to find out if anything is nonsense.

Scientists do experiments that they have to re-create many times before a hypothesis can ever become a theory - unlike those who just believe and never test anything even once - because they know they can't prove a thing.

You don't need faith to not believe something. Scientists generally do not believe in things that are beyond the physical realm or anything beyond the natural forces. Our experiences that take place in this life and can be fully explained by science, but being mesmerized by dimensions of reality that are beyond (provable) with actual evidence is not science.

There is a distinction in a non-informed philosophy and an informed philosophy. They are not the same things. Philosophy is man made and relies upon our own abilities to determine what is equitable, honest or real etc. It doesn't come from anything outside us the supernatural or from an altered state. What you are calling science is not about having any knowledge or information, and it has nothing to do with what is rational or any real science. I don't think you do understand how science works. Religious "philosophy" is not based on logical thinking it is based on faith. Religion is reliance on something outside of self. You don't need to apply critical thinking to have a belief like that.

Scientists do not believe things on "faith" that is an old con game that has no purpose except to deceive. Let's cut to the chase. They can't come up with proof of what's being sold right now - give them your trust - and your money - and you'll find out when you die if it was true or not. That's a great way to make money (predatory capitalism) with practically no operating costs because you don't have to produce a product. You just give money and gifts to an imaginary sky fairy. I know religions do charity work it's good PR (public relations) but studies have shown that non-religious charities are run far more efficiently and do much more good.

Science is about seeing reality as it really is, and sometimes reality is hard to face for some people. I think it's quite liberating to see reality as it is so that problems and issues can be resolved for real; I'd rather there be a better solution to polio than somebody mouthing words into the empty air.

real science, is full of shit?

What are you trying to say?

The greatest scientific advances of the 20th century are responsible for:

1. The technology of the Internet and cheap affordable computers. That would be quantum field theory, which describe how semiconductors and really the entire universe works. Sadly and regretfully it does not explain lame posts and ignorant opinions on said Internet.

2. Einstein's general theory of relativity must be taken into account for the global GPS system to work correctly and accurately. How else could people be told to turn left at the lake and lamely drive into the lake?

3. NASA has robot spacecraft all over the solar system, and beyond. They work by Newton's laws, from the 17th fucking century! (Plus, some later mathematical shortcuts which reduce to the same thing -- See Gauss, Laplace for details.) We've landed a probe on fucking Titan, a moon of Saturn, a fucking billion miles away... with no human intervention. We nailed the New Horizon's Pluto flyby, again with no human intervention. And the Voyager spacecraft are still reporting back after so many decades. Look up "Mars Curiosity seven minutes of terror" for another exemplar.

4. The Large Hadron Collider at CERN, by far the world's largest machine, works! One of its detectors -- basically a huge mega-complex digital camera -- is the size of a ten story office building! The whole LHC is 27 km in circumference -- parts of Geneva, Switzerland are within the ring -- and it works beautifully. (BTW, you do know that the World Wide Web was invented at CERN by a particle physicist, don't you? Google "Tim Berners-Lee".)

Science works! Unlike religion.

D'ya think scientists have prayer meetings or something? No! They solve the problem the best that they can, building on the previous body of knowledge and modifying it as new knowledge and data come into view.

Sheesh!

That is science. It ain't just faith. People adhere to the methods because they work. And even those are subject to change.

Mother Nature is the final arbiter of truth. Not some ancient text or oral legend. And most importantly, one has to be willing to give up ones most cherished beliefs if the data comes out against them.

You're not even wrong.

I'm always late to these parties.

I can see how you would think the way that you do. Maybe you should read the actual scientific papers to realize that you are wrong about scientific research.

....and that's really saying something....

is that the poster is convinced that that meaningless mumbo jumbo, is in fact, deep and wise.

I don't have enough space for the number of head slap smilies I want to post, so here's one that sums it up:

A literal meme picture with a meme scientist pushing a meme for the masses. A literal prophet for the modern man's religion. The EXACT DEFINITION of !science, compared to so many previous posters who at least figured I meant REAL science.

I figured if I held out long enough, one would show up. Thank you.

and sending messages over the internet, neither of which would be possible if science weren't really, really good (not the straw man perfect) at doing what it purports to be able to do.

Says the person surrounded by things that would not be possible without science, but ironically, oblivious to that fact because he takes science's reliability largely for granted.

Dumbing-down of public discourse and insistence of creationists that science is a religion (&/or to prop relig or discount sci proofs) have led to what appears to have led to your conclusions.

Just because the reporting of science is lousy does not make the actual science lousy.

M-kay?

Better turn off your electricity, heat and reject your store bought food and modern medicine.

yup

Bwahahaahahahahahahahahahhahahahaha!!!!!!

"How do you know it's true?" vs being comfortable with not knowing with absolute certainty.

Also, some of them will never understand it because they never went beyond basic algebra. Hence, despite scientific ideas being open to challenge, many people are simply not qualified to challenge them because they don't have the education and experience.

If those people are dumb enough to believe in vast conspiracies, ignoring that science rewards people for overturning established ideas with logic and facts, that makes them even more distrustful.

I listened to a lecture of his while driving a couple weeks ago. Makes for an enjoyable drive through some boring prairies.

Feynman had a terrific personality and he explained ideas really well.

He was quite a practical joker too!

Most especially highly educated fools who had risen to their highest level of incompetence.

I'd rather work with people who understand their own limitations than those who don't, and it has nothing to do with intelligence or education.

It's one reason people with Down Syndrome can be so delightful. They generally know they're not rocket scientists or theologians.

On the other hand you've got physicists, electrical engineers, and even a few biologists who are Fundamentalist Creationists and some of the most obnoxious people in the world, stunningly ignorant about everything beyond their specialty, but they keep arguing nonsense anyways, demanding we inflict it on everyone's children.

is the Feynman Path integral for the Core Theory. No nuance there. Oh and there are no certainties in science, there are instead Bayesian probabilities that some theories are better explanations for the world than others. Other than that you do make some excellent points.

Sure, I encounter 'motivated reasoning.' I belong to a group that includes some Libertarian types, -- 'free market fundamentalists.' They absolutely reject the concept of global warming. This, even though the nearby Atlantic continues to encroach on the beaches, and the hurricanes, fires, tornadoes, etc. increase.

But this is odious:

...and the examples just aren't that hard to find.

The mindless woo claiming otherwise that infests the internet is exactly the sort of thing the OP addresses.

I don't see how plants that kill all other organisms are good for the environment.

--imm

If that really is the basis of your argument, it goes a lot way toward explaining how you are unable to find evidence of efficacy.

But many, many plants have always killed many organism that might otherwise eat them. Plant life is pretty much chemical warfare defined.

I get worried when we reject technologies that may help feed our 7 billion population for nonscientific reasons.

Last edited Thu Aug 18, 2016, 09:13 PM - Edit history (1)

I'm very much pro-GMO, but if the scientific consensus turned around and became anti-GMO, I would except their evidence.

Is there anything that would change your mind, or do you know how you feel and that's that?

My objections are to the whole structure of the industry, the monopolies, the mono-cultural agriculture it encourages, the dependence on chemicals, the devastation of some species, the proliferation of pesticides whose effects are in dispute.

The data collections I have been presented, have not been been read by their presenters. They don't show that GMOs are safe. There is lots of GMO related research, methods of splicing genes, etc. These studies can usually be traced to industry aligned sources. Nobody concludes they are safe. They are Gish Galloping.

I believe in labeling, and then vigilance. Then we'll see...

--imm

for study and there have been independent studies concluding that GMOs were as safe as their organic counterparts, you would change your mind?

And each instance requires the same type of extensive protocols. There are issues about genetic processes, that might lead to anomalous effects, that I rarely see discussed.

This does not address the effects on the ecology, the environment, the economy, and our civilization. Beside, the corporations won't play.

--imm

Mutation breeding has been around for almost 100 years and has a lower standard. It's also eligible for so-called "Organic" certification as if that actually means anything. Very telling that.

And how, exactly, does one prove something is safe?

It is done by scientists, not PR folks. Do you know that Monsanto will not allow it's seeds to be independently tested? How's that for a start?

On edit: I notice I didn't say "proven." So you are beating a dead strawman.

--imm

You can't show something is safe anymore than you can prove something is safe. All you can do is test to see if something does harm.

Do you think Monsanto publishes all the results from all their in-house tests? Where does the FDA recruit its overseers?

The scientists may conduct the tests, but the marketing department determines what gets released. How do I know this?

--imm

Especially since the vast majority of testing occurs in universities, including that which is done for certification.

Have you read these studies, or gone through the abstracts?

--imm

All it takes is one to disprove your claim.

As if sufficient.

--imm

#61

#68

#87

#96

#103

#116

#118

#122

Just to name a few, and yes any one is sufficient to disprove your claim.

They can't conduct a study to show they are safe. NOTHING is fully safe to every human in all conditions and circumstances.

What they can do, is look for ways in which they are UNSAFE or problems they can be shown to *cause*. Been over 3,000 studies trying. Nada so far.

I suspect the 'studies' you're citing are that pile of feedlot studies that seems ubiquitous. These animals are fed antibiotics from birth, the diseased ones are culled before slaughter without biopsy, and they are killed in adolescence.

If you mean something different, please link.

--imm

With the same standard of conclusiveness you are demanding?

GMO has been around for decades with not one single illness attributed to any of them. You can't say that about the alternative. Hard to imagine what your standard of conclusiveness is, but it just doesn't seem that reasonable.

I just went through a typical pile of GMO studies. Mostly read the abstracts. Vast majority had nothing to do with health effects of GMOs.

The mouse studies topped out at 87 days. One went for 30. Mouse life expectancy is 2-4 years depending on breed. I'd like to see better.

Bottom line though: Even if the health and pleiotropic issues of the food are settled, that's a minor point weighed against the economic, environmental, ecological, evolutionary, agronomic, and social problems GMOs portend. I think it's all unsustainable.

--imm

Conclusions are subject to change based on new information. What science does is reduce the realm of an outside possibilities to smaller and smaller spaces.

Interesting how you demand labeling with no evidence to support it, yet require an increasingly higher standard of evidence compared to any alternative.

The 'nutrition facts' you mention describe what is in a product, not how it's made. Get back to me when you can provide actual evidence of where any other seed development technology is required to be labeled by law.

Everything can have a label on it but it can't say if it contains GMOs? Corporatocracy strikes again!

And, evidence for what?

--imm

You can even make your own labels and stick them on your own shit if that's what does it for you. Nobody is going to tell you that you can't.

If you want the power of government to force someone to label their product, then it might be a good idea to provide a defensible reason for doing so that actually does include pesky details like evidence.

If potential danger is your concern, then shouldn't non-GM crossbreeds and mutations be labeled as well? Like I said, we actually have concrete examples of harmful produce created in this manner (e.g., the Lenape potato).

I think you'll find many of us who object to the labeling measures do so because it's no secret the brains behind them have a very specific agenda that, frankly, is not all that different from Monsanto's. They want to scare people into paying more money for food products that are, to the best of our knowledge, not qualitatively different... much less "better".

A good percentage of those are independent. Few subjects are as well studied.

The part you are missing is nobody concluded the alternative is inherently safe either so all you are doing is trotting out the same worn out talking point that never made the least bit of sense to begin with. The question never was a matter of anyone to conclude they are safe. The question is whether they are as safe or safer than the alternative. The consensus has answered that question.

so we have a good idea of the dangers and tolerances. In some sense, everything you eat does harm you, but if you observe limits, this is counteracted by the nutritional benefits, which contribute to the maintenance of immune responses, etc.

AFAIK, Monsanto does not license independent researchers to use their seeds. The so-called studies I have seen, are feed lot studies and not suited to determine long term safety. The studies show that medicated animals, on bad diets, can be raised long enough to slaughter without visible defects. That's all.

The consensus you reference does not exist. A lot of civilized countries label or restrict GMOs. We have more guns though.

--imm

But, from the libertarian "free market fundamentalists" (borrowing your quote marks) i haven't seen denial on climate change.

I would frame it more like abject apathy. A "so what", "whatever happens, happens" attitude.

That way they can still accept the science and still do nothing.

"...people are unlikely to change their mind when presented with information that conflicts with their worldview..."

all of us are prone to it... not just conservatives...

...good example is the fact that eating meat contributes greatly to climate change and exploitation of the environment... but many good liberal thinking people, that care about the environment, take great offense and call us vegetarians extreme or wackos?? go figure


more empathy and critical thinking skills would go a long way in making a better world

Soy, one of the very few complete protein sources available to vegans is an excellent example.

It's very easy to point a finger at a problem. Identifying a solution which doesn't create it's own problems isn't as easy.

.



But this is a global effort to dominate the croplands around the world, the new market is Eastern Europe.


The farmers are sold lies that the GMO and hybrid crops are better, never telling them they cannot replant seeds.

These poor farmers, who have had land in their families for centuries are now forced to buy seed each time, instead of being able to save off and plant a portion of their crops. These farmers make $1 a day and are forced to sell their farms to BigAg. Their goal is to kill off all strains of legacy crops, to maintain a stranglehold on seed, while it diminishes the biodiversity. Most people in emerging countries are now being given American grains, such as corn, wheat and barley and are starting to gain weight and enter poor health while losing their taste for local crops.


.

US corn crops were about 95% non-reusable well before the first GMO seeds ever hit the market. Unpatented reusable seeds for most crops are still quite available. The reason few use them is because they aren't better, not some mythical global conspiracy theory.

Just sayin'

http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/260671/aib786g_1_.pdf

Just sayin'

.


That's been around as long as "Trust me" and all of the other variants of FU.

When someone uses "Just sayin'" I reply in kind, because I know its subtext.


.

So you diverted to something that makes little sense.

Just sayin'

.


I had given you the click bait you seem so determined to have gotten.

This is basic 2nd year college stuff. My reply was that there are more to GMOs than the traditional argument.

That seems to be something you can not comprehend.


.

Pretty much all are simply worn out talking points one can easily find on most any woo site like NaturalNews or Mercola, which as I proved are simply myths which are childishly simple to debunk. So if you want to continue to make abstract claims based on some sort of anonymously claimed expertise, be my guest. I find what you comprehend to be quite amusing.

You know, the widespread switch in the 1960's, the biggest breakthrough in agricultural science in millennia, credited with saving ONE BILLION LIVES from starvation, that revolved around moving from open-pollinated to hybrid, often patented seed?

Hybrid seed that is not suited for seed-saving even when it's not patented?

The part you are conveniently ignoring is the massive and well funded anti-science effort using woo to promote an agenda based on a foundation of complete bullshit. Even if you like the agenda, using woo to promote it ultimately is counter productive, because eventually the bullshit is revealed for what it is and all credibility is lost forever.

Anti-science is not a liberal or progressive trait.

Do you have any relevant examples?

Your anonymous claims are getting weaker, BTW.

.


Based off of my first post, you could use Google, but it seems that skill escapes you.

That's the definition of weak.


.

Equally as verifiable and almost as weak as your claim.

Just sayin'

...ecnomics, agribusiness, or the environment. Those are all valid considerations worth discussing, but we rarely ever get there because most people screaming about GMO's are concerned solely with the food safety argument, which is a bunch of woo.

Acceptance without proof is the fundamental characteristic of western religion. Rejection without proof is the fundamental characteristic of western science.

This brings us to a common misunderstanding. When most people say “scientist,” they mean “technician.” A technician is a highly trained person whose job is to apply known techniques and principles. He deals with the known. A scientist is a person who seeks to know the true nature of physical reality. He deals with the unknown.

Thanks to Gary Zukav If you haven't read the book - you should!!!

A thread a long long time ago asked theists: why do you personally believe in God?

My answer was:

Because I read Kurt Gödel, and I think he's on to something.

And because Hugh Everet's many world interpretation of Quantum Mechanics allows for the possibility of a universe in which miracles do happen.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/121869308#post86