One of the charges often brought against this group is that it is biased because the majority always seems to find fault with studies that show problems with GMO crops or GMO related pesticides but always seems to find no problems with studies that support the technology. Isnt a little too convenient that all the studies that show problems for GMOs turn out to be flawed and the scientists performing them cranks and charlatans after all. Partly this stems from people who dont have the technical sophistication to evaluate the evidence themselves and are looking for an honest broker. One of the heuristics for determining an honest broker is the ability to admit problems and limitations with their preferred position. Its not an unreasonable rule of thumb and we bump up against is being used here by some folks who tend to see things in black and white but expect others to admit to shades of grey to prove their credibility. But it goes beyond the unsophisticated complaints of science denialists. We could see it in the grateful round of applause that Jonathan Foleys essay GMOs, Silver Bullets and the Trap of Reductionist Thinking got. Most of the points and concerns he raised would have never passed muster here, but so many people who dont understand the issues clearly have an emotional need for balance, nuance and there to be two sides to every issue. So its an issue that comes up and isnt just and issue of science literacy, I think its an natural tool for assessing credibility and a pretty hard wired desire for every issue to have two sides. So whats your 100 word pitch for why it really isnt just a convenient coincidence that all the good science seems to point one way and all the science that points the other way turns out to be poorly conducted and improperly interpreted?
Posted on: Sat, 08 Mar 2014 02:52:03 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015