31–40 of 49 posts
There's a chance that there are effects. However, this study proves nothing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure I follow you. P_i and D_i are sets of proponenents/detractors for discipline S_i, right? I so, I assume that the & and | boolean operators you use are substitutes for set union and intersection, respectively. Assuming that the opinions on the various topics are independent, I would rather see K tend to \sum |P_i| == \sum |D_i| What am I missing? ___ Also, for my previous post: s/(appeal to authority)/(ap…
The point was: people are incoherent in their dismissal of argument from authority. E.g. many (most?) in anti-GM movement also acknowledge anthropogenic global warming as true, obviously having no issue with IPCC authority on it. Given enough controversial subjects people care for, no one is going to be knowledgeable in all of them. But people invoke "arguing from authority is a fallacy" only when they are not sided…
We are doomed because big business is protected by politicians on both sides. It's too late now and it will never be banned. And why the heck does the USA continue to do welfare for the corn industry which is massively profitable.
Corn is an Iowa thing; Iowa has the first Presidential caucus in the nation: U.S. Presidents are beholden to corn. Bear in mind, this is a gross over-simplification of the core problem (e.g. Archer-Daniels-Midland seems to have an amazingly powerful set of lobbyists), but it should still give you a sense of what's what. Setting aside native sons (Tom Harkin 1992; plus, Clinton's 'bimbo eruptions' didn't help), you ha…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure I follow you. P_i and D_i are sets of proponenents/detractors for discipline S_i, right? I so, I assume that the & and | boolean operators you use are substitutes for set union and intersection, respectively. Assuming that the opinions on the various topics are independent, I would rather see K tend to \sum |P_i| == \sum |D_i| What am I missing? ___ Also, for my previous post: s/(appeal to authority)/(ap…
The point was: people are incoherent in their dismissal of argument from authority. E.g. many (most?) in anti-GM movement also acknowledge anthropogenic global warming as true, obviously having no issue with IPCC authority on it. Given enough controversial subjects people care for, no one is going to be knowledgeable in all of them. But people invoke "arguing from authority is a fallacy" only when they are not sided…
This is just using an ad hominem to attack people who cite the argument from authority fallacy. Science is also based on careful examination of empirical evidence, not unsubstantiated pronouncements by authority figures.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point was: people are incoherent in their dismissal of argument from authority. E.g. many (most?) in anti-GM movement also acknowledge anthropogenic global warming as true, obviously having no issue with IPCC authority on it. Given enough controversial subjects people care for, no one is going to be knowledgeable in all of them. But people invoke "arguing from authority is a fallacy" only when they are not sided…
>The point was: people are incoherent in their dismissal of argument from authority. E.g. many (most?) in anti-GM movement also acknowledge anthropogenic global warming as true, obviously having no issue with IPCC authority on it. This is just using an ad hominem to attack people who cite the argument from authority fallacy. Science is also based on careful examination of empirical evidence, not unsubstantiated prono…
Consider how long it took to get rid of phlogiston theory in physics, even when falsified by experiments. The physicists of the day were careful and rigorous, honest scientists, and their opponents did not have (initially) any alternative theory to replace it with.
And perhaps we are giving too much credit to most people involved in public debates for examination of empirical evidence. I can say honestly that I tried to read the whole IPCC report, but got barely 1/4th in (it is incredibly thick and dense with facts). Very few of my peers though even glanced as the cover, yet their opinions on it are not any less strong.
This probably has to be one of the least-controlled experiments I've ever seen published! It did the experiments at different labs with different non-GM feeds with what was likely different strains of mice. Also, sample sizes were rather small... There's a chance that there are effects. However, this study proves nothing.
The paper itself says it can't separate out the effects of the pesticides on the corn (or produced by the corn) and the GMness of the corn itself - you think greenpeace would fake a paper this inconclusive? (That said, I have no special knowledge of the concept or this field.)
This probably has to be one of the least-controlled experiments I've ever seen published! It did the experiments at different labs with different non-GM feeds with what was likely different strains of mice. Also, sample sizes were rather small... There's a chance that there are effects. However, this study proves nothing.
Hey Monsanto rep, how's it hanging? Glad you could create your new account an hour ago and post a single time using it.
This probably has to be one of the least-controlled experiments I've ever seen published! It did the experiments at different labs with different non-GM feeds with what was likely different strains of mice. Also, sample sizes were rather small... There's a chance that there are effects. However, this study proves nothing.
Hey Monsanto rep, how's it hanging? Glad you could create your new account an hour ago and post a single time using it.