General Discussion

Cha

(319,089 posts)

44. Monsanto and Types Suck.. don't care who pimps for them

Thu Mar 6, 2014, 04:34 AM

Mar 2014

around here.

We've been fighting on our Island just to get them to reveal the toxins they use.. we won in spite of the mayor vetoing. Now, the ~~GMO~~ Co are suing. Fuck them.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

53 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Good science is good. Poorly designed science is bad. [View all] pnwmom Mar 2014 OP

THANK YOU!! Now that's what I am talking about...Confirmation bias is the big one... Drew Richards Mar 2014 #1

Monsanto allows studies using their GMO seeds, as long as they're conducted by approved scientists pnwmom Mar 2014 #2

OH the Pain it hurts...this is the most basic in food safety and they get to shield from it. Drew Richards Mar 2014 #3

Actually, it's a little more, you know, complicated than all that. HuckleB Mar 2014 #33

It's much simpler than that: researchers can't use the GMO seeds unless they sign agreements pnwmom Mar 2014 #47

That's old information, and even then it was highly disputed. HuckleB Mar 2014 #51

It trumps everything you posted. And it's from a reputable source. n/t pnwmom Mar 2014 #53

Monsanto and Types Suck.. don't care who pimps for them Cha Mar 2014 #44

Science funded by large corporations is not simply bad... joeybee12 Mar 2014 #4

K&R Crunchy Frog Mar 2014 #5

I'm surprised the usual suspects haven't already. n/t pnwmom Mar 2014 #7

So here are the responses that show that this is just a game for you. HuckleB Mar 2014 #13

I'm serious about this. And no one's even paying me to be. n/t pnwmom Mar 2014 #18

In the first sentence, you claim to be serious. In the second, you show that you're not. HuckleB Mar 2014 #20

I couldn't have been more serious about both sentences. You? n/t pnwmom Mar 2014 #48

Thanks for the confession. HuckleB Mar 2014 #52

We don't love science enough.. we don't put all our trust in science. :( Cha Mar 2014 #45

I do love science. Crunchy Frog Mar 2014 #49

Only FREE science is real science. k+r Democracyinkind Mar 2014 #6

That's a very nice essay; thanks for the link! (nt) petronius Mar 2014 #8

You're welcome. n/t pnwmom Mar 2014 #9

Excellent point. Some charlatans will wrap themselves in "science" the way Neocons wrap Chathamization Mar 2014 #10

I know.. kinda weird. And, get all bent out of shape if Cha Mar 2014 #46

Confirmation bias is a very real issue. HuckleB Mar 2014 #11

When your opening premise is wrong, what follows either is also wrong, or has little to do with... Humanist_Activist Mar 2014 #12

Exactly. NuclearDem Mar 2014 #14

Yup. HuckleB Mar 2014 #16

This Cal Tech physicist disagrees with you. pnwmom Mar 2014 #24

Let's name that logical fallacy! HuckleB Mar 2014 #31

Actually there is a bright line between science and pseudoscience LostOne4Ever Mar 2014 #41

We do need to open it all up. Which is why I support Ben Goldacre's efforts. HuckleB Mar 2014 #15

The problem is science reporting, which is done by people who have, at best, a middle... Humanist_Activist Mar 2014 #17

I wouldn't say that's the only problem, but it is a big one! HuckleB Mar 2014 #19

I agree its not the only problem, its just the one that seems to start most of these discussion... Humanist_Activist Mar 2014 #35

The practice of science is subject to confirmation bias. pnwmom Mar 2014 #21

Of course it is, and that is done by people, hence the reason for the scientific method. Humanist_Activist Mar 2014 #22

I have this, which you have already ignored: pnwmom Mar 2014 #25

The first sentence of the bolded paragraph is factually incorrect... Humanist_Activist Mar 2014 #32

pretty much Johonny Mar 2014 #40

A fine piece on the issue: Confirmation bias in science: how to avoid it HuckleB Mar 2014 #23

If it were that easy, you would think this kind of problem wouldn't occur. pnwmom Mar 2014 #27

You did not have time to read what I posted. HuckleB Mar 2014 #28

You ignored it the first time, but since it answers your question, I repeated it. pnwmom Mar 2014 #29

Oh, goodness. HuckleB Mar 2014 #30

You're projecting again. n/t pnwmom Mar 2014 #36

You're not being honest again. HuckleB Mar 2014 #39

A Really, Really Good Piece On The Issue: The Power of Confirmation Bias HuckleB Mar 2014 #26

Excellent discussion and article. Thanks for posting! nt adirondacker Mar 2014 #34

C. Glenn Begley worked at Amgen, Inc., who could not confirm the preclinical studies FarCenter Mar 2014 #37

Thank you for this info. n/t pnwmom Mar 2014 #43

Okay lets go over this LostOne4Ever Mar 2014 #38

This is definitely true to an extent, including where scientific materialism is concerned. AverageJoe90 Mar 2014 #42

But it's science that corrects or refutes bad science... SidDithers Mar 2014 #50