Breaking News: Monsanto to Be Put to Trial in Hague for Crimes Against Humanity

[NNadir]

316. Since you don't know any scientists, or for that matter any science...

Last edited Tue Dec 8, 2015, 01:58 AM - Edit history (2)

...I'll take your remark for what it is, contempt for science and scientists.

As for what a "strawman" is, I've already discussed your inability to utilize standard logical reasoning, i.e. that which avoids, for example, overt logical fallacies, and, in my opinion, such ability as you have for utilizing such reasoning is roughly comparable to your knowledge of science and scientists, which is to say zero.

From the Primary Scientific literature, albeit a journal that is devoted to what may be called "scientific epistemology," I'll leave you with this link to a journal article devoted to discussing whether scientists have a responsibility to confront nonscientific woo-woo stuff from loud and obnoxious deniers of science:

Synthese August 2014, Volume 191, Issue 12, pp 2751-2765

Now it is very clear from your hysterical ranting that you have never in your life set foot inside an academic library of any kind, and will thus be unable to access the text, so I'll simply produce the excerpt that best applies to this rather vapid conversation:

Dissent has long been recognized to play crucial roles in the production of scientific knowledge. Dissenting views can correct false assumptions and ensure consideration of a wider range of theories, models, and explanations (Popper 1963; Feyerabend 1975; Rescher 1993; Longino 1990, 2002; Solomon 2001; Kitcher 2011). Such benefits are thought to give rise to obligations not merely to tolerate dissent, but to actively seek and engage dissenting views— both within scientific communities and from a wider range of stakeholders. Thus, many have argued that scientists have obligations to establish public venues for research to be critically evaluated by those with diverse perspectives and engage with such criticism (Longino 1990, 2002; Kitcher 2001; Solomon 2001). This might include duties to secure the participation of dissenters in peer review, conferences, scientific advisory panels, and academic departments (Longino 1990; Solomon 2006; Douglas 2009; Kitcher 2011).

But are there limits to the type of dissent scientists have an obligation to seek and engage while practicing science? In constructing climate models for instance, do researchers have duties to create opportunities for climate change skeptics to critically evaluate their work and take those criticisms seriously? Are there obligations to include them on conference programs? Should journals make an effort to include intelligent design (ID) scientists as reviewers for manuscripts related to evolutionary theory? While not many would advocate that dissenting views be censored, the question is whether scientists always have obligations to involve dissenters in evaluating research, accepting hypotheses, taking scientific problems to be solved, or in synthesizing the current state of a science for policymakers.

Some dissenters seem to assume that such obligations exist and that scientific communities are failing to meet them. For example, climate change skeptics charge they have unfairly been excluded from conference programs and advisory panels and that their work has been treated unfairly in the peer-review process (Pearce 2010; Michaels 2009). Creationists and ID theorists argue that evolutionary theorists unreasonably dismiss their arguments against evolutionary theory (Behe 2007; Wells and Dembski 2007; Witt 2005).

The idea that scientists have obligations to provide opportunities for dissenting views thus raises concerns. First, establishing public venues for all dissenters to be heard and have their criticisms considered may contribute to a false public perception that there is significant disagreement or that no scientific consensus exists. Indeed, some private companies and think-tanks have funded scientific research aimed at generating skepticism about climate change and environmental toxins, stalling the development of public policy, and creating doubt among the public and policymakers (Oreskes and Conway 2010; Michaels 2008). Although this may happen regardless of whether scientists seek and engage the participation of dissenters, there is fear that doing so risks bringing even more attention to dissenters and exacerbating the problem...

I note, with some amusement, that the authors of this paper explicitly link anti-GMO hysteria with creationism and other woo-woo stuff:

...We distinguish several different ways of understanding what constitutes “sharing standards” and argue that the most plausible interpretation fails to limit our obligations to dissenters. Specifically, we will show that they fail in those cases of dissent that they were intended to exclude: creationism, climate change skeptics, and dissenters on GMO safety.1...

... Our focus will be on dissent that arises from scientists. In many cases, these are the dissenting views that receive much attention from laypersons and the media, as can be seen in the case of climate change and GMOs...

Now, as a scientist, it appalls me that anti-scientific thinking, contempt for, even hatred of, science and scientists is becoming so prevalent in our culture. While it pains me when I think of future generations that will have to pay the price for this ignorance and stupidity, it is unlikely to affect me personally, since I am an old man and am not likely to live all that much longer.

But I don't know what is to become of the human being in a climate like this.

To quote Hesse, from the prologue to Demian that I so admire:

Wenige wissen heute, was der Mensch ist. Viele fühlen es, und sterben darum leichter, wie ich leichter sterben werde...

I often muse on my responsibility to confront ignorance in the general public, as I know science and am devoted to it as I love it for its potential to save humanity from itself as well as for its pure beauty and wonder.

Most often, these efforts degenerate into stupid screaming, usually on the part of the person who knows no science and, in fact, hates science. This is certainly the case here. One imagines from the violent tone that if stretched far enough, this could degenerate into the kind of terrorism that has so infected the world, as it is so filled with self righteousness and anger, but no matter...

The world cannot be saved from ignorance I think, and the effort to do so may well be doomed. I am certainly done with confronting fear and ignorance in the present case. Irrespective of the academic authors of the cited and quoted paper, who I will assume you will claim to be paid off by Monsanto since anything that goes against your narrow paranoid thinking must come from Monsanto, I really think that nothing I do can make you into a sentient being.

Congratulations. Ignorance has won the day. You must be very proud.

We're done.