Scientific American: Bash Homeopathy and Bigfoot Less, Mammograms and War More

[GliderGuider]

112. Since you bring it up, in the interests of transparency here's how our conversation unfolded:

HuckleB:

You realize that your stated objection to GMOs would go much greater for other seed development technologies, right? If so, where are your posts arguing against the other technologies?

GliderGuider:

I actually object in similar terms to almost everything human beings do, from Haber-process fertilizers to building cities, our disregard of ecological principles, large-scale energy technology, and frankly most advanced technology. The Law of Unintended Consequences and Sevareid's Law are my guiding principles. But I don't write about it much on DU, except a bit on E/E, because this isn't an appropriate venue.

HuckleB:

Perhaps you should clarify to people that you object to all seed development technologies, and not just GMOs.

GliderGuider:

If it seems necessary to me, I will. So far it doesn't.

HuckleB:

Then your comment is out of context to others. No one else knows that. They just see it as the usual anti-GMO statement.

GliderGuider:

That doesn't matter to me, because I'm not personally invested in the argument. I don't care about convincing people of my POV. If they want to think of me as another anti-GMO maniac, it makes no difference to me. I think my systems science explanation is enough in that context. If it proves not to be, I'll say something more.

HuckleB:

So I'll know not to bother you again.

After all was said and done, I decided that making a clarification was in order, so I put the following into post #64, which was still fresh at the time:

"And just so nobody suspects me of being a single-issue anti-GMO fanatic, I also object in similar terms to almost everything human beings do, from Haber-process fertilizers to building cities, our disregard of ecological principles, large-scale energy technology, and frankly most advanced technology since the moldboard plough. The Law of Unintended Consequences and Sevareid's Law are my guiding principles."

When all is said and done, the whole issue of GMOs, alt.med and my attitude towards them is a red herring that I have no real interest in discussing, here or anywhere else. The OP was about the opinion of Hodgson that mainstream science doesn't get appropriately skeptical attention, compared to non-mainstream issues. GMOs, vax and homeopathics were simply used as examples to give focus to an argument that was very general in scope.

My interest (as expressed through my choice of OP) is how belief systems drive social attitudes and behaviours towards orthodox and unorthodox fields. Which of course has morphed into a very interesting demonstration of those behaviours in action. For which I wish to thank all participants.

Next time, in order to avoid distractions I'll make more of an effort to keep the discussion focused on the topic of the OP.