General Discussion

MisterFred

(525 posts)

294. Relooking through your sources.

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 05:41 PM

Jun 2016

Keep in mind I'm fairly ignorant here.

Source one: a news organization openly advertising endorsements by George W. Bush, the Wall Street Journal, Steve Forbes, and P.J. O'Rourke.

Yeah, I'm going to take my science news from the guys promoting their connection to George W. Bush and P.J. O'Rourke. Warms my liberal heart.

Source two: A peer-reviewed article. Very useful, thank you. Ironically, praises Benbrook's research and says it is consistent with theirs in the comment section. Yes he's obviously a pariah in the scientific community...

Source 3: Literally a website built by biotech companies to promote their interests. HELLO, BIAS! Why on earth would you pass them off as a neutral, reliable source?

Source 4: This article relies on a broadcast from NPR (seriously) for most of its information. Odd, given the apparently qualifications of the blog owners.

Source 5: Another article from weed freaks, the links here go to NPR, the LA Times, their own twitter feed, the University of Minnesota's self-promotion magazine, and the television station KUNC. I don't need a synthesis of news media for my 'cutting-edge science stuff'.

Source 6: A guy who really likes internet memes and Marvel.

One out of six decent sources. And that one undercuts your main point. Sorry, you just lost all credibility with me.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

342 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Neil DeGrasse Tyson Tells Bill Maher That Anti-Science Liberals Are Full of Shit Too [View all] cleanhippie Jun 2016 OP

Once again, I am standing with Neil DeGrasse Tyson. tonyt53 Jun 2016 #1

Only a fool wouldn't. cleanhippie Jun 2016 #2

You and me and... PJMcK Jun 2016 #22

+ infinity etherealtruth Jun 2016 #81

Neil DeGrasse Tyson speaks for me wyldwolf Jun 2016 #3

He is not saying "all" liberals are anti science. He pointed out a particular part of the liberal Lint Head Jun 2016 #4

Yes, that's right. Was that ever in question? cleanhippie Jun 2016 #6

And all the other Chicken Littles - perhaps 80% of them jtuck004 Jun 2016 #10

True point PJMcK Jun 2016 #24

but importantly, that strand of thought is hardly limite to liberals! Fast Walker 52 Jun 2016 #41

For some, there are only two good kinds of science: Evolution and Climate Change FrodosPet Jun 2016 #43

You forgot about astronomical science is bad because it offends volcano spirits Fumesucker Jun 2016 #72

That's opposition to corporate power, not science nxylas Jun 2016 #88

Criticizing corporations for bad practices is good. HuckleB Jun 2016 #195

Monsanto's defenders often conflate the two, though nxylas Jun 2016 #202

Nice strawman. HuckleB Jun 2016 #203

Ha, ha, ha!!! PatSeg Jun 2016 #240

"Those who question." HuckleB Jun 2016 #242

Well PatSeg Jun 2016 #246

You keep telling yourself that. HuckleB Jun 2016 #247

Once again PatSeg Jun 2016 #248

I understand that you hold your religious beliefs very tightly. HuckleB Jun 2016 #249

You know PatSeg Jun 2016 #310

So you admit that you don't read the content of the posts of pro-science posters. HuckleB Jun 2016 #313

On the contrary PatSeg Jun 2016 #325

Don't BOMB THE MOON!!!1111!!! GoneOffShore Jun 2016 #90

I'll get right on it FrodosPet Jun 2016 #93

And for some, logical fallacies such as Denying the Antecedent is also good LanternWaste Jun 2016 #268

NDT rocks! Thanks, CH. Big K&R. bvf Jun 2016 #5

Science is my religon & Darwin is it's prophet. GOLGO 13 Jun 2016 #7

Science is my religon & Darwin is it's prophet. AlbertCat Jun 2016 #13

Science isn't a religion PJMcK Jun 2016 #28

Aaaaand that's how & why science is foolishly applied to questions it cannot answer. NT MisterFred Jun 2016 #198

And he's correct! nt MrScorpio Jun 2016 #8

As he usually is. And his delivery works, too. cleanhippie Jun 2016 #9

Yup, what he says is true IronLionZion Jun 2016 #11

I think what is most frustrating, especially with Liberals, is that despite the evidence... cleanhippie Jun 2016 #12

It's the smug hypocrisy that gets me. Act_of_Reparation Jun 2016 #20

So nice The Polack MSgt Jun 2016 #36

People who smugly claim to be smart while others are stupid IronLionZion Jun 2016 #99

Sometimes we aggressively tear people down for their beliefs because those beliefs are dangerous. Act_of_Reparation Jun 2016 #112

Yeah but people do get autism IronLionZion Jun 2016 #115

Yes, and then they refuse to vaccinate their kids in the future, and try to convince other... Humanist_Activist Jun 2016 #123

Quotable: jonno99 Jun 2016 #227

Post removed Post removed Jun 2016 #135

Spoken like a science denier. cleanhippie Jun 2016 #136

The woo can be strong on the Left. nt by msanthrope Jun 2016 #14

At times, infuriatingly so! cleanhippie Jun 2016 #15

As the mother of a child with autism, this board can sometimes be tiresome. nt msanthrope Jun 2016 #18

As a father of a child under the spectrum, I agree. nt Dr Hobbitstein Jun 2016 #21

If it can be destroyed by the truth, then it should be Major Nikon Jun 2016 #16

That applies to so much more than anti-science as well...Religion is another problem area. cleanhippie Jun 2016 #17

Religion is inherently anti-science Major Nikon Jun 2016 #27

I disagree. I learned about Evolution and the universe's true age in Catholic school AllTooEasy Jun 2016 #169

It's also true that a number of Jesuits have made significant contributions to science Major Nikon Jun 2016 #172

You have not demonstrated that religion and science are compatible. Act_of_Reparation Jun 2016 #226

Anti-science people altogether are full of shit, end of story... Blue_Tires Jun 2016 #19

The term anti-science is what's full of shit... lame54 Jun 2016 #25

Agreed PatSeg Jun 2016 #31

Yep. Lack of proof of a connection is different from proof of a lack of a connection. I am all for GoneFishin Jun 2016 #65

Tyson lost me on the GMO thing, why should I believe a physicist about GMOs? A Simple Game Jun 2016 #209

Argumentum ad populum alp227 Jun 2016 #223

You said that so well PatSeg Jun 2016 #239

The science of Europe agrees with Tyson. HuckleB Jun 2016 #241

When one rejects the science on a subject, one is considered anti-science. cleanhippie Jun 2016 #32

and that's a useless blanket statement... lame54 Jun 2016 #35

Anyone can say anything, doesn't make it factual. cleanhippie Jun 2016 #38

The words "on that subject" never, ever, ever follow that term... lame54 Jun 2016 #42

I think that that is implied. To think otherwise is just being contrary. cleanhippie Jun 2016 #46

it's not implied... lame54 Jun 2016 #47

The path of least resistance is usually best. cleanhippie Jun 2016 #49

kinda like bowing out of this talk... lame54 Jun 2016 #52

Which is what exactly? cleanhippie Jun 2016 #53

that not agreeing with one issue does not... lame54 Jun 2016 #63

But "on that subject" is what this discussion is about. cleanhippie Jun 2016 #69

Agreed elljay Jun 2016 #70

All of that is worthy of discussion. cleanhippie Jun 2016 #71

Everything you've said about GMO is also true of every other plant breeding method Major Nikon Jun 2016 #187

True of every other method, really? When you can cross breed a fish and a tomato plant A Simple Game Jun 2016 #210

Context matters to some. YMMV. Major Nikon Jun 2016 #212

Sorry, after rereading I see my mistake about your post. But as long as I'm here... A Simple Game Jun 2016 #221

I'm more than happy to discuss those issues Major Nikon Jun 2016 #224

To say a plant that produces insecticides is "no different" from one that doesn't... immoderate Jun 2016 #80

First off, a lot of plants produce insecticides, many of which you eat, and they are natural... Humanist_Activist Jun 2016 #83

So, you subscribe to an alternate definition of "no different." immoderate Jun 2016 #87

No different from a safety standpoint. Call it a flippant use of words, but no more than that... Humanist_Activist Jun 2016 #91

Where you say 'irrelevant' I would say 'untested.' immoderate Jun 2016 #94

Why should there be? Humanist_Activist Jun 2016 #95

The studies cited do not fulfill the requirements for long term. immoderate Jun 2016 #97

Huh, what does that have to do with GMOs? Why are you changing the subject? n/t Humanist_Activist Jun 2016 #100

I followed links you cited. They SAY they are about GMOs. immoderate Jun 2016 #103

I can't follow your link walk, where is this study about antibiotics and why is it inadequate? n/t Humanist_Activist Jun 2016 #106

Most GMO "safety studies" wind up with a bunch of feed lot studies. immoderate Jun 2016 #107

Why would more rigorous studies be necessary? Humanist_Activist Jun 2016 #109

Animal testing with controls would be good. Real tests on animals are very rare. immoderate Jun 2016 #117

How do you differentiate between "real" tests and what is already done? Humanist_Activist Jun 2016 #120

Long term, controlled, etc., not feed lot statistics. immoderate Jun 2016 #127

But what long term effects could occur? Even in the BT corn... Humanist_Activist Jun 2016 #128

You say "nothing can happen" and I say, something might happen. immoderate Jun 2016 #139

Because we know what's in the plants in question? Its not that complicated. n/t Humanist_Activist Jun 2016 #140

Have you ever bothered to consider the term "plausibility?" HuckleB Jun 2016 #171

Have you ever met a mutation bred organism you didn't like? immoderate Jun 2016 #173

And the dodge response. HuckleB Jun 2016 #180

Are there any other kind? Major Nikon Jun 2016 #188

How is this any different from non-GMO? Other than there's less testing. Major Nikon Jun 2016 #121

Hell, supplements and "alternative medicine" herbalism isn't tested hardly at all... Humanist_Activist Jun 2016 #125

That's assuming that your bottle of St. John's Wort actually contains St. John's Wort... Act_of_Reparation Jun 2016 #149

Hmm. You didn't get an answer. HuckleB Jun 2016 #207

What? cleanhippie Jun 2016 #257

Law of identity. immoderate Jun 2016 #261

You've lost me. cleanhippie Jun 2016 #262

OK. Short version. I don't think there is evidence to declare that GMO foods are safe. immoderate Jun 2016 #265

Which GMOs and why? Is there a specific trait or expressed, modified gene that you find problematic? Humanist_Activist Jun 2016 #271

Can't name them. Don't have to. There may not be any. immoderate Jun 2016 #276

This is precisely the closed mind mindset of denialists. Evidence means nothing to you... Humanist_Activist Jun 2016 #284

You have evidence? Not feed lot studies? immoderate Jun 2016 #287

Why aren't the feedlot studies enough? Teflon is a novel substance... Humanist_Activist Jun 2016 #293

Feedlot studies are not scientific. immoderate Jun 2016 #302

Here's an example, can you give any reason to test sugar produced from... Humanist_Activist Jun 2016 #306

First, are feed lot studies scientific? immoderate Jun 2016 #308

I'm on a facebook Science Enthusiasts group Lunabell Jun 2016 #178

In this case, you missed the boat. HuckleB Jun 2016 #182

No, I understand the science as put forth by corporate paid labs. Lunabell Jun 2016 #183

No, you choose to pretend that's all the science available. HuckleB Jun 2016 #189

Being skeptical and science denial are two separate things. cleanhippie Jun 2016 #309

When one encounters PatSeg Jun 2016 #105

The weight of evidence isn't the same for every study, some are outright fraudulent... Humanist_Activist Jun 2016 #110

Then one compares the conflicting evidence to see which is most accurate. cleanhippie Jun 2016 #113

Legitimate studies require conflict of interest disclosures Major Nikon Jun 2016 #130

Yeah right PatSeg Jun 2016 #134

So who do you trust? Humanist_Activist Jun 2016 #137

No I haven't and you know it PatSeg Jun 2016 #142

Define open-minded, because to me, its following the evidence wherever it may lead... Humanist_Activist Jun 2016 #144

Well you don't know me PatSeg Jun 2016 #152

All studies should be suspect and nobody should be given blanket trust Major Nikon Jun 2016 #148

Once again PatSeg Jun 2016 #153

The same can be said for half fast accusations you can't begin to support Major Nikon Jun 2016 #154

Likewise PatSeg Jun 2016 #157

Not quite Major Nikon Jun 2016 #167

P.S. PatSeg Jun 2016 #156

You don't have to reject the science on the subject to be anti-GMO. nt MisterFred Jun 2016 #199

Why not? HuckleB Jun 2016 #205

Well MisterFred Jun 2016 #270

Actually, you assertion isn't true... Humanist_Activist Jun 2016 #272

Nope. MisterFred Jun 2016 #273

Benbrook's debunked "study" doesn't change all the other studies, never mind the meta analysis. HuckleB Jun 2016 #275

I don't read science blogs. MisterFred Jun 2016 #279

In other words, you don't want to know the reality. HuckleB Jun 2016 #281

I don't see it that way. MisterFred Jun 2016 #286

Thank you for confirming that your focus is finding cherry picked individual claims... HuckleB Jun 2016 #288

Claims? That it's easily proven there are some. MisterFred Jun 2016 #289

There are many places where you can actually discuss all of these with actual scientists. HuckleB Jun 2016 #292

Thank you for the links. MisterFred Jun 2016 #295

Those science blogs generally link to other studies and meta-analysis, single studies... Humanist_Activist Jun 2016 #283

I'm going to ask you the same question I asked HuckleB MisterFred Jun 2016 #290

Most of this is outside of my expertise, so I have no problems referring to primary sources and... Humanist_Activist Jun 2016 #299

Thank you. MisterFred Jun 2016 #303

You do know DDT is still used, mostly for Malarial reduction... Humanist_Activist Jun 2016 #305

Yes, I know. MisterFred Jun 2016 #307

Well, you are repeating anti-GMO mantras, but they're not based in science. HuckleB Jun 2016 #274

Big Organic. Seriously? MisterFred Jun 2016 #277

I already posted other research, including a meta analysis, that shows his claims are off base. HuckleB Jun 2016 #278

No, you didn't. MisterFred Jun 2016 #280

You seem to forget that meta analysis, for starters. HuckleB Jun 2016 #282

Relooking through your sources. MisterFred Jun 2016 #294

So, when you want to dismiss things, you'll go to the easiest way to do it. HuckleB Jun 2016 #296

You don't check your sources for obvious flaws. MisterFred Jun 2016 #297

I check the sources for the accuracy of their content. You don't. HuckleB Jun 2016 #315

Don't presume my motives. MisterFred Jun 2016 #323

Also, I have no actual content to debunk. MisterFred Jun 2016 #298

You keep telling yourself that. HuckleB Jun 2016 #322

I gave you quite a run-down of your sources. MisterFred Jun 2016 #324

Then one is being intentionally obtuse and extremely irrational. cleanhippie Jun 2016 #216

Actually, since no science supports being anti-GMO, it does. cleanhippie Jun 2016 #259

Incorrect. MisterFred Jun 2016 #269

Not being convinced of something is one thing Blue_Tires Jun 2016 #39

you are completely missing my point lame54 Jun 2016 #44

just as you have missed mine, so I guess we're all good Blue_Tires Jun 2016 #51

It depends on why one isn't convinced, is it for ideological reasons or evidentiary reasons? Humanist_Activist Jun 2016 #55

Correction - Oneironaut Jun 2016 #141

Exactly, and in the process, they close their minds to anything that may challenge their beliefs. nt Humanist_Activist Jun 2016 #145

Actually, it does Corporate666 Jun 2016 #147

I think that depends. Adrahil Jun 2016 #332

GMO's are not illegal... lame54 Jun 2016 #23

It is the same science Texano78704 Jun 2016 #126

We just want GMO's LABELLED. They are used to sue organic farmers, and that too is BS. grahamhgreen Jun 2016 #162

I would like that too, but, I can understand why the industry doesn't Gore1FL Jun 2016 #164

GMOs are not used to sue organic farmers. HuckleB Jun 2016 #170

Every time the story gets told, it gets a little taller Major Nikon Jun 2016 #186

Tall tales and straw men. HuckleB Jun 2016 #204

Yes. They sue for patent infringement when their genes are found in other plants grahamhgreen Jun 2016 #311

No, they don't. HuckleB Jun 2016 #312

Link: grahamhgreen Jun 2016 #314

A farmer tried to sue his neighbor. Your link is bogus BS. HuckleB Jun 2016 #316

More: grahamhgreen Jun 2016 #317

You actually think anything RT posts not a conspiracy theory? HuckleB Jun 2016 #318

Ad hominem attack. Kill the messenger. Invalid argument. You lose: grahamhgreen Jun 2016 #319

You were just debunked, again. HuckleB Jun 2016 #320

All of those trials and issues were with farmers breaking contracts. HuckleB Jun 2016 #321

Kick for NDT and reality! HuckleB Jun 2016 #26

It's all in our heads The2ndWheel Jun 2016 #29

There's so much wrong with your post, I don't even know where to begin. cleanhippie Jun 2016 #40

Allowing me to wallow in ignorance The2ndWheel Jun 2016 #57

More like allowing you to marinate. cleanhippie Jun 2016 #66

From my personal experience, GMO hysteria appears to be a bipartisan phenomeon. Tommy_Carcetti Jun 2016 #30

It's not just your experience polling data has shown this too. It's not that liberals are immune to Johonny Jun 2016 #34

The liberal left has it's own version of global warming denial... hunter Jun 2016 #33

TRUE science is never "settled". mackdaddy Jun 2016 #37

Don't erect a strawman of science just to try to validate woo, woo is a specific term... Humanist_Activist Jun 2016 #59

Well said!! GaYellowDawg Jun 2016 #76

Best comment of the thread PatSeg Jun 2016 #143

The response to that comment was actually very good. HuckleB Jun 2016 #146

No PatSeg Jun 2016 #150

Yes, it does. HuckleB Jun 2016 #151

Big k/r! Orrex Jun 2016 #45

science allows for reasonable doubts about the safety of vaccines and GMOs Fast Walker 52 Jun 2016 #48

What reasonable doubts? The evidence in-hand should remove that from a rational thinker. cleanhippie Jun 2016 #50

vaccines do have side-effects and alter the immune system Fast Walker 52 Jun 2016 #56

Not sure why you even bothered to mention "altering the immune system" every disease alters the... Humanist_Activist Jun 2016 #89

the point is, by activating the immune system with a vaccine, Fast Walker 52 Jun 2016 #333

The point is that you are basically speculating about potential problems, and failed to point... Humanist_Activist Jun 2016 #336

Sure, I don't disagree, except about glyphosate-- Fast Walker 52 Jun 2016 #338

Exactly GulfCoast66 Jun 2016 #86

To reiterate, what reasonable doubts? And what evidence? n/t Humanist_Activist Jun 2016 #54

there are vaccines that are not used widely because the side-effects are more frequent Fast Walker 52 Jun 2016 #58

Uhm, not sure how that is relevant, no one is saying all vaccines should be used... Humanist_Activist Jun 2016 #64

Theoretical science is a conservative and constantly evolving methodology that adjusts to discovery. PufPuf23 Jun 2016 #61

True, but I thought Madame Curie died of cancer from the radium Fast Walker 52 Jun 2016 #62

You are correct. PufPuf23 Jun 2016 #67

Yes indeed. Orrex Jun 2016 #73

define "unsafe" Fast Walker 52 Jun 2016 #131

... Orrex Jun 2016 #133

they were determined to be "unsafe by science", by medical studies Fast Walker 52 Jun 2016 #159

That's a foolish definition of "safe" Orrex Jun 2016 #160

Ok, so you admit that vaccines are not perfectly harmless? Fast Walker 52 Jun 2016 #196

No one in history has claimed that vaccines are perfectly harmless. Orrex Jun 2016 #206

I was trying to clarify what we were talking about, what "safe" meant Fast Walker 52 Jun 2016 #214

How is that possible? Orrex Jun 2016 #222

I was using one definition of safe. Fast Walker 52 Jun 2016 #250

Regardless, your definition of vaccine safety is absurd Orrex Jun 2016 #264

I agree with most of your points and I never said I was anti-vaccine Fast Walker 52 Jun 2016 #334

not true, as I posted above Fast Walker 52 Jun 2016 #328

But let's not forget that your definition of "safe" is absurd Orrex Jun 2016 #329

my point was that "safe" is relative Fast Walker 52 Jun 2016 #330

Let's remind the reader of your absurd definition: Orrex Jun 2016 #331

that was one definition of safety I put out there for the sake of argument Fast Walker 52 Jun 2016 #335

Indeed science does. However, reasonable doubts have not been raised. GaYellowDawg Jun 2016 #75

Scientists across the world evaluated GMOs and vaccines... backscatter712 Jun 2016 #285

Careful with the "anti-left-bs" BS... modestybl Jun 2016 #60

Let's break this down: Humanist_Activist Jun 2016 #74

You have a leaking heart valve. Take two stalks of celery and call me in the morning. Major Nikon Jun 2016 #208

Exactly, its ridiculous, and they push this "doctors are just pill pushers" meme, and yes... Humanist_Activist Jun 2016 #236

Prevention and treatment are both important in their own ways Major Nikon Jun 2016 #237

Settled science is an oxymoron. bemildred Jun 2016 #68

Not really. The fact that biological evolution occurred is settled science. yellowcanine Jun 2016 #77

Details are what matters. nt bemildred Jun 2016 #79

If we can't agree that some things are "settled science" it gives the anti-science folks an opening yellowcanine Jun 2016 #82

Right, so we should be dogmatic like them. Good strategy. bemildred Jun 2016 #84

No, "Settled Science" is not dogma. It is the acceptance of overwhelming evidence. yellowcanine Jun 2016 #96

If it's so overwhelming, why doesn't everybody accept it? nt bemildred Jun 2016 #98

Because not everyone is convinced by evidence, they have faith, and ideologies they need to... Humanist_Activist Jun 2016 #101

And what did I say? nt bemildred Jun 2016 #102

Let's use gravity as an example. It's a theory. Theory is the best you get in science Gore1FL Jun 2016 #197

Yes, but it does make the theory a belief. bemildred Jun 2016 #211

You are confusing hypothesis and theory Gore1FL Jun 2016 #215

No I am not. bemildred Jun 2016 #217

Yes, you are. cleanhippie Jun 2016 #218

I'll just leave this here: Gore1FL Jun 2016 #232

A video. bemildred Jun 2016 #243

Richard P. Feynman isn't good enough fo you then you are unconvincable. Gore1FL Jun 2016 #253

Neil DeGrasse Tyson is my hero Hekate Jun 2016 #78

Watching that segment was painful Il_Coniglietto Jun 2016 #85

Conflating issues--there's science, then there are (greedy) pharmaceutical firms ecstatic Jun 2016 #92

Cognitive dissonance exists on both sides... qdouble Jun 2016 #104

I don't see how following the scientific consensus, when one exists, is a fallacy... Humanist_Activist Jun 2016 #111

It is a fallacy... qdouble Jun 2016 #114

Only if you blindly follow it, and yes there are problems with the practice of publishing... Humanist_Activist Jun 2016 #116

Yeah, I mean, we can both agree that there are people who blindly dismiss studies and consensus qdouble Jun 2016 #118

I guess that is true, but it really does depend on what you are criticizing, and.. Humanist_Activist Jun 2016 #119

Well I will agree with you there, that most of the time disagreeing with the consensus or a study is qdouble Jun 2016 #122

That's the thing, when advocacy groups run away with ONE study, as if it were definitive... Humanist_Activist Jun 2016 #124

Knowing when to question individual studies, and when to acknowledge consensus are both important. HuckleB Jun 2016 #235

Meh. The right *are* worse - the writer is wrong, and DeGrasse Tyson tends that way muriel_volestrangler Jun 2016 #108

The weight of evidence on GMO is massive Major Nikon Jun 2016 #132

When it comes to vaccines Maher isn't ant-science, he's just pro-stupid. GoneOffShore Jun 2016 #129

He's right. Only caveat I would add is, we shouldnt lump together "alternative medicine" Warren DeMontague Jun 2016 #138

Alternative medicine is that which has no efficacy over a placebo proven by the scientific method Major Nikon Jun 2016 #190

Fair enough. Warren DeMontague Jun 2016 #191

Walgreens also sells homeoquackery Major Nikon Jun 2016 #192

right, but one of the problems I've encountered with trying to explain why homeopathy is bullshit Warren DeMontague Jun 2016 #194

Placebos are capable of having a physiological effect Major Nikon Jun 2016 #200

Points taken. Warren DeMontague Jun 2016 #201

Obviously the orange hits the table before the grape. Socal31 Jun 2016 #155

Very true bhikkhu Jun 2016 #158

Unfortunately, he lumps all alternative medicines together, ant that too, is bad science! grahamhgreen Jun 2016 #161

No, that's good science. HuckleB Jun 2016 #166

Nutrition, herbs, & herb have long been considered 'alternative! grahamhgreen Jun 2016 #252

That's alt-med marketing. HuckleB Jun 2016 #255

"Alternative medicine" doesn't have the science to support it. cleanhippie Jun 2016 #179

Nutrition is a science, yet it's considered alternative medicine. grahamhgreen Jun 2016 #254

How so? cleanhippie Jun 2016 #256

I love this thread! progressoid Jun 2016 #163

It is fun to see the obvious nature of those posts. HuckleB Jun 2016 #165

Seems to be getting better. progressoid Jun 2016 #185

Indeed. HuckleB Jun 2016 #193

It's like watching a trainwreck....one cannot look away! cleanhippie Jun 2016 #219

I know just as many liberal leaning religous that believe the earth is 6k maybe 10k Rex Jun 2016 #168

K&R ismnotwasm Jun 2016 #174

We see it with every gmo thread on DU. ZombieHorde Jun 2016 #175

Maher is right -- it's ridiculous to claim that Democrats and Republcans equally deny science fishwax Jun 2016 #176

Here's the video. progressoid Jun 2016 #184

ah, thanks for the link fishwax Jun 2016 #339

Novella digs into the topic. This might be of interest. HuckleB Jun 2016 #238

That link is to a story about tourists lost in a hot spring in Yellowstone fishwax Jun 2016 #340

It was a mistake. Of course, this OP is also a bit old, now. HuckleB Jun 2016 #341

yeah, I figured as much fishwax Jun 2016 #342

Since when is anti-government libertarianism "Liberal"? Spitfire of ATJ Jun 2016 #177

What does this response have to do with NDT's statement? HuckleB Jun 2016 #181

Everything. It's anti-government right-wing hate radio that is trumpeting the anti-vaccine crap.... Spitfire of ATJ Jun 2016 #258

While that is true, anti-vaccine routines appear to be rather bipartisan. HuckleB Jun 2016 #260

I'm disappointed that Tyson didn't dig in a little on Maher's anti-vax baloney Bucky Jun 2016 #213

It is good to see timdog44 Jun 2016 #220

I don't see anyone treat science like religion. HuckleB Jun 2016 #228

I suspected an answer from you. timdog44 Jun 2016 #231

How about acknowledging science, instead of creating a straw man. HuckleB Jun 2016 #233

I have simply chosen timdog44 Jun 2016 #244

Thank you for clarifying that your attempt to paint science as a religion.... HuckleB Jun 2016 #245

And you have made timdog44 Jun 2016 #263

You'll tell yourself whatever you need to tell yourself about others so you can ignore the evidence. HuckleB Jun 2016 #266

"I have chosen to accept the things that I believe to be true." cleanhippie Jun 2016 #327

To quote They Might Be Giants lupinella Jun 2016 #225

I wonder what they'll be saying in 2216 about the "settled science" of today. Throd Jun 2016 #229

I wonder what they'll be saying about those who chose to ignore science... HuckleB Jun 2016 #230

The thing is, there are different shades of "settled" science. Oneironaut Jun 2016 #251

Steven Novella discusses NDT's comments. HuckleB Jun 2016 #234

Gratifying to know that there's always someone somewhere willing to tell someone else they're full o LanternWaste Jun 2016 #267

Who's science? sendero Jun 2016 #291

Lol, ok! cleanhippie Jun 2016 #304

What? RWers believe in alternative medicine at least as much a liberals do! Quantess Jun 2016 #300

This is absolutely true. Absolutely. One sees it all the time, right here at DU. NNadir Jun 2016 #301

we have our share of anti-vexers and anti-evidence based science folks also still_one Jun 2016 #326

Science is what you do with it. LWolf Jun 2016 #337