UGH, Monsanto even worse now

Discussion in 'News from around the damp planet' started by Pakanohida, Apr 29, 2013.

  1. Earth's Internet

    Earth's Internet Junior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2012
    Messages:
    280
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So you think it's ignorant and disingenuous to tell it like it is and expose the truth ? I must have missed something here.



    Ah yes, how does that religious affirmation chant go again ? Oh yes, "Science is an ever evolving ever self-correcting mechanism". It's certainly a common claim about the superiority of science over other ways of knowing is that science is self-correcting; science may take wrong turns from time to time, but it eventually finds its way back on the right road. While I most certainly do believe in the power of the scientific method; and generally speaking, it’s true that it's possible at times for science to self-correct. However, it’s more important to understand how human limitations frailties, imperfections (don't forget, scientists are human too) sometimes undermine the process of this so-called self-correction. And yes, the peer review process makes it possible to challenge popular but false notions. But as I've stated before, in these modern times this process has become highly susceptible to the negative influences of politics and government funding. You want funding, then you need to follow the popular Dogma mandated by whatever power is ruling at any one time.

    The Myth of Self-Correcting Science






    Religion comes in many forms and does not necessarily require an intelligent agency. An obese person's god may be Food. A Drunk's god may be alcohol. and so forth. You are as equally religious as your number one fan here "Len". Take a look at the image below.



    Both illustrated picture sides are Peer-Reviewed. The problem is that the Peer-Review on the left is winning. The Peer-Review on the right is no doubt good and informative, but it's shelved in favour of the other which creates wealth, political careers, legacy etc. Evidence of fact that the Peer-Review on the left is winning is why such forums as this Permaculture forum and other not for profit organizations are springing up everywhere. Had Peer-Review been doing it's job all along as that chant insists, we may never have met Mark.



    [​IMG]
     
  2. mouseinthehouse

    mouseinthehouse Junior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2012
    Messages:
    782
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I do believe Mark already pointed out the difference between scientific process and scientific application. Perhaps that distinction was lost.


    Your graphic is a nonsense. That is, it makes NO sense. Please refrain from badgering and accusing people, who happen to believe in the current scientific method, as following science as a form of God worship. That is highly offensive.
     
  3. ecodharmamark

    ecodharmamark Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    [video=youtube;YdkPt6DUKuI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdkPt6DUKuI[/video]
     
  4. Earth's Internet

    Earth's Internet Junior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2012
    Messages:
    280
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Funny, I'm not the one that brought up the faith-based concept of Peer-Review as the only thing that's going to save mankind and the planet. I merely expressed my lack of faith with this concept as an infallible process and left it at that. But apparently this hasn't been good enough. My personal feeling on the subject is that it's only as good as the people behind it. You know, the same people as you and me, Mark and others with imperfections, bias, flaws, assertions, assumptions etc ? Our world wouldn't be in the serious mess it's in if such a process actually worked. The O.P. in this thread is about Monsanto and GMOs and the horrible consequences these have brought as a result of someone's degenerate interpretation of what the so-called Panel of Peers are all about. The evidence thus far exposes the extreme flaws in that process given the tragic consequences of genetic pollution that is being spread around the globe which is insisted upon as being science-based. It's clearly this technology has failed miserably. It's clear that is was not carefully thought out after all and the promoters of such genetic engineering clearly could care less what anyone else says. The official word is, if you are Anti-GMO, you must be Anti-Science and that is an absolute lie. There are folks of all back grounds who are against GMOs, even people of his faith.

    There is nothing nonsensical about the graphic. There is demonstrated a science-based way and a Nature-based replications way of caring for the Earth. Now which do you believe in ? The replication of Nature should be the leading science, but clearly the evidence shows that it is not. We are shackled to Corporate Science running Earth and you are already well aware of that from your writings. I'm actually surprised you are even seeing this post, since you sent me a private message months ago saying that I was officially blocked from your view at your doing not mine. Is that not correct ?
     
  5. Earth's Internet

    Earth's Internet Junior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2012
    Messages:
    280
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Are you serious ? Dr Joe Schwarcz (Canada's Mr Science ?) is a consultant for the Biotech industry (including Monsanto) who, as described in his bio, “interprets science” for the public. This clown is a Monsanto defender and an Aspartame apologist among other big Corporate entities for which this idiot defends. I can't believe you would post this guy as defense of Scientism.

    Seriously everyone, Google is your friend. Google Dr Joe Schwarcz and Monsanto. Google Dr Joe Schwarcz making fun of Monsanto vs Schmeiser where he condemns the Canadian Canola Farmer who lost to Monsanto.

    Seriously, one has to actually question your real purpose here
     
  6. ecodharmamark

    ecodharmamark Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    [video=youtube;7OMLSs8t1ng]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OMLSs8t1ng[/video]
     
  7. Earth's Internet

    Earth's Internet Junior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2012
    Messages:
    280
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Interesting, GMO Cut N' Paste Theology
     
  8. ecodharmamark

    ecodharmamark Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Nearly eight years, close to two-and-quarter-thousand posts, the average of which I estimate has taken about 30-mins to research/write, and by far the majority of which is positive and directed towards helping others and myself further our knowledge so that we (and our children's children) can live in a better world ... and my 'real purpose here' is questioned?

    Regarding the Ted Talks: Did you watch them? If so, would you care to comment about the difference between scientific knowledge and scientific application? If not, that's fine as well.

    I have read (and continue to read) many of your blog posts. I appreciate the time and effort you put into researching and writing them. I am sceptical about some of the things you purpose in your posts. However, because you are not publishing your work into my field of expertise, I really don't care about the overall validity of what you write about - I simply try to enjoy it for what it is. I particularly like the work you attempt concerning desert ecology. I have an affinity with the deserts of Australia, including the plants, animals and people that live in them.

    As an aside, and from one who has experienced the frightening nature of wildfire, I'd like to take this opportunity to express my sincerest condolences to the family and friends of the people killed as a result of the Arizona Fires.

    Peace, Markos
     
  9. ecodharmamark

    ecodharmamark Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The inference to theology is wearing a bit thin, and no doubt is quite offensive to actual theists, given that I am an atheist. Is that your problem? Is my being an atheist a challenge to your sensibilities?

    I wonder, did you watch the Ted Talks in their entirety? I'm not interested in the concepts that the speakers use to focus their talks. They could be talking about bubblegum on a stick for all I care. My interest is in the theme they develop. If you did watch them, can you now see the difference between scientific knowledge and scientific application? If so, could you now please stop denigrating the entire scientific community by confusing the two. Thanks, M.
     
  10. ecodharmamark

    ecodharmamark Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ah, I think I have it. I just went and stoked the fire, and there it was in the red hot coals, my answer. You think that in my absence of religiosity I instead worship science. I'm sorry, I should have made myself more clear. However, and in my defence, we did venture down this path way back here when I provided another contributor with a quote from Nature regarding the peer-review process, and in a thread that you started. Perhaps you missed it? Oh well, never mind. I'll try again. Yes, the scientific method (including peer-review) is fallible. But until we come up with a better system, or keep raising the bar in the present, we are stuck with what we have. Perhaps you have some better ideas? Try this, it helps me to remember why it is that I am passionate about my work as a social scientist. Image a world without science. Better still, try living for a while in place where scientific advances are denied the people that permanently live there. I assure you, and as beautiful as the people will often be, it's not a very nice place.

    Anyway, it's rather late here now, and I have to start 'work' (haha, it never stops) in another 4-hours, so I better go and get some sleep. It's been nice chatting, and if I have offended in any way, I really am sorry.

    Peace, M
     
  11. ecodharmamark

    ecodharmamark Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Morning/evening, All

    Damn, do I have a headache! That'll teach me to stay up so late banging on about science whilst drinking read wine.

    OK, so I just got back from a job and upon re-reading this thread realised that I (we) have been a little rude to the OP by stomping all over the same. Sorry, Pak. I really do appreciate you bringing us news about what Big Ag is up to. Please keep it coming.

    Anyway, I need another coffee, so I'll tootle off now, M.
     
  12. mouseinthehouse

    mouseinthehouse Junior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2012
    Messages:
    782
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Totally correct. But if I am feeling bored and in need of entertainment I have the option of viewing your posts - see how that works? Unlike Mark who is the height of objectivity and good manners, I am not at all sorry if I offended you.
     
  13. Pakanohida

    Pakanohida Junior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    2,984
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    38
    No worries, reading your posts are like reading esoteric bits of enlightened stars in an other wise sleeping world.
     
  14. Earth's Internet

    Earth's Internet Junior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2012
    Messages:
    280
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Funny, I wasn't offended in the least. nice try though.
     
  15. Earth's Internet

    Earth's Internet Junior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2012
    Messages:
    280
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You think that in my absence of religiosity I instead worship science.[/QUOTE]

    I never said you had an absence of religiosity. But nevertheless, everyone does. It's called Faith and religious faith as I originally stated has nothing to do with an intelligent entity. For example [and this subject of the O.P. is not about Atheism or conventional religion] I find many atheists most often make Faith-Based comments justifying their atheism and when questioned on these, they dogmatically defend their faith-based comments. The problem I have is that the present modern day Scientism Orthodoxy movement, while claiming to be superior over the old Guard Religious Orthodoxy, actually employs all the same identical flaws of the old ruling Ecclesiastical Hierarchical structure of the past. And yet the new age orthodoxy claims to have replaced all of that. Like the old guard, it hates having it's authority questioned. Attempt any questions and you are ganged up on and condemned. I've actually been at odds from both sides. In actual fact, I've got a post in draft form which I haven't posted and have wondered if I should. It does a comparison of both the Conventional Religious and of the past and present Secular Religious. Both Groups of the past and present who had control over Science and the present group which has control over science and other areas Academics. I'll have to ponder when to post the article, but it's title is - "A Paradigm Shift (revolutionary science) or More of the Same ?" When you eventually read it, you'll find I don't play favourites for either side of the Worldview promoting game here. But I can't tell you exactly when.

    To sum up, I simply do not have your FAITH in the Panel of Peers process. Not that under ideal circumstances it shouldn't work [it should], but it's still terribly flawed because of the human stain involved and that's why, if something of interest and import to me comes along, I personally will put it to the test and find out for myself. If the subject is of no interest to me, then I leave it alone. It's simply that if I read something, it is irrelevant to me who approved it. Incredibly, when I don't agree with something [for example GMO Biotechnology], I've always been labeled anti-science because I don't support the use of GMOs. Yet i know of people of all different backgrounds who are against GMOs. But this label of being Anti-Science is a cowards way out. It's the same identical treatment I got when I'd question a Clergyman about something. I was given the Anti-Religious label. Seriously I can't win with either of you. BTW, I regularly consult Scientists and Researchers and they consult me for advice and direction. I met with several Biologists and a geologist while I was visiting in the States the past two months. Does that sound anti-science ? The biggest problem I have in these discussions is that often in discussions, sentences like, "because Science says" or "because some Authority says so" comes up and it's apparently supposed to win debates, which ultimately go nowhere. I'm finished with this religious argument direction and getting back to Pak-Man's O.P.



    This is incredible and you are missing the point. The Scientific Method and Peer-Review is great, wonderful, amazing and all that. But it's only as good as the people carrying out that Watch Dogging who are no better than any other human being on Earth with all the same imperfections, bias, prejudice and ulterior motives as anyone else [this includes YOU & ME], though perhaps the 'Panel of Peers' may promote themselves above all that. Here's a post I did a while back that may explain my way of actually understanding things and how I acquire trust in something written.

    "A Modern Day Industrially Ruined Earth versus an Ancient Pristine Natural Earth - So What Happened ?"

    I've also got another about the myths of Native Americans and this justification used by authorities for prescribed or control burns because Nature needs fire. Maybe later today.
     
  16. ecodharmamark

    ecodharmamark Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    G'day EI

    Thanks for all that. However...

    Could you please define, according to your own understanding, who or what is "...the present modern day Scientism Orthodoxy movement"?

    Cheers, M.
     
  17. Earth's Internet

    Earth's Internet Junior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2012
    Messages:
    280
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    well, maybe when I post the Paradigm observation, but in the mean time, here is an article by Austin L. Hughes from the University of South Carolina who works with all the various Biological Sciences. That would be a good start.

    "The Folly of Scientism"

    Here is a simple quote, but to get everyone started, but by all means, for the full flavour, please read the entire piece by this very intelligent Evolutionary Biologist. For the short definition of Scientism - the belief that sciences are the only valid way of seeking knowledge in any field and if you put a mind to it, you'll realize who it's leadership consists of. You won't even have to think long and hard about it.


    Hughes is a highly respected evolutionary biologist, an important researcher who has broken ground in his field. That, of course, makes his essay all the more striking, especially as he takes direct aim at Scientism.


     
  18. ecodharmamark

    ecodharmamark Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Thanks, I guess I'll just have to maybe look forward to that.

    So, are you going to continue to denigrate the entire world's scientific community based on the opinion of just one individual?

    And, do you really think that is a valid method for assessment?
     
  19. Earth's Internet

    Earth's Internet Junior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2012
    Messages:
    280
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Astonishing, you continue to push with this canard. Nothing has sunk in has it ? If the system actually worked as the idealist definition insists, would such forums as this exist.

    This is how you know religion is at the very heart of the matter. Fundies come in all shapes and sizes of ideology.

    Best wishes
     
  20. ecodharmamark

    ecodharmamark Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I now see why you have such a hard time separating scientific knowledge with that of scientific application. You are of the opinion that the scientific 'system' is ideologically driven. This is simply not true. Scientific knowledge is open to empirical testing. Ideologies are not. QED

    As for religion, I'm afraid I still have no idea what you are referring to.

    Likewise, I only ever wish you the best, EI.

    As an aside: Have you come across the work of Thomas Khun (1922-1966) as of yet? Might be worthwhile reading for your paper on paradigm shifts.

    Cheerio, M
     

Share This Page

-->