The topic for the last part of Patt Morrison’s radio show (KPCC, 89.3) today (2:30 p.m.) is Scientific Illiteracy:
Unscientific America
Despite the fact that the United States leads the world in scientific breakthroughs most American citizens can not name a living scientific role model. Why has our nation fallen so behind in science and does it really matter? According to Chris Mooney it does. Patt sits down with the co-author of “Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future.”
Guest: Chris Mooney, co-author of “Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future.”
In 2001, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology announced an OpenCourseWare system that would post videos and other course materials for virtually all MIT classes online for the world to see, thereby starting to break down the traditional barriers to higher education.
Eight years later, we may be seeing the student response.
The development of free note sharing Web sites, where students upload their class notes to share with their peers, has begun to create an open stockpile of downloadable information that some say is further leveling the academic playing field. With an influx of note sharing sites – from the innocuous sounding GradeGuru to the most "college" sounding isleptthroughclass.com (soon to be relaunched as Wise Campus) – many of them advocate the spread and collaborative use of knowledge beyond the classroom and university. … The possibilities are great for "open educational resources," like note sharing, said Steve Carson [of] MIT Open Courseware, but one must differentiate between sharing information from credentialed teachers at accredited institutions and sharing student notes that are not verified or fact-checked. Note sharing could lead to issues of questionable factuality similar to those that arise with the user-updated Wikipedia.
And because of the controversial nature of sharing notes, these Web sites have raised eyebrows across academia, especially with regard to professors' intellectual property. Some, too, have expressed the concern that these websites blur the line between cheating and doing one's own work, which could be seen as propagating laziness among students. And some professors worry that these sites could devolve into gossipy commentary on the course….
As OC Weekly’s Nick Schou notes, local “birther” queenpin Orly Taitz was interviewed yesterday on MSNBC by David Shuster and Tamron Brown. It didn’t go so well--Schou describes it as a "meltdown." (I can't help but think that her thick accent is a huge disadvantage. A little generosity please?)
Taitz is seriously unsavvy about this sort of thing, it seems—it does not occur to her to just get to the point—and so she seems even wackier and more clueless than she actually is.
I guess.
Clearly, the woman doesn't have handlers. If she does, they're Obamaphiles, fer sher.
Remember the recent "wedding/dance" video? It has inspired a spoof:
As you know, owing to a bout of self-interest, I missed the July 21 meeting of the SOCCCD board of trustees. Having now viewed much of the meeting (video is available at the district website), I can report that July’s meeting exhibited the following features:
Board Prez Don Wagner asked board clerk Tom Fuentes for his report on "actions taken" during the closed session that had just then concluded. Tom archly reported that, during that session, “the board did nothing.”
It was the apex of good feeling for this meeting.
Trustee Marcia Milchiker’s invocation focused on the expectation that everyone present (i.e., the trustees?) would be thoughtful and civil. “I know” everyone will be, she said. (Perhaps Marcia was alluding to a failure of civility & thoughtfulness recently exhibited—by board members? Dunno.)
Chancellor Raghu Mathur got his chance to run the “Did You Know?” video, which failed to flicker during June’s meeting owing to a technical snafu. According to the district website, this “electronic presentation” is “about the technological revolution in the world today and its impact on all segments of education.”
In truth, the presentation was just what you might expect: a sequence of images designed by people who believe that an audience can be enlightened by a quick succession of discrete, unexplained (and often dubious) factoids.
I.e., idjits who confuse knowledge with "information."
Among these factoids: that we are training people for jobs that do not yet exist; that “We are living in exponential times.” (I did not know that "times" could be "exponential.")
One motif was that the world is being overwhelmed by Chinese and Indian people. (I watched Mathur’s face. He snickered in silence.)
The video's background music was a bland bit of thumping pop featuring a woman chanting, “Right here, right now.”
The presentation ended with the question: “So what does it all mean?”
That was it. Silence. Nobody noted, let alone answered, the ending question. There was awkward and feeble applause, which (as I sat, staring at my Mac) caused me to chuckle.
Evidently, the presentation came to the board via Fuentes, who got it from some friend in New Mexico or someplace. (In fact, the video is readily available on YouTube. See below.)
(NOTE: the creators of "Did You Know?"—educators Karl Fisch and Scott McLeod—explain their video here.)
Public comments: Saddleback College’s Bob Cosgrove noted that the outside lettering that identifies the “Ronald Reagan" room refers also to the “trustees” meeting place. Bob carped about the missing apostrophe. Illiterate, that, said Bob.
Nobody cared. Williams nudged Lang and asked, "What's an apostrophe?"
Board reports: Jay was absent, so his report was unusually crisp. Padberg or Fuentes offered nothing. Wagner briefly noted the state budget cuts' impact on education. Milchiker declared her super-duper membership in some alumni association.
Trustees Dave Lang and John Williams (and the student trustee) offered no report.
Chancellor … Mathur commented on the state budget deal which cost California community colleges close to $1 billion, mostly in categorical programs such as EOPS and DSPS. If passed by the legislature and signed by the Governor, fees will go up from $20 to $26 per unit starting this fall, which will be challenging to implement because fall registration has already begun. … Orange County Treasurer Chriss Street met in the Chancellor's Office recently … to discuss the impact on our basic aid revenues of the decline in value of … properties assessed in Orange County. Indications are that property values will be down 1.2% this year, 5% next year and then stay down for a number of years….”
There were two discussion items: 4.1: the foundations; 4.2: “My Academic Plan” (MAP).
Saddleback College Prez Todd Burnett presented the Saddleback College Foundation's new prez, Gary Capata, a lawyer. The latter spoke of the foundation’s accomplishments, including receipt of a gift. When Capata said, “[The gift] will help with technology,” some of our technology immediately broke, and a tech guy had to come up and fiddle with faders and dials while Capata grinned awkwardly at the three people in the audience.
Board meetings are such fun.
IVC Prez Glenn Roquemore introduced IVC’s Al Tello, who offered a PowerPoint presentation. Blah, blah, blah, said Al who, as always, seemed to sport good hair.
Bob Bramucci, who does not sport good hair,got up to explain that even ATEP has a foundation. He was very brief. Marcia noted that she did not know that ATEP had a foundation. Well, yes, it has had a foundation since 2005, said Bramucci.
Next, Bramucci explained “my academic plan” (MAP), which is a reportedly excellent career planning program that is available to our students. We don’t have enough counselors to help every student with academic plans (hint, hint), and so students can use MAP instead. It's got lots of bells and whistles.
Do you ever get the feeling that, if all the counselors and librarians were to disappear one day, nobody'd notice?
Just kidding. Actually, I'm just testing to see if anybody actually reads this.I suspect that, at this point, what with summer and all, I am writing to no one.
And yet. --And yet ... I am writing to the cosmos.
Ever get all existential like that?
Bramucci handed off to Jim Gaston, who explained that MAP has received awards, expressions of interest from other districts, and so on. We’re approaching “50,000” plans done, said Gaston. “I’m a geek,” he added. He joked about installing “GPS chips” in “students’ necks,” which yielded guffaws. Somebody actually snorted.
Bramucci and Gaston did a good job, as usual. I do believe that Tracy offers a link to video of the presentation in her “Highlights.” I wouldn't bother with it though.
Trustee Williams, who has recently received harsh criticism for his phenomenally shitty performance as county Guardian/Administrator, persisted in his strategy of acting as though everything were just peachy-keen. He yammered uselessly about MAP. He was twinkly. Mathur joined him in this (not the twinkling, the yammering). Padberg offered “kudos.” She never twinkles.
Trustee Dave Lang quibbled--or, indeed, beefed--about something somehow misleading in the “basic aid” report. Gary P tried to shrug it off, but Dave did not join in Gary's shruggery, maintaining intead his beefery.
Gary seemed irked.
Wagner, exhibiting pure and pithy Wagnerian peevitude, publicly spanked Marcia for turning something on, then off, on her console. Trustees were too focused on the prospect of the meeting's impending end to roll their eyes or chortle.
It was a trivial event, like all of the events of this meeting.
P.S.: I've been plowin' through the first season of HBO's drama "True Blood." It's about a vampire and his girlfriend living in some sleepy Louisiana town. From the creator of "Six Feet Under."
I recommend it. Cool metaphors. Check out the bluesy opening credits sequence below. (Singer: Jace Everett.)
I feel like that vampire right now. Thsssssssssssssss (glug, glug).
P.P.S.: TigerAnn's Lithuanian cousin, Tige, a musician, has finally hit the big time. Check out this recent performance:
Like the U.S. government, the British government is routinely advised by academics—scientists and other experts.
That’s good. By and large, we have every reason to suppose that such people are in a privileged position of knowledge and understanding relative to their fields.
And, especially nowadays, the average Joe (or Jane) is an ignoramus about almost everything.
Like I said, our British cousins routinely rely on, or at least solicit, advice from academics. But, warns Beddington, there’s a problem: “Government … is in danger of eroding the relationship and squandering [academics’] expertise.”
What's this? People who actually know something might just take the ball and march home?! How come?
Well, it seems that Britain’s ministers often blow off expert advice for political reasons. And then, to add insult to injury, they reprimand scientists for their impolitic advice!
According to the Guardian,
The situation is particularly fraught when eminent scientists are asked to advise on politically sensitive issues, such as the government's drug policy. A debate over the risks of recreational drugs erupted into a public row in February when the former home secretary, Jacqui Smith, vetoed recommendations from her own drug advisers to downgrade ecstasy from its class A status.
A parliamentary report published last week directed further criticism at ministers for demonstrating a cavalier attitude to scientific evidence, which was often viewed as "at best a peripheral concern, and at worst as a political bargaining chip."
Gosh. It sounds like the Brits are as backward as we are. Backwarder even.
The report “called on chief scientists within government departments to name and shame ministers who flout scientific advice when formulating policies.”
Would "shaming" somebody work? Maybe in the U.K. Here, it would likely ensure the guy’s standing as a real American.
Plus they’d replace “flout” with “flaunt.”
The chair of the committee (that issued the report) isn’t demanding that government policy always reflect scientific evidence. He’d be happy, it seems, if ministers were to refrain from making “false claims.”
Whoa. What an unreasonable guy.
I don’t think Beddington wanted his advice to be made public. Those clever Guardian scribblers used the Freedom of Info Act to acquire his letter to a former government official. That’s where he was doing his squawkin’.
In his letter, Beddington referred specifically to a dust-up created when home sec "Jacqui" admonished an academic advisor for “comparing the risks of ecstasy with horseriding in an academic journal shortly before the council announced its recommendations on the drug.”
Yeah, but what if they're actually comparable? Those Brits fly off horses a lot.
The admonition and subsequent media brouhaha "will discourage scientists from working with government," wrote Beddington.
Beddington’s esteemed predecessor has weighed in, emphasizing the importance of scientists giving "honest, rigorous and independent advice" to government.
He added:
"During the Bush period in the White House, scientific advice was not only ignored but sometimes absolutely overturned for no good reason at all. Documents were altered by the White House, including Environmental Protection Agency documents on climate change, with absolutely no scientific input to explain why. There's a situation where the scientific community have every right to say there's little point in working with this government”….
Well, I’m glad that we Americans are so useful. –As an example of how absolutely not to do things.
Stupid People are, you know, an interest group with real clout
Meanwhile, many Americans (aka Stupid People) are convinced that Prez Obama’s health care proposal is a plot to kill old people and to provide reparations to African-Americans for slavery. Others (of the GOP "base") are convinced, overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that Obama wasn’t born in the U.S. and thus he is the amazing Illigitimate Negro Prez.
Some of these people hint at the need for revolution. They keep eyeing their guns. They mutter about "one world government."
"End times."
Many prominent Republicans have gone out of their way not to discourage these spectacular ignoramuses and racist yahoos. It’s a new low for Republicanism. And that’s really saying something.
I'm starting to get worried.
BACK TO GOVERNMENT AND SCIENCE:
Prez Obama has pretty consistently indicated that he means to reverse the Bush administration’s de facto exclusion and/or perversion of science. In the case of the space program, he created the “Augustine committee” to review NASA’s plans and projects.
Good idea. I think Bush wanted us to return to the moon to get cheese.
Alas, physicist and government watchdog Bob Park reports that (the NY Times reports that)
a panel of the Augustine committee favors a plan for human space flight that would go beyond low-Earth orbit, but avoid the deep-gravity wells of the Moon and Mars. What's left? The article suggests Lagrange points, asteroids and the small moons of Mars.
We’re gonna send people to Lagrange points? For all the potential importance of Lagrange points, their intrinsic interest is zero. Is this just an indirect way of saying there is no role for humans in space?
Politically, it’s easier to fund the space program if it offers “humans in space.” People just love to see astronauts in their space suits on big Hollywood adventures. For many Americans, essentially, the space program is an adventure epic (“We do it because it's hard”) with splashy action sequences—like, say, exploring an enormous inexplicable meatball at the bottom of the ocean.
Cool!
Scientifically, humans in space means absurdly inefficient research, since robots and gizmos can do more for much less. If scientists ran the show, we’d bail on humans in space and send mechanical surrogates every time.
But where does Bruce Willis fit into all this?
He don't.
So guess what? We’re gonna put people back in space, even if it means checking out scientifically uninteresting “points” and wasting vast shitloads of money.
Despite rising student fees, Ivan Krimker can finally rest easy about paying for his senior year at UC Riverside. The Marine Corps reservist will soon get a boost from the biggest increase in veterans' education benefits since after World War II.
The Post-9/11 G.I. Bill, which took effect Saturday, doubles tuition and education benefits for veterans nationwide. More than 2 million veterans live in California, and at least 30,000 attend colleges and universities here. When the money starts reaching schools this fall, the bill will provide considerably more benefits than the current G.I. Bill, which Krimker has been using for the past three years.
"It's a night and day difference," he said. … The bill, signed into law by former President George W. Bush last summer, will pay undergraduate tuition and fees up to the cost of the most expensive public university in each state—California's is UC Berkeley, at $6,586 per term. … A plan called the Yellow Ribbon program was also set up to pay the difference for veterans who want to attend private schools that cost more than the most expensive public university.
The benefits will be available to any active duty service members, National Guard personnel, reservists and veterans who served a minimum of 90 days after Sept. 11, 2001. The benefits are proportional to the amount of time a veteran served (maxing out at four years), and will be available up to 15 years after the end of their service. Active duty personnel will for the first time be able to transfer benefits to their spouses or children if they have served for six years and agree to serve four more….
August 1, 2009: What if your friend buys a car, and, as time passes, you realize that she loves everything about it. Performance? Excellent! Reliability? Astounding! Styling? Magnificent!
That would be odd. Surely there is something about the car that is less than excellent, even poor. One might say that her assessments of the many features of her car exhibit uniform favor and that that uniformity of favor is surprising or unexpected—something that, prima facie, stands in need of explanation.
Political orientations
Our embrace of political orientations is like that. “Conservativeness” or “liberalness” is some form of embrace of a sprawling and messy assortments of ideals, beliefs, and convictions that (with regard at least to a prominent subset) fail to reflect a single philosophy.
Here’s the surprising thing: with some familiar exceptions (e.g., libertarians among Republicans; Quakers among liberals; etc.), people tend to embrace pretty much every element of the whole mess (i.e., they exhibit uniform favor). So, if, say, John is a conservative Republican, then we can expect him to believe in a strong military and to enjoy old-fashioned expressions of patriotism. If Jane is a liberal Democrat, we can expect her to support “a woman’s right to choose” and to look favorably upon ethnic diversity.
Again, there are exceptions, but they tend to follow familiar patterns. Lots of semi-selective belief “packages” are conceivable regarding the whole messy stew of familiar liberal political beliefs. But, in fact, one finds only a few familiar kinds. Same goes for conservatives. (Try to find a conservative or Republican who is down on the pursuit of wealth! Show me a liberal who doesn’t celebrate “diversity”!)
BUT WAIT. One might argue that “uniformity of favor” (UF) is precisely what one would expect, for the set of liberal (or conservative) ideas are indeed unified by a philosophy or a small set of core values/beliefs. There's no reason why a car should be uniformly excellent. But there's every reason that the set of familiar conservative beliefs will all be conservative.
That does seem true for some, perhaps many, of the ideas of liberals and conservatives. But it seems false for many others. For instance, why expect liberals to reject and condemn the development of nuclear power? (Is it liberal to fret over the welfare of future generations? Why isn't that conservative?) But they do, almost always.
Why expect a conservative to suppose that an apparently brain-dead person has an active and sophisticated mental life? (Remember the Terri Schiavo case?) Is there something about conservatism that inclines one to reject empirical evidence?
Why expect a liberal to embrace multiculturalism? Why expect a conservative to oppose environmentalism or land and resource conservation? Etc.
Given the manifestly suspect doctrinal fidelity (or coherence) of the familiar bundle of "conservative" or "liberal" beliefs, one is tempted to make an unpleasant suggestion: that most conservatives and liberals don't think their way to their political convictions; rather, they fall in line.
My suspicion is that a form of irrationality is at work here. (Actually, likely there are several forms.) Given that, leaving aside core convictions/ideas, the "liberal" or "conservative" idea bundles are plainly illogical (or doctrinally indefensible), and given that, nonetheless, most conservatives and liberals embrace the whole package (or, at any rate, enough of it to exhibit the illogicalness at issue), there would appear to be some poor thinking or thoughtlessness afoot.
So why is it that virtually all liberals "celebrate diversity" and virtually all conservatives "defend the rights of the unborn"? How come conservatives aren't especially interested in conserving things (such as wilderness or our humane cultural legacy) and liberals are so illiberal about incorrect or hateful speech?
What gives?
If there is irrationality at work here, I’m not sure what it is. Is it that we are members of a team--onecompeting with another—and thus, knowing that success depends on team unity, we automatically go along with the team leadership’s agenda and game plan—forgetting that, in truth, we do not actually or equally endorse each element of that agenda?
Do the set of “liberal” ideas reflect, not principle, but (to an extent) historical accident (and strategy and whatnot), and, because we are unreflective or shallow or suggestible, we fail to notice this fact, embracing every element with equal passion and conviction?
Is it that most of us do not have the time to examine the issues, and so we trust some elite to work out the appropriate application of values—only we fail to perceive this elite's incompetence, corruption, or opaque strategic machinations?
Are there other fallacies at work?
The opposing view (I think)
My guess is that, with regard to their own convictions, many liberals and conservatives would insist that the set of “liberal” (or “conservative”) ideas do hang together naturally: they are (more or less) the result of the application of core beliefs and values: belief in tradition and unobtrusive government, belief in government as a social problem-solver, etc. Hence, no fallacy or irrationality is involved in the phenomena of political UF (PUF). --Not, at least, in the case of my side, they will say.
Maybe so. But I have my doubts. Really look at these beliefs.
Liberals and farming
Take farming. Liberals can generally be counted on to embrace “organic farming” and to reject “genetic modification” of foods (GM).
First, just what is liberal about these stances? Do pesticides prevent free expression? Are science and technology the enemies of equality?
Now, in fact (see below), the organic farming philosophy is shot through with myth and fallacy; logically speaking, embrace of this philosophy is similar to the embrace of, say, alternative medicines or conspiracy theories regarding the assassination of JFK. File under “people thinking poorly.”
GM foods? Again, the rejection of this technology depends largely on myth and fallacy. In fact, given the likely (and unfortunate and probably avoidable) facts of world population, a rejection of GM would be catastrophic.
Naturally, these points require evidence and argument. But they’re readily available. And it ain't rocket science. It’s like belief in alternative medicine: a rudimentary grasp of scientific method—and especially an understanding of such tools as clinical trials and double-blinding—will quickly end enthusiasm for homeopathy, medicinal herbs, and all the rest. A similar competence (minimal scientific or logical literacy) will be devastating for belief in organic foods and a rejection of GM.
OK, so why do liberals take the views that they do about this stuff? There’s nothing really “liberal” about these beliefs. They aren’t liberal; they’re foolish and unfortunate.
(I've chosen an example among liberals in part because most people would place me in that camp. I could easily have chosen a "conservative" example.)
The case against organic farming
For those interested in the logical or evidential case against these planks (or plankettes) of the liberal agenda, I recommend reading Robert T. Carroll’s “Skeptic’s Dictionary.” Read in particular his article Organic food and farming.
Carroll, a philosopher, begins by stating, “Organic food is food produced by organic farming, a set of techniques based on anti-scientific beliefs, myths, and superstition.” By the end of the article, it is difficult avoiding embrace of that thesis.
Goldacre easily tears apart a prominent pro-organic organization’s critique of a British agency's predictable recent finding—that “organic food is no better than normal food, in terms of composition, or health benefits.”
Goldacre starts by saying, “I don't care about organic food. I am interested in bad arguments”—namely, those provided by the pro-organic Soil Association.
Ooh, I love it when he talks “logical” like that to me.
He ends with this:
In reality, this is not about organic food. The emotive commentary in favour of organic farming bundles together diverse and legitimate concerns about unchecked capitalism in our food supply: battery [hence inhumane] farming, corruptible regulators, or reckless destruction of the environment, where the producer's costs do not reflect the true full costs of their activities to society, to name just a few. Each of these problems deserves individual attention.
But just as we do not solve the problems of deceitfulness in the pharmaceutical industry by buying homeopathic sugar pills, so we may not resolve the undoubted problems of unchecked capitalism in industrial food production by giving money to the ... [2 billion pound] industry represented by the Soil Association [a prominent pro-organic group that routinely defies logic and ignores evidence].
Aha! Goldacre is in effect weighing in on my PUF issue. He seems to be saying that there is a group of thinkers (contemporary liberals, more or less) with “legitimate” concerns who, owing perhaps to some sort of emotionalism (and whatnot), bundle (and conflate) issues, supposing that embrace of organic food and rejection of GM cohere with the set of (reasonable) criticisms and suspicions regarding Big Money and Farming.
As I’ve argued elsewhere, I don’t think “emotionalism” helpfully identifies the fallacies at work here. (Emotions are problematic only when they are tied to false beliefs and fallacies.) But I’m sure that Goldacre is on to something with this notion of “bundling” and mistaken association.
It is as though we assume that the world has a simple regularity that it does not in fact have: the bad guys are always bad and, if they embrace something, it is bad. The good guys are always good, and if they embrace something, it is good.
Not. C'mon. Are we not adults?
As Goldacre points out, “organic” farming IS big money, big farming. Further, it is relatively hazardous (manure and disease) and it is ecologically unsound (future generations will have fewer resources). (See Carroll.)
So how come liberals aren’t down on it?
These pro-organic liberals: even their confusion is confused.
See a clip from Penn and Teller's recent episode concerning organic food.
UPDATE:
For some reason, the system won't let me leave comments. Go figure.
I just wanted to respond to 10:57 (see under comments). I seem to have ruffled his/her feathers. [I see that Bohrstein has anticipated many of my points. BS, did I actually give you a B? What was I thinking?]
Dear 10:57:
Pace!
Gosh, I would have thought people would be more careful these days employing the adjective “stupid.”
But that’s OK. I guess I’m stupid all too often. (BTW, I do not believe that you are stupid. I suspect that you fall prey to the syndrome I focused upon in my post. You are a competitor and an advocate. That's fine, but be an honest thinker first. No biggie. I have high hopes for you.)
Allow me to address your comment, point by point:
“You assume that organic farming is some new invention.”
I don’t know why you think I assume this. In any case, I fail to see how the question of organic farming’s “newness” or “oldness” is relevant here. I am, of course, aware that some central techniques and practices of “organic” farming are old—e.g., the use of manure as fertilizer. OK, that’s not new. So what? What is your point?
The question is: what kinds of farming are available? What are the pros and cons of each, short-term and long-term? Those who embrace organic farming steadfastly cherry-pick or exaggerate its pros and seem determined to ignore its cons. (It's as though they are all enrolled in some goddam debating class. Heh heh.) They make claims (e.g., that current pesticide residue on produce is toxic) that the relevant experts and studies have repeatedly refuted. Their fidelity to this “old” (and thus simple and good?) agriculture seems to be driven more be ideology (or…?) than logic. Very curious.
"In fact … industrial factory farming is a relatively new form of food production which uses pesticides, cancer-causing chemicals such as methyl-bromide; genetically-modified foods splicing the genes of tomatoes with tuna; irradiation, etc.”
You seem unaware that contemporary organic farming IS "industrial," as you are using that term. OF is dominated by Big Farming, not small independent farmers. Further, that non-organic farming techniques are in some sense “new” is irrelevant to the questions at hand. Newness is not necessarily bad, just as oldness is not necessarily good.
I don’t have the space or time to address every point (though all are addressed in the sources I cited--not interested in reading that?), but briefly:
• Organic farmers use pesticides too. The question is: which pesticide uses are less problematic (short-term and long-term). You seem unaware that experts have faulted “organic” pesticides as particularly problematic.
• Again, were you to consult expert opinion (discriminating between the reliable and unreliable, looking, of course, for consensus among the relevant experts), you would be compelled to abandon your fears of GM and irradiation. All that you are doing here is confronting this factoid and shouting, “Not!”
“Not to mention that industrial food just tastes like shit compared with organically grown foods.”
Well, you are ignoring the evidence. You are warranted in citing scientific testimony when it roughly achieves consensus. There is no consensus for the assertion that organic foods taste better. On the contrary, my impression is that existing studies tend to refute your belief. (I guess you didn’t watch the Penn and Teller clip. For fun, you might check it out.)
“Most of the GM and industrial foods have had very little research into the effects they have on human health and bio-diversity….”
Well, again, the relevant scientific testimony tends to the contrary of your view. GM is actually fairly old, and we know enough about it to be confident that it will not produce the “scary” disasters the pro-organic crowd loves to portray (taking a page, I guess, out of the Bush/Rove playbook). Again, read the Carroll piece. Look at his references. Read Goldacre’s piece. Find reasonable, objective people on the “other side.” Be fair to them. Don’t reject a view on the basis of ad hominems (viz., that some who take the non-organic side work for or reflect the views of rich interest groups).
Ironically(?), you seem to be doing precisely what I warn against in my piece: you assume that the bad guys (big agricultural concerns, etc.) necessarily do bad things. No. Even Duane Andreas does good things sometimes (mostly by accident, not by design). Why is this so hard to accept?
Further, you’re obviously spouting “talking points.” I’m not interested in rhetoric; I’m interested in evidence. Stop viewing this as a competition.
“Industrial farming is irresponsible and until the proper scientific research has been produced which explores the effects of the use of pesticides and genetic modification on bio-diversity, I'll stick with the traditional forms of food production which are organic.”
First, assertion ("irresponsible") is not argumentation.
Second, you are assuming what you are obliged to establish: that we do not know the effects of pesticides (again, you wrongly assume that organic farmers do not use pesticides—and that the same “issue” does not arise for them) and GM, etc. Again, you need to survey the available expert testimony/studies, favoring the scientific/reliable over the merely anecdotal or poorly conducted. Upon doing that, you will find little reason to worry about current pesticides (much improved over the old ones, thanks to the environmental movement and its critics of Big Farming) or GM or effects on bio-diversity.
Hey, if I’m wrong about that assessment, then I will change my view. I want to follow the evidence, and if the evidence favors your view (or some part of it), I will join you.
It’s all about the evidence, you see. This is not a competition or contest. First, get the facts, the truth. Only then: put on your warrior outfit and grab your megaphone. Logic before advocacy. OK?
“Furthermore, the British study makes the claim that organic foods are no healthier than industrial foods. No one ever claimed they were.”
This claim is routinely made by the advocates of organic foods. You know that.
“History has shown that industrialization has produced all sorts of unintended effects on the natural environment. Why should we think that industrial food production as any less harmful?”
There is wisdom in your skepticism. We should be very careful adopting new technologies, etc., especially when they involve massive activity. But you seem to believe that organic farming is excluded from “industrialization.” It isn’t. Organic farming is now Big Farming. Further, by all accounts, it uses much more land than does non-organic farming. It is much less efficient in the conversion of natural resources into food. As far as I know, that is not in dispute.
You seem unaware of the world’s population issues. How can that be? (You know better.) And you seem to insist on viewing “organic farming” as little traditional farms dotting the landscape, emitting the moos and clucks of happy critters, leaving a small footprint and no residue. Surely you realize that that is nonsense.
Drop the talking points—these are inevitably dishonest. Honestly address the points and arguments of your critics. If the logic and evidence favors your side, then competent and honest thinkers will join you there eventually.
If, as I suspect, the logic favors some version of non-organic farming, will you defy or ignore this?
If so, how are you different from George W. Bush?
Ah, but I sense that you are, at bottom, nothing at all like W. You want to do the right things. So do I.
