I love how arrogant writers think that if you want GMO labeling suddenly you're anti-science or a nut-job. Personally, I'd like the entire food chain carefully documented and put online so data could be gathered, trends could be established and science can be done.
A lot of things that have been considered safe for generations we now understand to have harmful effects on the population or segments of it. As we begin to engineer our food, instead of just growing it, we should take extra care to understand the effects of what we're doing. We should also give people the choice to opt-out of this big experiment by letting people know what's in their food and letting them have the option to decide if they want to consume it.
I've been on the internet long enough to understand the arguments for GMOs, I just think people should know where their food comes from and what's in it.
People who know about the issue already know what food is GMO. Its all the food that isn't labelled "GMO free". So a label will not change your level of knowledge about your food and where it comes from.
Imagine if you went to the grocery store and noticed everything said "contains dihydrogen monoxide" (H2O). Does such a label inform, or merely confuse, consumers?
*not a chemist, so please give me a pass on the H20 example
I think he is meaning a 'specific' body of knowledge.. saying that scientific literacy is not about knowing a set of scientific facts, because there will always be scientific facts that you don't know. Scientific literacy is about knowing how Science is used to find those facts.
Submissions don't move down the front page as quickly as this did (I think it went from #3 to about #25 in less than a minute) without getting flagged a bunch.
Neil deGrasse Tyson is popular among atheists, a group considered obnoxious and inappropriate. I'm not delivering this judgement myself, just reporting why people would report it.
I fear popular science. If you want to teach what scientific method can do, show people how it works, make them do science. For instance let kids study how to grow beans in different soils, take measures of stem diameter, height, quantify things, check hypotheses, make experiments!
Instead of teaching the method and providing a reasonable introductory education what popular science usually does is tell people not to worry, because there are scientists who already know not only the answers but the relevant questions through some magical hand-waving called Science that involves a lot of CGI.
So people can relax and be intellectually lazy because Science. This is wrong. Big Science is demanding, slow, hard, and can't be indefinitely simplified without turning it into a lie. But science is a method, why don't you show how it works?
There is a famous Feynman piece called "Cargo Cult Science" in which he tells a story about experiments with rats that gives the gist of it all:
"All experiments in psychology are not of this type, however. For example, there have been many experiments running rats through all kinds of mazes, and so on with little clear result. But in 1937 a man named Young did a very interesting one. He had a long corridor with doors all along one side where the rats came in, and doors along the other side where the food was. He wanted to see if he could train the rats to go in at the third door down from wherever he started them off. No. The rats went immediately to the door where the food had been the time before.
The question was, how did the rats know, because the corridor was so beautifully built and so uniform, that this was the same door as before? Obviously there was something about the door that was different from the other doors. So he painted the doors very carefully, arranging the textures on the faces of the doors exactly the same. Still the rats could tell. Then he thought maybe the rats were smelling the food, so he used chemicals to change the smell after each run. Still the rats could tell. Then he realized the rats might be able to tell by seeing the lights and the arrangement in the laboratory like any commonsense person. So he covered the corridor, and still the rats could tell.
He finally found that they could tell by the way the floor sounded when they ran over it. And he could only fix that by putting his corridor in sand. So he covered one after another of all possible clues and finally was able to fool the rats so that they had to learn to go in the third door. If he relaxed any of his conditions, the rats could tell.
Now, from a scientific standpoint, that is an A-number-one experiment. That is the experiment that makes rat-running experiments sensible, because it uncovers that clues that the rat is really using, not what you think it's using. And that is the experiment that tells exactly what conditions you have to use in order to be careful and control everything in an experiment with rat-running.
I looked up the subsequent history of this research. The next experiment, and the one after that, never referred to Mr. Young. They never used any of his criteria of putting the corridor on sand, or being very careful. They just went right on running the rats in the same old way, and paid no attention to the great discoveries of Mr. Young, and his papers are not referred to, because he didn't discover anything about the rats. In fact, he discovered all the things you have to do to discover something about rats. But not paying attention to experiments like that is a characteristic example of cargo cult science."
Instead of that popular science gets you an authoritative figure feeding the audience with multiverses as if they were a matter of fact. Well, they're not.
The same arguments were made when Carl Sagan was busy popularizing science. But Neil Degrasse Tyson says he was hugely inspired by Sagan. Who knows how many other scientists were? Who knows how many future scientists will be inspired by Neil Degrasse Tyson?
First of all, I wouldn't even know who deGrasse Tyson was if it wasn't for sites like 4chan, reddit and hn. But apparently, he "has the world in his hands."
Secondly, I want to comment on this:
>It’s hard to deny that we live in an era in which science — as both a worldview and as a practice — is under near-constant assault. On the left, there are those who rail against the dangers of GMOs and vaccines. On the right, there are those who deny climate change and the evolution of species."
Just because people are opposed to some applications of science, or skeptical of some scientific theories, doesn't mean science is under assault. Besides, science is defined by its method, so, the only people who could possibly pose any threat to it are the scientists themselves, should they forget this fact.
> First of all, I wouldn't even know who deGrasse Tyson was if it wasn't for sites like 4chan, reddit and hn. But apparently, he "has the world in his hands."
Same with Bill Nye. Cosmos will probably be one of the few things people might see with Neil outside the USA unless they go looking for him on the Internet. Other countries tend to have their own science communicators. As flashy and well made as Cosmos is I think things like the old "The Planets" from the BBC probably had better content.
Yeah, there are two main groups that oppose GMOs. One group is founded on fear of new technology- and this is what NdGT means.
But others oppose not the science of GMOs but the way they are used as a tool to control food and the business around food.
I think NdGT does a disservice to people by trying to lump both groups of advocates into the same camp. Some people in the social-concerns group have thoughtful, logical perspectives. Some are even scientists themselves.
I'd like to point out that a lot of intelligent people opposed to GMOs are not opposed on religious or biological concerns. The reason a lot of intelligent people are opposed to GMOs is because of the fertilizers and pesticides that are used on them. Fertilizers and pesticides are dangerous and harmful.
One benefit of many GMO crops is that they allow farmers to use much less in the way of pesticides and fertilizers than they otherwise would have.
For example, BT Cotton kills cotton bollworms on its own, so you don't have to spray it with additional pesticides that would kill lots of other bugs (such as aphids) and might potentially cause harm elsewhere in the food chain. (BT Cotton and BT Corn both reduce insecticide use by about half.)
Your point is well taken but I think it illustrates mine as well.
There are serious problems with allowing a small non-elected group of people to represent the interests of all humans regarding agriculture.
But anytime anyone tries to bring this up the discussion very quickly falls back into the realm of science- is it safe? Is it better for the environment?
There is a set of separate (and in my opinion more important) social issues that should be discussed and decisions that should be made but it isnt happening because of the diversion of the science. People who love science have an obligation not just to decision making based on evidence but also in considering the ethics of those decisions and the resulting consequences.
I really think Comedy Central should syndicate/distribute/whatever StarTalk. The science is so good and the comedy is like no other. It's such an interesting combination..... http://youtube.com/watch?v=WBQn0nD27nc
Tyson is generally well received and seems genuine as well. I wonder what people think about Michio Kaku. I can't shake the feeling that Kaku is a bit phony.
"How to explain the rise of Neil deGrasse Tyson? It’s hard to deny that we live in an era in which science — as both a worldview and as a practice — is under near-constant assault. On the left, there are those who rail against the dangers of GMOs and vaccines. On the right, there are those who deny climate change and the evolution of species."
I've thought about this a lot. I know a number of highly intelligent and articulate people who seem to hold a kind of animosity toward science, and in talking to them I always try to figure out exactly why this is.
I've identified what I think are several reasons.
(1)
Science is about reality. It's about learning about reality and a commitment to reality. Unfortunately for a great many people reality just flat out sucks and there's little they feel they can do about it.
You're stuck in a dead-end job with debts piling up, an underwater house, and failing health. The last thing you want to hear about is reality. You want unreality-- the more unreal the better-- because your reality is awful and then you're going to die.
(2)
There has been a general loss of confidence in institutions, scientific and academic ones included.
I don't think this is wholly irrational. We've had multiple presidential administrations that have lied us into war. The financial industry has run what amount to pump-and-dump scams against the public (e.g. the housing bubble). These sorts of things show people that institutions aren't to be trusted. They are often either predatory or incompetent.
What's that got to do with science?
Well... from an ordinary person's point of view, science belongs to the same stratospheric realm as high finance and government. It's part of the world of "big" things... "big" things that stomp on the little guy.
(3) (and I think this might be the big one)
Science says things that are concrete and falsifiable. Since humans are not infallible, that means that some of what you say is almost certainly going to turn out to be wrong.
Superstitious ideologies on the other hand seldom make concrete promises or provide answers that are actually testable or verifiable. As a result, they are never wrong. They're never wrong because they are not really saying anything. (Politicians and salesmen are also masters of this art... it's not by any means confined to religion.)
Every time science makes a mistake, it counts against it in peoples' minds. "Oh, they were wrong about trans fats... that means GMO foods can't be trusted either!"
I admit, that as a scientific researcher, I am exhausted with 'science' in the mainstream. We are bombarded by rubbish 'science' reporting, which when criticized, hides behind the banner of science. God forbid any of the articles in the Science section of most major newspapers actually scale the reporting to the actual significance of the finding/article.
Often it is usually cheap journalism that goes with a crazy headline (eg. AIDS cure found in mice) reporting on some preliminary study that is suggestive at best, and often a PR stunt for a researcher/lab (supported and indeed recommended by the named institution).
There are also a ton of opinion pieces and blogs that use data analysis or 'science' to push an agenda. That's great when it adheres to the scientific method, but often they don't or the argument it is justifying isn't in the field of science. Just because you crunched numbers does not mean you are doing science.
I have very well educated friends who assume that if an opinion is backed by statistics, then you are backed by facts, and conflate science with fact (as per @api's point 3). Critical thinking doesn't come into play. A lot of them do well in policy jobs!
We need more education on the scientific method, better criticism of poor science reporting in the media, and a desperate need for scientists to regain the public's trust. I believe this last step is very hard currently. The education bubble is just growing and growing and academia is eaten up be the tertiary education industry and a destructive motivator model (publish or perish).
"better criticism of poor science reporting in the media,"
This makes me think of another pet peeve of mine: where are the skeptics?
The Skeptic movement almost exclusively goes after marginal outsiders: fringe archaeologists, ancient aliens people, UFO cultists, extreme new agers, creationists, faith healers, etc. Yet for every person who has spent a $10 on a bogus homeopathic cure there are a few dozen people who have spent hundreds of dollars on a bogus pharmaceutical promoted by a multi-billion-dollar ad campaign.
The vast majority of Skeptics (capital S) strike me as basically just establishmentarians. They're not really skeptics in the philosophical sense-- their skepticism is strictly reserved for certain fashionable-to-criticize outsider positions. I don't see them as real advocates for science, more like a cult of people who like to shoot fish in barrels to prove what great marksmen they are.
On top of that, many Skeptics are dicks about it. This further puts people off science, making them think that science consists of a bunch of arrogant eggheads constantly congratulating themselves on how superior they are. It makes science look like another fundie cult.
WRT number 3 (which I agree is the biggie): I've noticed science journalists and outreach folk often place a lot of emphasis on individual discoveries and hypotheses. Sometimes they seem to do this to make it relatable, other times perhaps just because those particular facts are "cool". Other times (usually not in physics) it's an over-eagerness to spread results that, if correct, could genuinely help people, but aren't really properly established yet.
It's easy to get people excited about individual ideas, but it ultimately has the downside that the _majority_ of these ideas will end up in the infinite discard bin.
A lot of people don't understand this. Science produces reams of output in the form of publications and data sets, and quite a bit of that will turn out to be insignificant or even wrong. It's like anything else... the stuff that stands the test of time (and repeatability!) is the good stuff.
Here's what I've always suspected the primary reason for animosity towards science is: from the perspective of a non-scientist, science doesn't actually look any different from a religion, or the latest fashion, or the snakeoil salesman. A professional scientist can examine a peer's paper and determine its quality. E.g. the signal to noise ratio, whether the math checks out, scope, etc. But the Average Joe doesn't know how to properly evaluate a scientific paper. So he has to take it on faith that what the high priest in the lab coat says is true.
Approaching the unknown with apprehension is a perfectly natural reaction. This can be overcome through education. But learning takes time and energy. It's hard work. And as excited as I am about things like "Cosmos", I think a lot of people don't find it worth the trouble, because it's not immediately relevant. "Leave that science stuff to the scientists, I'm perfectly satisfied being able to drive my car without knowing how the Otto Cycle works."
Interesting post. I'd like to think of myself as 'intelligent' - as most of us do - I'm Mensa, I'm a programmer of 30+ years blah blah. I live and breath 'logic'. So take this for what it's worth.
2 is the big one from my perspective. I think it's extremely naive to immediately trust anything coming from mainstream science / medicine these days. GMOs, as an example, demonstrates the inability of some scientists to understand the concept of 'playing with machines they neither understand holistically, nor practically'.
Even 'slightly large' software projects, where the variables are all contained in a highly controlled and observable environment, go horribly wrong. I can't imagine the arrogance you need to mess with nature confidently.
Nature is a complex machine, don't f* around with it unless you a) can create it from scratch b) are absolutely sure what you're doing is not going to affect the machine's surrounding environment. We are far, far away from those necessary understandings. I would think this was obvious, but apparently it's not.
I get the impression that in America I'd be shouted down for saying this.
This will come off as a strawman, but the same could be said for every drug ever prescribed. There's absolutely no way to quantify the effects an "unnatural" molecule will have on a human body, since everyone will have physiological differences, and there will be a near infinite number of environmental factors. The best we can do is use the sum of human knowledge as a framework to test that drug to the best of our ability, and try to figure out if it's safe by examining the evidence.
I'm an agricultural geneticist (not in industry, I have never worked on GMOs but I do keep up to date on the literature so I can educate others), so I will be biased here, but GMOs have been very carefully examined for decades with no credible evidence to suggest they pose a threat to human health.
Without going in to a lesson on population genetics, most genes, even if they found their way in to a natural population outside of a farm, would not spread in the population because of selection against them. Empirically the frequency of this kind of spread from crop to natural population has been found to be nearly non-existent, which is why it's not a huge concern.
Humans have been causing artificial selection on plants for thousands of years. Breeding for completely unnatural traits, and even crossing entirely different species to create novel organisms for agriculture. GMOs are far more controlled in this sense, where you know exactly what you're doing to the genome. Combining two genomes separated by millions of years of evolution at random through forced sexual reproduction in plants happens every day in crop breeding but nobody cares because it has this arbitrary label of "natural", presumably because it doesn't involve some sinister figure in a labcoat.
Unfortunately the anti-GMO activists do an excellent job of spreading misinformation and distrust of scientists to the public. The large biotech companies can do very little for the PR of GMOs, leaving academics to try and fight against the tide of hatred for what is actually an incredible tool for solving the worlds food shortages. Sadly most scientists are too busy writing grants to bother.
"most genes" - I think where our food supply is concerned it probably needs to be '100%' - but that's not to dismiss the valid perspective you raise.
I just hope open-minded people are overseeing the processes, and not leaving the chicken coop to the corporations. GMO has a valid place, an important place, in our technological "bag-of-tricks." It's only the apparent short-sightedness of certain members of the scientific community that sets some of us on edge.
But we've been fucking around with nature for a long time without fully understanding it. In fact a lot of that fucking around has led to us understanding nature better!
You're both right IMHO. I actually think the GMO people would have more credibility if they admitted that there were possible risks and explained the risks vs. the benefits. Pretending there are no risks makes you sound like a shill, and today the instant people get a whiff of shill they blacklist you and anything you stand for.
Re: #2 above:
I asked a friend of mine who is very anti-GMO whether she would be more open to them if they were produced by open non-profit organizations working in the public interest. She said yes, she'd be more willing to consider their benefits in that case, but that she wasn't going to eat food "designed by corporations that are all run by sociopaths."
The perception that corporations are "run by sociopaths" is not wholly unfounded or irrational. Obviously all of them aren't, but even Peter Thiel admits that the percentage of sociopaths in high-up corporate and government positions is far larger than in the general population. I have to ask then: do we really want organizations run by sociopaths programming the genome of the world's food supplies?
"if they admitted that there were possible risks and explained the risks vs. the benefits."
I think that nicely sums up my viewpoint. Hanging around with 'intellectuals' these days can leave you tired and disillusioned, though this little thread was a refreshingly pleasant bit of discourse.
All I want is a balanced perspective, it's never "this OR that"!
Science is what produce the worst of the worst possible things, and make the worst, better. Is what build the weapons, the pollution, the asphalt-jungle, the climate-change, the dictators in steroids, the NSA. Is what will lead humanity to distopia (or worse).
And will not build a better world.
Everything wrong, is stronger with science. Science is the slave of tyrants, military, politicians.
Science could be sell to the higher bidder. A peasant rarely can benefit, directly, from a scientist. From preacher? yes. For somebody selling a dream? yes.
Bastard ask for a way to torture and kill with efficiency, and scientist say "I could do it better than you tough".
P.D: This is about what could inspire fear in people, so take that in account about this...
There are only few things funnier than people fresh from watching a Neil deGasse Tyson lecture, acting like they earned a PHD in Astrophysics and Anti theism across an hour on the couch.
I personally am a huge fan of both NDT and the show, my comment was based on a mere realistic view that Cosmos remains a science show and though educating, it is not THAT educating.
A lot of things that have been considered safe for generations we now understand to have harmful effects on the population or segments of it. As we begin to engineer our food, instead of just growing it, we should take extra care to understand the effects of what we're doing. We should also give people the choice to opt-out of this big experiment by letting people know what's in their food and letting them have the option to decide if they want to consume it.
I've been on the internet long enough to understand the arguments for GMOs, I just think people should know where their food comes from and what's in it.