I'm always impressed on those rare occasions when someone publicly admits having been mistaken, especially when they're reversing long- and vehemently-held public positions. Such correctability is a rare virtue.
https://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/01/03/mark_lynas_environmentalist_who_opposed_gmos_admits_he_was_wrong.html?wpisrc=most_viral
CSummer
01-06-2013, 12:34 AM
The thing is, if he was mistaken then, he might be even more mistaken now! This brings up a few questions:
If he was expressing views for the wrong reasons before, for what reason(s) is he expressing different views now?
What motivates him to take the side of corporate "science" in this debate? Carrot? Stick? Both?
I would tend to trust more what David Suzuki, as a geneticist, and others have to say about this:
Dixon, if you (or anyone) would like to borrow my copy of "Genetic Roulette," put out by the Institute for Responsible Technology, feel free to ask. There's a lot of real not-for-profit science out there that makes the for-profit "science" that's promoting GMO crops appear very troubling!
CSummer
I'm always impressed on those rare occasions when someone publicly admits having been mistaken, especially when they're reversing long- and vehemently-held public positions. Such correctability is a rare virtue.
https://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/01/03/mark_lynas_environmentalist_who_opposed_gmos_admits_he_was_wrong.html?wpisrc=most_viral
Dixon
01-06-2013, 05:49 PM
The thing is, if he was mistaken then, he might be even more mistaken now!
So what's new? It's true for all of us humans that we may be mistaken about anything at any time. But this guy has shown himself to be correctable even on highly emotional issues on which he's taken a public stand, which is more than most people have done, so I'd say he's just a smidgeon less likely to be mistaken than the average person who has shown no evidence of being so correctable.
Having said that, I'll add that I myself haven't researched both sides of the GMO issue much, so have no basis for a strong opinion one way or the other, although I'm convinced from what I've seen that Monsanto, among other corporations, have acted abominably in some ways--no surprise there.
If he was expressing views for the wrong reasons before, for what reason(s) is he expressing different views now?
What motivates him to take the side of corporate "science" in this debate? Carrot? Stick? Both?
Certainly one would have to find out from him what evidence/arguments prompted his position, and it'd be inappropriate to have a strong opinion about the rightness or wrongness of his position until after hearing that evidence. Note that if we assume that the basis for his current position is "corporate 'science'", we may be assuming too much.
I would tend to trust more what David Suzuki, as a geneticist, and others have to say about this:
Yeah, we all have our biases, but have you read or heard the arguments on the other side of the issue, or have you only heard them as characterized by those who disagree with them?
Dixon, if you (or anyone) would like to borrow my copy of "Genetic Roulette," put out by the Institute for Responsible Technology, feel free to ask.
Thanks for the offer, Clint, but I'm too far behind in my reading to take you up on it at this time.
There's a lot of real not-for-profit science out there that makes the for-profit "science" that's promoting GMO crops appear very troubling!
I'd certainly agree with your apparent position that industry-funded science is likely to be grossly biased (and I discuss some of that in my most recent column, "Onward Through the Fog!" (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?95075-Article-The-Gospel-According-to-Dixon-14-Onward-Through-the-Fog%21&p=160879#post160879)), but of course it doesn't follow that such studies are always wrong, nor, conversely, that the anti-corporate position is always right. Responsible thinking requires a deeper analysis.
CSummer
01-07-2013, 01:58 AM
I will admit to having some strong opinions about genetic engineering of plants and the companies most involved in commercializing bio-technology (especially Monsanto), Dixon. It began a number of years ago (15-20?) when I heard Percy Schmeiser (https://www.percyschmeiser.com/) (a Canadian farmer person) talk about his experience of being sued by Monsanto because they found GMO canola in his field - contaminating the crops he'd spent years developing! So I have zero respect for any company with this kind of behavior and place zero credibility on anything they or their employees, attorneys or publicists might say. This would include government officials that are former employees of Monsanto.
I've also heard stories of what has happened to researchers whose studies (and reporters whose investigations) showed the harmful effects of GMO foods: lost jobs, careers destroyed, labs closed, etc. There has been an obvious and methodical effort on the part of the GMO industry to suppress the truth about these products. The many millions of dollars spent to defeat Prop. 37 is but one example.
Knowing who to believe is a huge issue in a society in which the citizenry is so fragmented. In the absence of real community, we have this! So I look at what the motives are likely to be. If the promoters are likely to be concerned about getting a return on a large investment or carrying forward some bold corporate plan - and if hiding the truth about their products is a part of their historical M.O., why would I expect them to be honest and forthcoming now? And if the opponents are highly educated in the science and/or concerned about human health or the natural environment, and even risking their lives or careers to get the truth out, why would I not believe them?
I didn't make it clear that the copy of of "Genetic Roulette" I have is a DVD - probably runs 90 or so minutes. Watching it could answer many question you may have about the science (both good and bad) behind GMOs.
Peace,
Clint
So what's new? It's true for all of us humans that we may be mistaken about anything at any time. But this guy has shown himself to be correctable even on highly emotional issues on which he's taken a public stand, which is more than most people have done, so I'd say he's just a smidgeon less likely to be mistaken than the average person who has shown no evidence of being so correctable.
Having said that, I'll add that I myself haven't researched both sides of the GMO issue much, so have no basis for a strong opinion one way or the other, although I'm convinced from what I've seen that Monsanto, among other corporations, have acted abominably in some ways--no surprise there.
Certainly one would have to find out from him what evidence/arguments prompted his position, and it'd be inappropriate to have a strong opinion about the rightness or wrongness of his position until after hearing that evidence. Note that if we assume that the basis for his current position is "corporate 'science'", we may be assuming too much.
:
Yeah, we all have our biases, but have you read or heard the arguments on the other side of the issue, or have you only heard them as characterized by those who disagree with them?
Thanks for the offer, Clint, but I'm too far behind in my reading to take you up on it at this time.
I'd certainly agree with your apparent position that industry-funded science is likely to be grossly biased (and I discuss some of that in my most recent column, "Onward Through the Fog!" (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?95075-Article-The-Gospel-According-to-Dixon-14-Onward-Through-the-Fog%21&p=160879#post160879)), but of course it doesn't follow that such studies are always wrong, nor, conversely, that the anti-corporate position is always right. Responsible thinking requires a deeper analysis.
Dixon
01-07-2013, 07:10 AM
And if the opponents are highly educated in the science and/or concerned about human health or the natural environment, and even risking their lives or careers to get the truth out, why would I not believe them?
Because they might still be wrong, either partially or completely.
Or they may be right. My point in starting this thread was about the issue of open-mindedness and correctability, not really about the GMO issue. And apropos of that, I must insist that, no matter how compelling one side of the argument may seem, it's inappropriate to come to a decision with much certainty until at least two sides of the argument have been investigated fairly deeply.
And yes, I'm familiar with the disgusting Schmeiser case and similar ones, and agree with your point about the (lack of) credibility of Monsanto and, indeed, most money-grubbing corporations, but let me just mention:
1. Neither you nor I know what specific info caused Lynas to reverse his position on GMOs. Some (all?) of the evidence/arguments involved may have been free of any corporate bias taint. To assume that just because his new position would please the scumbags at Monsanto it's wrong is facile and illogical.
2. Even liars tell the truth sometimes, and even when the untrustworthiness of a source is well-established, to assume that we can therefore automatically reject any and all of their arguments without assessing them on their own merits is, again, facile and illogical.
3. Obviously Lynas, as a pioneer in the anti-GMO struggle, knows about the untrustworthiness of much of the argument from the other side, but has found reason to change his position anyway. Could there be new information, or a new way of looking at things, that may show that the anti-GMO position is at least partly mistaken? But you seem totally uninterested in finding out what arguments/evidence swayed him, preferring to assume--what? That he's been paid off? That he's gone crazy? Are such assumptions a path to truth, or just defense mechanisms?
So while I think there's a very good chance you're absolutely right about GMOs, Clint, as a critical thinking issue, I must point out that your level of certainty is not justified by the apparent range of data you've considered.
I didn't make it clear that the copy of of "Genetic Roulette" I have is a DVD - probably runs 90 or so minutes. Watching it could answer many question you may have about the science (both good and bad) behind GMOs.
I'd like to watch it but I don't have a DVD player, so unless someone invites me over...
And keep in mind that, even if the DVD is really compelling, the investigation is not complete until the opposing position is investigated in their own words.