Lol. That's probabaly the funniest thing I've ever heard. Mercola may theoretically be independent. He's an independent crackpot who spreads misinformation and uses deceptive language to scare people into buying products that solve non existent problems. If you think his website provides legitimate information then you are a very misinformed individual who should consider googling the validity of your source before posting next time. If they printed his shit then I would wipe my ass with it. Why does every anti gmo and vaccine person read natural news and mercola? How do people not realize these sources are clearly biased?
If you want to talk with him, I can forward his email so you can voice your concerns or just comment on his site. However, I did find some peer reviewed journals though from other places. http://earthopensource.org/index.php/news/145-vital-link-article-on-health-hazards-of-genetically-modified-foods And also on this site (http://www.researchgate.net/post/GMO_crops_Is_there_any_peer_reviewed_scientific_evidence_that_questions_their_safety) Scroll below and the links are provided. I just remain impartial.
I'm not interested in talkin to someone who profits off of lying and deceiving about science. And I'll have to check out those links later. What's researchgate? Why no pubmed or other scholarly search directories?
Why do that when committing fallacies is so much easier? We'll just call him a hack and who cares about proving it.
You just have to remain impartial and be unbiased to the information and then compare by using fuzzy logic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_logic) rather than using the traditional binary thinking <a>(http://www.expatree.com/blog/binary-thinking-something-you-have-to-know_52)</a> which is based on black and white thinking. Also avoid cognitive biases - it's possible. From Google, this is what I got (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ResearchGate). Also by using fuzzy logic, you can pinpoint the hidden factors that fall into the difference between genetically modified foods vs. organic foods. Wikipedia shows that we've been modifying organisms ever since we first started domesticating the wild <a>(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_genetic_engineering).</a> This article states that it's been proven safe and there is empirical evidence within that shows (http://www.psmag.com/navigation/health-and-behavior/scientific-debate-gm-foods-theyre-safe-66711/) (http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2013/12/is-there-any-reliable-scientific.html) The problem seems to be Monsanto acting as a monopoly with tyrannical tendencies instead of the food itself (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/06/genetically-modified-food-safe-monsanto). It's similar how ISIS want to take ownership and force others to abide their law or else they use action. I follow a low-glycemic diet, but it's based on your decision whether or not, you want to consume. This should /the thread if research is involved. Committing fallacies is easier when one is mentally unaware that they exist, but that's why - knowledge is power. About proving who's right or wrong? I just want to hear veracity (accurate information) to be on the safe side, I save competition for like physical activity.
I agree, but they are most effective when done consciously. I think you misread my post, when referring to proof am not talking about being right or wrong, I am talking about substantiating empty statements. I can say the sky is pink, it doesn't make it true.
Dr. Mercola is about as respectable as Giorgio from Ancient Aliens.. please don't listen to him as he is only looking to make profit, even if it means lying out his ass. That's what these fuckers do, they hop on TV and lie to you to get you to buy supplements from companies that pay them.. then get a bandwagon going to push their books onto. Not only that, he's been in trouble more than once for making false claims.. yet people still think he is something? For fuck sake, open your eyes! He is just a new-age snakeoil salesman.. and really should have every single sound coming from his mouth ignored. http://www.alternet.org/personal-health/four-biggest-quacks-plaguing-america-their-bad-claims-about-science I will say I kind of like Research Gate though.. seems like a decent platform to discuss science related topics. Might have to sign up then. I did get this link from there: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23756170 Which people use for their anti-GMO campaign. Just need to point out a few things.. First, keyword potential. As someone who uses the words possibly, maybe, theoretically, probably, and the like often.. I can tell you that was thrown in there because they didn't prove it, only correlated. Meaning they're not 100% sure, but there's enough there for them to try and link it. Second, they used pure glyphosate.. that's on par with when the government hooked monkeys up and pumped them full of smoke from marijuana, depriving their brain of oxygen for extended periods of time causing brain damage.. then saying it was the marijuana that caused the brain damage. No shit your going to have an adverse effect with a pure concentration.. just like concentrated orange essential oil can harm you. Third, proliferative. It means to increase rapidly, think exponential. They even said it was 5-13 fold of their control. A fold is when you double it. So if you have 3 and subject it to a 4 fold, you're left with 48. Even if you start out with only 1 of whatever it is and give it a 13 fold, you're going to end up with 8,192. That's ridiculous.. Then at the end, you'll see that an ingredient that's naturally in soybeans can cause breast cancer.. make you wonder why they picked soybeans to correlate breast cancer with the herbicide doesn't it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genistein Don't get me wrong, I don't like the use pesticides and herbicides.. but this is just a prime example of people not understanding what they're afraid of, along with media and other sources taking the first stages of scientific research and fabricating a story with it to gain viewers. How many times have we heard from the media that they found a cure for cancer? It's because scientists are working on it and found a lead and the media blow it out of proportion.
Ok fair you got me on that one. There is no way you can know if what I'm saying is credible or not. In my defense though I typed this on a packed bus on the way to my 6 hour lab class so I didn't exactly have a lot of time to go in depth. Now that I'm back home I'll provide you with some links. These two articles shows why you should be skeptical of things posted by Dr Mercola. http://www.quackwatch.com/11Ind/mercola.html http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/February-2012/Dr-Joseph-Mercola-Visionary-or-Quack/ The problem with Dr Mercola is that he will take a real scientific fact and then manipulate it and exaggerate it to make several other claims that he really has no business making. I'll show you an example of this in the article which was linked "Another problem with genetic modification has to do with the fact that GM plants and animals are created using horizontal gene transfer (also called horizontal inheritance), as contrasted with vertical gene transfer, which is the mechanism in natural reproduction. Vertical gene transfer, or vertical inheritance, is the transmission of genes from the parent generation to offspring via sexual or asexual reproduction, i.e., breeding a male and female from one species. By contrast, horizontal gene transfer involves injecting a gene from one species into a completely different species, which yields unexpected and often unpredictable results. Proponents of GM assume they can apply the principles of vertical inheritance to horizontal inheritance, but this assumption, too, is flawed, and now it's been confirmed that GM genes can transfer to humans and the environment. Dr. Ho stated." He starts off with a scientific fact by mentioning that vertical gene transfer is the process by which genes are transferred from parent to offspring. The next thing he says about horizontal gene transfer isn't blatantly false but is purposely vague to trick the reader. He implies that vertical gene transfer is natural, and horizontal gene transfer is not which is what gmo's use therefore they must be bad. The problem with this logic is that it leaves out the fact that organisms naturally evolve due to horizontal gene transfer all the time. If you don't believe me here's a link http://highered.mheducation.com/sites/9834092339/student_view0/chapter24/horizontal_gene_transfer.html. Last year during my first semester I took a class about genetics evolution and health. In it, we spent the first couple of weeks learning how to spot "bad" or "junk" science. Some of the classic signs are not providing legitimate sources. Mercola's main source in this article is from The Institute of Science in Society, Isis. This is a quote from Wikipedia saying ISIS is "an interest group that campaigns against what it sees as unethical uses of biotechnology.[6] The group published about climate change, GMOs, homeopathy, traditional Chinese medicine, and water memory." Mercola even steals the title of his article from this interest group. I don't know about you guys but I don't like to take my science from one sided interest groups. The problem with these kind of sites is that their posters are not critical and will often post anything, including misinformation, that will further their own agenda. Cherry picking from sources to further ones own beliefs, oversimplifying a scientific idea to sell your point, making extremely exaggerated claims based on very little evidence, making purposely vague statements/ leaving out important info, and a profit motive are often signs of junk science. This is why journals will often publish a section called conflict of interest letting the reader know if there is any sort of profit motive behind the researchers results. If you look on Mercola's site you will not only see all the articles, but also the thousands of stupid overpriced homeopathic garbage he sells. This guy literally sells stuff that says it will virtually eliminate your chances of getting cancer. Not only that but all sorts of other extremely strange health ideas that coincidentally also have a product that solves the issue. Take for example his belief about Himalayan sea salt being beneficial well regular table salt is bad for you. On his site he sells this Himalayan sea salt for like 8 bucks a pound. As opposed to regular salt which is probabaly between 15-20 pounds for 8 bucks. It's funny how he lambasts the entire pharmaceutical community for profiting at the expense of people's health by doing things such as misleading people and making unsubstantiated claims based on non existent research. Then simaltaneously turns around and starts selling all this overpriced shit with ludicrous health benefit claims and not a single shred of evidence to back up any of his claims. If you read anything critically on his site and have a decent understanding of scientific ideas then it's not hard to see that he is a manipulative salesman dressed in the guise of being a health professional. In that class I referenced earlier we literally spent an entire hour and twenty minute period ripping apart the article about Himalayan salt and finding new mistakes.
Thank you for elaborating, the third link you provided was dead, so I did a search and found it In case it fails again I'll also post the video provided in the link uploaded to youtube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHTEFdSadXM Now that I have your attention, can you elaborate on your views on how GMO's effect our environment? Did you know that GM crops in America in the last decade have increased the amount of glyphosate (Roundup) used by over 500,000,000 lbs in contrast to it's popular gimmick to reduce the amount of herbicides used? That in fact GM crops have failed to render more yields than organic crops. The few benefits of GMO's are being destroyed by herbicide and pesticide resistant pests. More and more GMO farmers (Except the alleged ones that post on GC for some reason) are being forced to plant half their fields with Non-GMO's so that the pesticide resistant bugs may mate with the uncontaminated indigenous ones thus diluting their resistance. The question to be asked, where are the benefits?
Honestly I haven't done enough research on the topic to take a strong stance. I really didn't want to post in this thread but I strongly believe that mercola shouldn't be used as a credible source in pretty much any scientific debate which is why I felt compelled to post. I would say the position I take is to definitely do more intensive research and try to label gmo products so people are aware of what they are eating. I believe that the debate about gmo's is extremely oversimplified especially when you consider the range of different gmo's which exist. Most of the gmo's which tend to be heavily criticized, at least from what I've seen, are the bt ones. I would venture to say that the truth lies somewhere in between what the anti gmo people have to say and pro gmo people have to say. I would bet that there are many benefits, and they are probabaly less than what pro gmo people claim. There are many negatives, and they are probably less than what the anti gmo people claim. Overall, though I don't know if the pros outweigh the cons based on all the evidence I have seen which is why I choose not to take too strong of a stance. I think to say that there are no benefits is a little bit foolish. The benefits include faster growth, larger sizes, and pest resistance. Whether or not gmo's cause pesticide resistance in the long run, the benefits in the short run can't be denied. Now I can't speak personally on the subject cause I'm not a farmer but I'm basing that on accounts from scientist, farmers, and catut.
It's cool to remain neutral, with all the propaganda flying around it's hard to logically choose a side. But one thing always outshines the rest and made take my stance and that was the fact that these corporations are prosecuting whisleblowers.
Nah, a fallacy is a failure in reasoning that renders an argument invalid, it'll just be a cop-out for selfish reasons. Fuzzy logic is essential because you think "within the lines" aka "shades of gray", but humans overlook that. That's why robots may be more rational than their counter-parts since they're being programmed to follow that cognition style. As for the latter, it's a matter of perception (http://www.livescience.com/21275-color-red-blue-scientists.html). If you want to B.S. with people in a humorous way, study Bugs Bunny' stragetic tactics. As for the Mercola dude, I remain skeptical since the website (independent variable) conducted can be manipulated and altered with false perception towards the people (dependent variable).
@[member="Xenzin"] So yeah, I went back and read that massive copypasta about there being no consensus. Basically what your copypasta said was that there's still minor disagreement in these major institutions. There's still a consensus, which is defined as a general agreement among peers, that GMOs in their current form are safe. Also I think I posted this article in another thread, citing several new well made studies concluding there's no health risk to animals or the people that eat them. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2014/09/17/the-debate-about-gmo-safety-is-over-thanks-to-a-new-trillion-meal-study/ Soo yeah.....
This is incorrect, just because a fallacy is used it does not invalidate a statement. I prefer hands down logical deduction, most artificial intelligence programs are designed to think like Sherlock Holmes, it's a common misconception that Sherlock uses logical deduction when in reality he uses abductive reasoning which is a scientific term for guessing. But, I digress. That study is cited under scrutiny, never was "minor disagreement" mentioned. That's what we call your imagination. Looks like you didn't even get passed the first few paragraphs, swing and a miss. :Bongin:
That's what the dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fallacy) plus Wikipedia <a>(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies)</a> says, if you don't accept it, then that's something personal. Eh, most arguments are pointless anyway <a>(http://blogcritics.org/the-master-of-the-pointless-conversation/).</a> You don't need the participation of interpersonal communication for a debate if you can debate by yourself.
If you wish to enter actual debate on the subject feel free to make a new thread this is the last time I will address this issue on this thread. argumentum ad logicam Description: Concluding that the truth value of an argument is false based on the fact that the argument contains a fallacy. Logical Form: Argument X is fallacious. Therefore, the conclusion or truth claim or argument X is false. Example #1: Ivan: You cannot borrow my car because it turns back into a pumpkin at midnight. Sidney: If you really think that, you're an idiot. Ivan: That is an ad hominem; therefore, I can't be an idiot. Sidney: I beg to differ. Explanation: While it is true that Sidney has committed the ad hominem fallacy by calling Ivan an idiot rather than providing reasons why Ivan's car won't turn into a pumpkin at midnight, that fallacy is not evidence against the claim (that Ivan actually is an idiot). Example #2: Karen: I am sorry, but if you think man used to ride dinosaurs, then you are obviously not very well educated. Kent: First of all, I hold a PhD in creation science, so I am well-educated. Second of all, your ad hominem attack shows that you are wrong, and man did used to ride dinosaurs. Karen: Getting your PhD in a couple months, from a “college†in a trailer park, is not being well-educated. My fallacy in no way is evidence for man riding on dinosaurs, and despite what you may think, the Flintstone's was not a documentary! Explanation: Karen's ad hominem fallacy in her initial statement has nothing to do with the truth value of the argument that man used to ride dinosaurs. Exception: At times, fallacies are used by those who can't find a better way to support the truth claims of their argument -- it could be a sign of desperation. This can be evidence for them not being able to defend their claim, but not against the claim itself. Variation: The bad reasons fallacy is similar, but the argument does not have to contain a fallacy -- it could just be a bad argument with bad evidence or reasons. Bad arguments do not automatically mean that the conclusion is false; there can be much better arguments and reasons that support the truth of the conclusion. I have never seen God; therefore, he does not exist. This is a terrible reason to support a very strong conclusion, but this doesn't mean that God does exist; it simply means the argument is weak. Source.
So basically your standard of proof is if even one scientist studying the topic disagrees that they are safe, there's no consensus? Look up what consensus means.