Anti-GMO = Anti-science, anti-truth, pro-ignorance.

[Traveler]

23 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

This is unnecessarily a cynical view.

In my family, we don't teach that money comes first, integrity second.  Rather, we teach if you live with integrity, the money will come.  Now, I'm sure you live your life the same way.  We're not at all unique.  Many people live their lives this way. 

The fact that you're not spearheading research doesn't mean that all other people spearheading research live their lives with money first over integrity.  Yes, there is bias.  That's what hypotheses are about.  Your hypothesis is the bias.  Then you run the experiment to prove/disprove that hypothesis.  If you run an experiment without integrity then the bias spreads throughout the procedures.  To say that research is so money-driven that you, as a scientist, have not encountered research done with integrity is very sad indeed.  I, for one, don't believe it as my cousin runs medical research for pharma.  She has killed as many products as she has passed and these research projects take years, sometimes decades to do.  I seriously doubt she'd let something pass after decades of research that shouldn't just because they're going to make money if it goes to market and they're going to lose beaucoup money if they don't.

 

I think you missed my point – I did not want to imply all research is tainted and unreliable.  What I intended to express that when the bias and funding is being deliberately hidden the likelihood of tainting and unreliably significantly increases.  A good example is the scientific research into the benefits of smoking funded by the tobacco industry that did everything in their power to hide the fact that it was their industry funding the research.

We can find the same kind of unreliability in research (public polls) funded by political parties.  As a general rule this includes even the news – when they pretend to be spin free and without bias and begin and end their commentary expressing lack of spin – I do doubt their integrity and sincerity – especially when they consistently favor particular viewpoints. I prefer those that openly and willingly express they have a bias and what the bias is.  I am a person with a bias - and I know it.  If someone claim to not have a bias - I think they are either not informed or they are being deceitful.

Not to alarm you as an individual but the more someone touts their own integrity the more likely I am to be skeptical.   Not that I will disbelieve – but that I will seek other opinions and sources and ways to validate their claims. 

As a side note – those that claim to know scripture (doctrine and theology) so much so that they are unwilling to even consider other viewpoints – I take with a grain of salt.  They may have some worthy points but usually it is not worth the effort sifting through all their chaff to find the wheat.

I will say you are a most interesting person – that I would someday love to have some long discussions.  I am impressed that you are a very much – what you see is what you get kind person that does not hide much.

 

The Traveler  

[anatess2]

22 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I will say you are a most interesting person – that I would someday love to have some long discussions.  I am impressed that you are a very much – what you see is what you get kind person that does not hide much.

 

The Traveler  

I would love to have that long discussion with you too.  I like listening to people who knows a lot about a lot of things.  Like @Vort.

I don't see much point in hiding.  So yes, I watched Hitman's Bodyguard last night.  Rated R.  Lots of bad words "peeing the carpet" as Vort would say.  No need to hide that.  Judge me as you need to.  I don't have a problem with it because I would probably agree with you and if I don't, it's a waste of time telling you so.  Unless, of course, we are interested in discussing the philosophy of entertainment choices instead of simply calling out people for their immorality.  So yes, I can see how hiding your sources can be a way for deception.  But, I can also see hiding your sources as a way to limit exposure to those wanting to tear your good work down for their own deceitful purposes.  But I'm not that intimate with researchers to tell one from the other.  I just like to stick with "by their fruits..." you know?

Edited September 5, 2017 by anatess2

[NeuroTypical]

Transparency rocks.  Conservative talk radio guy Hugh Hewitt likened it to playing golf.  Trying to form an opinion is like trying to sink a golf ball.   As you measure distance and angles and such, the wind is blowing.  If you can roughly estimate which direction, and how hard the wind blows, you can adjust your shot accordingly.    So right- or left-leaning sources should just be open and transparent about their biases, so folks can adjust for the bias when consuming the information.

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

Transparency rocks.  Conservative talk radio guy Hugh Hewitt likened it to playing golf.  Trying to form an opinion is like trying to sink a golf ball.   As you measure distance and angles and such, the wind is blowing.  If you can roughly estimate which direction, and how hard the wind blows, you can adjust your shot accordingly.    So right- or left-leaning sources should just be open and transparent about their biases, so folks can adjust for the bias when consuming the information.

This applies to MSM.  I didn't think this is applicable to science.  A biased science ceases to be valid science, yes?

[NeuroTypical]

Speaking of labeling... (and overzealous marketing campaigns...)

Forbes.com: Stop 'Pandering To Ignorance And Fear': Consumers Speak Out Against Triscuit's Non-GMO Label

 

[JohnsonJones]

On ‎9‎/‎5‎/‎2017 at 10:48 AM, Traveler said:

I think you missed my point – I did not want to imply all research is tainted and unreliable.  What I intended to express that when the bias and funding is being deliberately hidden the likelihood of tainting and unreliably significantly increases.  A good example is the scientific research into the benefits of smoking funded by the tobacco industry that did everything in their power to hide the fact that it was their industry funding the research.

We can find the same kind of unreliability in research (public polls) funded by political parties.  As a general rule this includes even the news – when they pretend to be spin free and without bias and begin and end their commentary expressing lack of spin – I do doubt their integrity and sincerity – especially when they consistently favor particular viewpoints. I prefer those that openly and willingly express they have a bias and what the bias is.  I am a person with a bias - and I know it.  If someone claim to not have a bias - I think they are either not informed or they are being deceitful.

Not to alarm you as an individual but the more someone touts their own integrity the more likely I am to be skeptical.   Not that I will disbelieve – but that I will seek other opinions and sources and ways to validate their claims. 

As a side note – those that claim to know scripture (doctrine and theology) so much so that they are unwilling to even consider other viewpoints – I take with a grain of salt.  They may have some worthy points but usually it is not worth the effort sifting through all their chaff to find the wheat.

I will say you are a most interesting person – that I would someday love to have some long discussions.  I am impressed that you are a very much – what you see is what you get kind person that does not hide much.

 

The Traveler  

Not really a scientist, but a Historian.

As such, for many of those in my field (including yours truly) one of the more grueling aspects is trying to get research grants.  Thinking on what you wrote, I am reminded hat one of the first things history students should learn (normally in the Historians craft which is a 200 level class) is that the writing of history, even if you try not to be, is biased by the writer.  This is one reason why a historian should always try to get primary sources, and get SEVERAL primary sources which hopefully give differing views of the same situation/event...etc.

I try to write as unbiased as possible, but I recognize that even I have a bias in my writing.  I'm not sure that those in a university setting are necessarily going to come to the results that a company or the government may like or want, but each of us have a bias and, at least in things like history, it does influence the conclusions sometimes.

Luckily, with peer review, as well as ongoing research, we are free to discuss (or some may say argue at times) differing points of views in regards to our bias, and opinions on how history is recorded or read is revised at a regular pace.

[Traveler]

1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

Not really a scientist, but a Historian.

As such, for many of those in my field (including yours truly) one of the more grueling aspects is trying to get research grants.  Thinking on what you wrote, I am reminded hat one of the first things history students should learn (normally in the Historians craft which is a 200 level class) is that the writing of history, even if you try not to be, is biased by the writer.  This is one reason why a historian should always try to get primary sources, and get SEVERAL primary sources which hopefully give differing views of the same situation/event...etc.

I try to write as unbiased as possible, but I recognize that even I have a bias in my writing.  I'm not sure that those in a university setting are necessarily going to come to the results that a company or the government may like or want, but each of us have a bias and, at least in things like history, it does influence the conclusions sometimes.

Luckily, with peer review, as well as ongoing research, we are free to discuss (or some may say argue at times) differing points of views in regards to our bias, and opinions on how history is recorded or read is revised at a regular pace.

 

There are so many examples – even of unintended bias.  In the late 19^th and early 20^th century most of the famous and respected paleontologist were convinced that dinosaurs were cold blooded and were related to reptiles.  In fact, dinosaur means terrible lizard.   This bias so colored paleontology that it took decades before the possibility of dinosaurs being warm blooded was seriously even considered – and this was despite the overwhelming evidence that they were warm blooded and more closely related to birds than lizards.

Having a bias is not bad nor is it wrong in and of its self.  It is very possible that a bias is 100% correct.  But I have my personal bias and opinion – which is that when someone tries to hide their bias (including from themselves) or is unwilling to consider any other bias thinking they already know it all – my bias is that they really do not know that much about what they pretend to know.  This bias of mine extend to those that read scripture and think there is only one understanding (theirs) that applies.  I will admit that very often I attempt to rattle such bias.  Not because I think they are wrong – but rather that we all are in the process of learning and none of us needs to think we cannot learn from those – especially those inferior to us.

All this explains why I like to read @Vortposts.  I am still trying to figure out his bias.  Not that he hides it but that it seem to sometimes change.

 

The Traveler