On 2/8/2015 8:47 PM, T wrote:
On 02/08/2015 05:10 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
Where's the petition to ban dihydrogen
monoxide, when you most need it.

That is a new name for þ Old Hydrogen Hydroxide.

:-)
From inorganic chemist point of view,
hydrogen hydroxide is accurate.

-
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

Frank writes:

On 2/7/2015 12:47 PM, Roy wrote:
On Friday, February 6, 2015 at 1:01:09 PM UTC-7, Tony Hwang wrote:
buckwheat wrote:
http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.c...ts-not-gluten/

Hmm,
We don't eat bread, dairy of any kind.
No sugar, salt as little as possible.
Our daily food is mostly organic.

Enjoy your tasteless food and enjoy your short life...most food is
organic in case you didn't know.

This organic chemist has been following the thread.
I get miffed at the misuse of the term and chemophobia in the general
public. What's a mother to do?

Chemophobia, I love it.
Don't scare anyone telling them that there are chemicals in their food.

I was just reading recently about how 80% of
Americans are in favor of labeling food that contains DNA:

http://tinyurl.com/p3catnx

Since that number is at 80%, I must mention that everything that
is alive contains DNA.

--
Dan Espen

Dan Espen writes:
Frank writes:

On 2/7/2015 12:47 PM, Roy wrote:
On Friday, February 6, 2015 at 1:01:09 PM UTC-7, Tony Hwang wrote:
buckwheat wrote:
http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.c...ts-not-gluten/

Hmm,
We don't eat bread, dairy of any kind.
No sugar, salt as little as possible.
Our daily food is mostly organic.

Enjoy your tasteless food and enjoy your short life...most food is
organic in case you didn't know.

This organic chemist has been following the thread.
I get miffed at the misuse of the term and chemophobia in the general
public. What's a mother to do?

Chemophobia, I love it.
Don't scare anyone telling them that there are chemicals in their food.

I was just reading recently about how 80% of
Americans are in favor of labeling food that contains DNA:

http://tinyurl.com/p3catnx

Since that number is at 80%, I must mention that everything that
is alive contains DNA.

Gotta watch out for that dihydrogen monoxide. It's deadly.

| Chemophobia, I love it.
| Don't scare anyone telling them that there are chemicals in their food.
|
| I was just reading recently about how 80% of
| Americans are in favor of labeling food that contains DNA:
|
| http://tinyurl.com/p3catnx
|
| Since that number is at 80%, I must mention that everything that
| is alive contains DNA.
|

Be careful about feeling superior to 80% of the public.

First, the survey was done by Oklahoma State University
Department of Agricultural Economics. That is, a school
in the middle of farm country, where nearly everyone
has a vested interest in not labeling GMO foods. Why
do you think they did this survey in the first place?
It's propaganda masquerading as science -- business
as usual.

Second, the question was a trick question. It asked
whether people agreed with a government policy of
mandatory labeling of foods with DNA. The respondents
were led to believe that there was or might be such a
policy. The DNA question was used to offset the GMO
question and just happened to be the only nonsensical
question in the survey.

So what does the survey tell us? That most people are
not very knowledgeable about these things and don't
want to be seen as stupid, so they try to give what
they think will be an intelligent answer. That's interesting,
but the researchers are also trying to lead the reader
to a false conclusion that therefore opposition to GMO
is rooted in stupidity and ignorance. But shouldn't we
actually conclude that people need to be educated about
GMOs so that they can assess the issue sensibly? Unless,
of course, we have an irrational, ignorant propensity to
defend GMOs without having actually thought about the
issue ourselves. Or unless we don't feel that American
citizens have a right to have a say in regulation of the
food supply.

So 80% of people may be unsure what DNA is. Yet
probably 95%+ of people will assume a "scientific study"
is, indeed, scientific as long as it's given the appearance
of being so, with statistics, technical language, and so on.

How much of science is scientific? Given that science
is the closest thing modern society has to religion,
and that many people treat statements from scientists
with a trust similar to the trust given to priests, shouldn't
we be careful about accepting what passes for science,
from a scientific point of view? I'd go so far as to say that
many scientists are probably not capable of being scientific.
If one is not aware of one's own emotional biases and
cannot set them aside in order to analyze a topic then
one is not capable of scientific neutrality, regardless of
what degrees one may have. Unfortunately, the most
technically minded people are also generally also the
least emotionally sophisticated.

So what does all this have to do with GMOs? Have
you thought about GMOs? Do you have an opinion?
Frank, who started this with accusing the general
public of being stupid and not understanding the word
organic, turned out to misunderstand the word himself.
His final statement on the matter was some sort of
irrational outburst that was essentially incoherent. My
best guess is that he equates organic food with an idea
that US gov't agents are going to impose homosexuality
on him. ...Perhaps we should set up a survey to find out
how many people believe that.

"Mayayana" writes:

| Chemophobia, I love it.
| Don't scare anyone telling them that there are chemicals in their food.
|
| I was just reading recently about how 80% of
| Americans are in favor of labeling food that contains DNA:
|
| http://tinyurl.com/p3catnx
|
| Since that number is at 80%, I must mention that everything that
| is alive contains DNA.
|

Be careful about feeling superior to 80% of the public.

First, the survey was done by Oklahoma State University
Department of Agricultural Economics. That is, a school
in the middle of farm country, where nearly everyone
has a vested interest in not labeling GMO foods. Why
do you think they did this survey in the first place?
It's propaganda masquerading as science -- business
as usual.

Second, the question was a trick question. It asked
whether people agreed with a government policy of
mandatory labeling of foods with DNA. The respondents
were led to believe that there was or might be such a
policy. The DNA question was used to offset the GMO
question and just happened to be the only nonsensical
question in the survey.

So what does the survey tell us? That most people are
not very knowledgeable about these things and don't
want to be seen as stupid, so they try to give what
they think will be an intelligent answer. That's interesting,
but the researchers are also trying to lead the reader
to a false conclusion that therefore opposition to GMO
is rooted in stupidity and ignorance. But shouldn't we
actually conclude that people need to be educated about
GMOs so that they can assess the issue sensibly? Unless,
of course, we have an irrational, ignorant propensity to
defend GMOs without having actually thought about the
issue ourselves. Or unless we don't feel that American
citizens have a right to have a say in regulation of the
food supply.

So 80% of people may be unsure what DNA is. Yet
probably 95%+ of people will assume a "scientific study"
is, indeed, scientific as long as it's given the appearance
of being so, with statistics, technical language, and so on.

How much of science is scientific? Given that science
is the closest thing modern society has to religion,

So, I'm reading and reading and wondering what all this
spew of words is about, then I get to the gem immediately
above.

Clearly you have an agenda or cognitive problems.

I think it's the former.

Are you capable of reflecting on the essential differences
between believing without evidence and understanding based
on evidence?

Obviously your statement is false. In fact, in the context
you've used the words, the 2 things are opposites.

But as long as you have an agenda, I don't think you can
see that.

--
Dan Espen

| How much of science is scientific? Given that science
| is the closest thing modern society has to religion,
|
| Are you capable of reflecting on the essential differences
| between believing without evidence and understanding based
| on evidence?
|
| Obviously your statement is false. In fact, in the context
| you've used the words, the 2 things are opposites.
|

You're demonstrating my point. For you, science
absolutely cannot be questioned. It's objective
fact. That's a pretty good definition of dogmatic
religious belief. Yet you apparently believe that
religion is, specifically, dogmatic belief opposed to
science. If we're going to look at it fairly and
objectively we would have to conclude that your
view and "practice" of science is essentially a
fundamentalist religion, no different from any other
fundamentalist religion in that it involves dogmas
that can't be questioned. That's what I was talking
about.

You accepted the study as accurate science that's
based on evidence, but why do you assume it's
"objective" fact just because it's official science?
The study was done by people. Those people had
a vested interest in the outcome. What they passed
off as a scientific study is in part a deliberately skewed
marketing device. That isn't new. People are constantly
using "science" to make their case. Corporations hire
the "high priests" of science to cook up research that
supports their business model. The research, in some
cases, might be quite good. But the "science" that comes
out of that research could still be mere propaganda,
depending on how it's presented.

I wouldn't be surprised if those "scientists" in
Oklahoma were honestly trying to do good, honest
research. But if they can't clearly look at their own
preconceptions then they *will* do dishonest
research with all the best intentions. They probably
assumed, in the darker recesses of their minds, that
calling into question the sanity and intelligence of
GMO doubters was a service to truth and science.

What we were initially talking about was GMOs
and organic food. You and Frank both dismissed
the general public as idiots who don't understand
even the most rudimentary ideas in science. Yet
neither of you has offered your own opposing
(or even concordant) views and reasoning on the
topic. If you value science then why not address
the topic rationally, with whatever evidence or
experience you might be able to apply that could
shed light? Do you not find the issue at all interesting?

There's an old saying (I don't know where it
comes from) that the wise man is he who knows he
doesn't know. If we can't fully call into question
what we take to be truth, then how can we really
practice science? How could we reason and reflect?
Dogma is not necessary to understanding. Dogma is
an act of fear. But anything we refuse to question,
refusing to entertain even the possibility that we might
be capable of being wrong, is dogma, even if it's the
functionality of DNA or the sun rising in the east. We
don't need dogma to understand how the sun rises.

To the extent that we're dogmatic -- adamantly
certain that we know what's true -- even our
most advanced scientific theories would still be no
more than pre-recorded data that we play back as
needed, like a prepubescent child who has learned
to hold opinions but who isn't yet capable of reasoning.
(I expect everyone here has had the experience of
being approached by a supremely confident 12 y.o.
who proclaims that "you should" this or "you should"
that. "You shouldn't drink." "Fat is bad for you." Etc.
Whatever it is, they heard it from an adult and now
they're greatly pleased to be the proud owners of
a shiny, new opinion. Just so with the devotees of
science. Their opinions are moldable because they
assume anything dressed up as science is objective
truth. (And of course they're assuming there is such
a thing as objective truth. But maybe we have enough
on our debate plate at this point without getting into
the ultimate dogmatic keystone of modern science:
the assumption that objective observation of truth is
possible.

"Mayayana" writes:

| How much of science is scientific? Given that science
| is the closest thing modern society has to religion,
|
| Are you capable of reflecting on the essential differences
| between believing without evidence and understanding based
| on evidence?
|
| Obviously your statement is false. In fact, in the context
| you've used the words, the 2 things are opposites.
|

You're demonstrating my point. For you, science
absolutely cannot be questioned. It's objective
fact.

Oh really,
and you know that how?

Science is all about questioning.
Collect evidence, come to your best conclusion.
QUESTIONING is an essential part of the process.

Unlike it's opposite.

--
Dan Espen

| | Obviously your statement is false. In fact, in the context
| | you've used the words, the 2 things are opposites.
| |
|
| You're demonstrating my point. For you, science
| absolutely cannot be questioned. It's objective
| fact.
|
| Oh really,
| and you know that how?
|

You just told me. You say science is the opposite
of religion. That's a dogmatic statement, worthy only
of dogmatic, atheistic hysterics like Daniel Dennett
and his ilk, who are frightened by anything that falls
outside the purview of scientific materialism. The only
way it could be construed as coherent is if I assume
you mean that religion is no more and no less than
blind belief and that science is totally free of belief.
So you've dismissed much of the activity of humanity
throughout history as merely blind belief, apparently
without research or evidence.

Your implication that science is not subject to belief
can only be taken as irrational dogma. Science is practiced
by people, who are subject to irrational thought and
belief -- both conscious and non-conscious. Worse,
we're all subject to believing we're capable of logical
thought when we're often not. Further, science is limited
in its scope to what it can observe objectively. Do we
have astral bodies? Does God exist in any sense? The
true scientist would say we need other tools to ask
those questions because they're outside the scope of
science. But what more often happens is that the
scientist simply rules those questions irrelevant, by
virtue of their being unscientific! That's exactly the same
mind as the cardinal (pope?) who proclaimed that he
had no need to look through Galileo's telescope to confirm
the existence of craters on the moon because he already
knew that God would not create an imperfect moon with
craters. You *know* science is true and religion is
false, which is simply dogma.

| Science is all about questioning.
| Collect evidence, come to your best conclusion.
| QUESTIONING is an essential part of the process.
|
| Unlike it's opposite.
|
OK. Then why didn't you question the Oklahoma
study? And what are your evidence and conclusions
about GMOs and organic food? I'm not asking you to
discuss religion here. I'm only questioning the limits
of science and alleged science. Isn't that allowed as
a topic of scientific inquiry? Shouldn't we be able to
discuss something like GMOs and organic food as a
scientific topic?

On Tuesday, February 10, 2015 at 9:17:46 AM UTC-5, net cop wrote:
"Mayayana" writes:

| Chemophobia, I love it.
| Don't scare anyone telling them that there are chemicals in their food.
|
| I was just reading recently about how 80% of
| Americans are in favor of labeling food that contains DNA:
|
| http://tinyurl.com/p3catnx
|
| Since that number is at 80%, I must mention that everything that
| is alive contains DNA.
|

Be careful about feeling superior to 80% of the public.

First, the survey was done by Oklahoma State University
Department of Agricultural Economics. That is, a school
in the middle of farm country, where nearly everyone
has a vested interest in not labeling GMO foods. Why
do you think they did this survey in the first place?
It's propaganda masquerading as science -- business
as usual.

Second, the question was a trick question. It asked
whether people agreed with a government policy of
mandatory labeling of foods with DNA. The respondents
were led to believe that there was or might be such a
policy. The DNA question was used to offset the GMO
question and just happened to be the only nonsensical
question in the survey.

So what does the survey tell us? That most people are
not very knowledgeable about these things and don't
want to be seen as stupid, so they try to give what
they think will be an intelligent answer. That's interesting,
but the researchers are also trying to lead the reader
to a false conclusion that therefore opposition to GMO
is rooted in stupidity and ignorance. But shouldn't we
actually conclude that people need to be educated about
GMOs so that they can assess the issue sensibly? Unless,
of course, we have an irrational, ignorant propensity to
defend GMOs without having actually thought about the
issue ourselves. Or unless we don't feel that American
citizens have a right to have a say in regulation of the
food supply.

So 80% of people may be unsure what DNA is. Yet
probably 95%+ of people will assume a "scientific study"
is, indeed, scientific as long as it's given the appearance
of being so, with statistics, technical language, and so on.

How much of science is scientific? Given that science
is the closest thing modern society has to religion,

So, I'm reading and reading and wondering what all this
spew of words is about, then I get to the gem immediately
above.

Clearly you have an agenda or cognitive problems.

I think it's the former.

Are you capable of reflecting on the essential differences
between believing without evidence and understanding based
on evidence?

Obviously your statement is false. In fact, in the context
you've used the words, the 2 things are opposites.

But as long as you have an agenda, I don't think you can
see that.

--
Dan Espen

Good grief. "Science is the closest thing modern society has
to religion"? WTF? You're right, that's a classic. And then M
is telling us about GMO, glyphosate and God knows what else?

"Mayayana" writes:

| | Obviously your statement is false. In fact, in the context
| | you've used the words, the 2 things are opposites.
| |
|
| You're demonstrating my point. For you, science
| absolutely cannot be questioned. It's objective
| fact.
|
| Oh really,
| and you know that how?
|

You just told me. You say science is the opposite
of religion. That's a dogmatic statement,

No it's not.
I just gave you the reasoning behind my statement.
Can you recall where I mentioned an approach to EVIDENCE?

There's no dogma there at all.
As I said, scientists, and those that take a scientific
approach, (as opposed to a DOGMATIC approach) question
everything based on EVIDENCE.

(Sorry, but I feel the need to capitalize the words you
appear to not notice or understand.)

....snip barrage of words meant to obfuscate.

| Science is all about questioning.
| Collect evidence, come to your best conclusion.
| QUESTIONING is an essential part of the process.
|
| Unlike it's opposite.
|
OK. Then why didn't you question the Oklahoma
study? And what are your evidence and conclusions
about GMOs and organic food? I'm not asking you to
discuss religion here. I'm only questioning the limits
of science and alleged science. Isn't that allowed as
a topic of scientific inquiry? Shouldn't we be able to
discuss something like GMOs and organic food as a
scientific topic?

You appear to have me confused with someone else.

Let's see Oklahoma GMO study...maybe this:

http://canola.okstate.edu/gmofacts

So, what are my choices? Believe you or a study
that seems to be citing some numbers:

In the U.S. approximately 57% of all soybeans cultivated in 1999 were
genetically-modified, up from 42% in 1998 and only 7% in 1996.

So far, I think I'm going with the study.

You don't seem to be able to tell the difference between a belief
and a conclusion drawn from evidence.

As far as GMOs vs Organic (which I have not commented on
up to this point), I prefer not to worry. I think I'll live
longer not being afraid of everything.

I eat what I like.

I believe I preserve my health through activity,
not fear of what I eat.

--
Dan Espen

On Tuesday, February 10, 2015 at 12:40:25 PM UTC-5, net cop wrote:
"Mayayana" writes:

| | Obviously your statement is false. In fact, in the context
| | you've used the words, the 2 things are opposites.
| |
|
| You're demonstrating my point. For you, science
| absolutely cannot be questioned. It's objective
| fact.
|
| Oh really,
| and you know that how?
|

You just told me. You say science is the opposite
of religion. That's a dogmatic statement,

No it's not.
I just gave you the reasoning behind my statement.
Can you recall where I mentioned an approach to EVIDENCE?

There's no dogma there at all.
As I said, scientists, and those that take a scientific
approach, (as opposed to a DOGMATIC approach) question
everything based on EVIDENCE.


Once again Dan, of course you're right.



(Sorry, but I feel the need to capitalize the words you
appear to not notice or understand.)

...snip barrage of words meant to obfuscate.

| Science is all about questioning.
| Collect evidence, come to your best conclusion.
| QUESTIONING is an essential part of the process.
|
| Unlike it's opposite.
|
OK. Then why didn't you question the Oklahoma
study? And what are your evidence and conclusions
about GMOs and organic food? I'm not asking you to
discuss religion here. I'm only questioning the limits
of science and alleged science. Isn't that allowed as
a topic of scientific inquiry? Shouldn't we be able to
discuss something like GMOs and organic food as a
scientific topic?

You appear to have me confused with someone else.

Let's see Oklahoma GMO study...maybe this:

http://canola.okstate.edu/gmofacts

I don't know what "study" M's referring to either. All
I saw was a reference to a "survey". But I guess anyone who's
as confused as M is doesn't understand the difference between
an actual scientific study and a consumer survey. Good grief.

BTW, I'm still waiting for M to show me where Monsanto forced
farmers to use their seed. Or sued farmers where their non-GMO crop
was innocently contaminated by some Monsanto seed from a nearby farm
that was using it.





So, what are my choices? Believe you or a study
that seems to be citing some numbers:

In the U.S. approximately 57% of all soybeans cultivated in 1999 were
genetically-modified, up from 42% in 1998 and only 7% in 1996.

So far, I think I'm going with the study.

You don't seem to be able to tell the difference between a belief
and a conclusion drawn from evidence.

As far as GMOs vs Organic (which I have not commented on
up to this point), I prefer not to worry. I think I'll live
longer not being afraid of everything.

I eat what I like.

I believe I preserve my health through activity,
not fear of what I eat.

--
Dan Espen

+1

| There's no dogma there at all.
| As I said, scientists, and those that take a scientific
| approach, (as opposed to a DOGMATIC approach) question
| everything based on EVIDENCE.
|
OK. I explained it as much as I can.

| OK. Then why didn't you question the Oklahoma
| study? And what are your evidence and conclusions
| about GMOs and organic food? I'm not asking you to
| discuss religion here. I'm only questioning the limits
| of science and alleged science. Isn't that allowed as
| a topic of scientific inquiry? Shouldn't we be able to
| discuss something like GMOs and organic food as a
| scientific topic?
|
| You appear to have me confused with someone else.
|
| Let's see Oklahoma GMO study...maybe this:
|
| http://canola.okstate.edu/gmofacts

I'm talking about the study that you, yourself
brought up in your first post! You started out
making fun of public ignorance about science by
mentioning a survey in which 80% of people
thought DNA should be banned from food. But you
trusted the "science" and didn't look at the actual
survey, which is he

http://agecon.okstate.edu/faculty/publications/4975.pdf

I've already explained why the survey itself was
more pro-GMO propaganda than science. Anyone
who cares to follow up can look back up the thread.

| As far as GMOs vs Organic (which I have not commented on
| up to this point), I prefer not to worry. I think I'll live
| longer not being afraid of everything.
|

You equate avoidance of toxins and
knowledge of the food supply with fear? OK.
Not very scientific, but... we do have freedom
of religion around here, so I guess that's your
choice. At least it relates to the topic at
hand.

On Tuesday, February 10, 2015 at 2:33:24 PM UTC-5, Mayayana wrote:
| There's no dogma there at all.
| As I said, scientists, and those that take a scientific
| approach, (as opposed to a DOGMATIC approach) question
| everything based on EVIDENCE.
|
OK. I explained it as much as I can.

Yes, you sure did, when you posted this gem:

"Given that science is the closest thing modern society has to religion,"

After that idiocy, any remaining credibility you had regarding GMO,
or anything else went out the window.




| OK. Then why didn't you question the Oklahoma
| study? And what are your evidence and conclusions
| about GMOs and organic food? I'm not asking you to
| discuss religion here. I'm only questioning the limits
| of science and alleged science. Isn't that allowed as
| a topic of scientific inquiry? Shouldn't we be able to
| discuss something like GMOs and organic food as a
| scientific topic?
|
| You appear to have me confused with someone else.
|
| Let's see Oklahoma GMO study...maybe this:
|
| http://canola.okstate.edu/gmofacts

I'm talking about the study that you, yourself
brought up in your first post! You started out
making fun of public ignorance about science by
mentioning a survey in which 80% of people
thought DNA should be banned from food. But you
trusted the "science" and didn't look at the actual
survey, which is he

http://agecon.okstate.edu/faculty/publications/4975.pdf

I've already explained why the survey itself was
more pro-GMO propaganda than science. Anyone
who cares to follow up can look back up the thread.

There is a difference between scientific studies and surveys
of consumer opinion. Good grief.




| As far as GMOs vs Organic (which I have not commented on
| up to this point), I prefer not to worry. I think I'll live
| longer not being afraid of everything.
|

You equate avoidance of toxins and
knowledge of the food supply with fear? OK.
Not very scientific,

You wouldn't know what's scientific from a hole in the ground.

Let's review some of your bogus claims:

Monsanto is forcing farmers to use their seed.

Monsanto is suing farmers where some GMO from an nearby farm
using Monsanto GMO innocently contaminated their crop.

The Supreme Court affirmed the appeals court case where
Monsanto won, because of the 5 conservatives.

The last one I already demolished, because it only takes 4 votes
on the court to take the case. Obviously the libs agreed with
letting the appeals court stand in Monsanto's favor.

Still waiting for proof of the first two.

On 02/10/2015 10:40 AM, Dan Espen wrote:
As far as GMOs vs Organic (which I have not commented on
up to this point), I prefer not to worry. I think I'll live
longer not being afraid of everything.

I eat what I like.

I believe I preserve my health through activity,
not fear of what I eat.

Once you realize how nasty GMO food is, will you continue to eat it?

On 2/10/2015 12:26 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Tuesday, February 10, 2015 at 9:17:46 AM UTC-5, net cop wrote:
"Mayayana" writes:

| Chemophobia, I love it.
| Don't scare anyone telling them that there are chemicals in their food.
|
| I was just reading recently about how 80% of
| Americans are in favor of labeling food that contains DNA:
|
| http://tinyurl.com/p3catnx
|
| Since that number is at 80%, I must mention that everything that
| is alive contains DNA.
|

Be careful about feeling superior to 80% of the public.

First, the survey was done by Oklahoma State University
Department of Agricultural Economics. That is, a school
in the middle of farm country, where nearly everyone
has a vested interest in not labeling GMO foods. Why
do you think they did this survey in the first place?
It's propaganda masquerading as science -- business
as usual.

Second, the question was a trick question. It asked
whether people agreed with a government policy of
mandatory labeling of foods with DNA. The respondents
were led to believe that there was or might be such a
policy. The DNA question was used to offset the GMO
question and just happened to be the only nonsensical
question in the survey.

So what does the survey tell us? That most people are
not very knowledgeable about these things and don't
want to be seen as stupid, so they try to give what
they think will be an intelligent answer. That's interesting,
but the researchers are also trying to lead the reader
to a false conclusion that therefore opposition to GMO
is rooted in stupidity and ignorance. But shouldn't we
actually conclude that people need to be educated about
GMOs so that they can assess the issue sensibly? Unless,
of course, we have an irrational, ignorant propensity to
defend GMOs without having actually thought about the
issue ourselves. Or unless we don't feel that American
citizens have a right to have a say in regulation of the
food supply.

So 80% of people may be unsure what DNA is. Yet
probably 95%+ of people will assume a "scientific study"
is, indeed, scientific as long as it's given the appearance
of being so, with statistics, technical language, and so on.

How much of science is scientific? Given that science
is the closest thing modern society has to religion,

So, I'm reading and reading and wondering what all this
spew of words is about, then I get to the gem immediately
above.

Clearly you have an agenda or cognitive problems.

I think it's the former.

Are you capable of reflecting on the essential differences
between believing without evidence and understanding based
on evidence?

Obviously your statement is false. In fact, in the context
you've used the words, the 2 things are opposites.

But as long as you have an agenda, I don't think you can
see that.

--
Dan Espen

Good grief. "Science is the closest thing modern society has
to religion"? WTF? You're right, that's a classic. And then M
is telling us about GMO, glyphosate and God knows what else?


All that is lacking is a response from Fran Farmer

On 02/10/2015 07:30 AM, Dan Espen wrote:
Science is all about questioning.
Collect evidence, come to your best conclusion.
QUESTIONING is an essential part of the process.

Tell that to the global warming crowd. Wow. They
explode when someone tries to question.

On 2/10/2015 10:45 PM, T wrote:
On 02/10/2015 07:30 AM, Dan Espen wrote:
Science is all about questioning.
Collect evidence, come to your best conclusion.
QUESTIONING is an essential part of the process.

Tell that to the global warming crowd. Wow. They
explode when someone tries to question.

Wonder what global warming guys and Muslims
have in common?

--
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On 02/10/2015 08:08 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 2/10/2015 10:45 PM, T wrote:
On 02/10/2015 07:30 AM, Dan Espen wrote:
Science is all about questioning.
Collect evidence, come to your best conclusion.
QUESTIONING is an essential part of the process.

Tell that to the global warming crowd. Wow. They
explode when someone tries to question.

Wonder what global warming guys and Muslims
have in common?


Its both their religion?

On 02/10/2015 09:08 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 2/10/2015 10:45 PM, T wrote:
On 02/10/2015 07:30 AM, Dan Espen wrote:
Science is all about questioning.
Collect evidence, come to your best conclusion.
QUESTIONING is an essential part of the process.

Tell that to the global warming crowd. Wow. They
explode when someone tries to question.

Wonder what global warming guys and Muslims
have in common?


They both have dementia?

http://www.growntohealnutrition.com/...E-D79E2656AF99

| Science is all about questioning.
| Collect evidence, come to your best conclusion.
| QUESTIONING is an essential part of the process.
|
| Tell that to the global warming crowd. Wow. They
| explode when someone tries to question.

That's a good example. Superficial, policy science
just makes people think less of science in general.
Probably most scientists in the field think that global
warming is happening and that we're causing it. That
seems reasonable. We should come up with a less
wasteful lifestyle, anyway. Why don't we make that
the focus? But then the dogma comes out, claiming
that "we know" that humans are causing global
warming -- something we couldn't possibly know,
simply because we don't fully understand how climate
works. Then the piggyback research starts, with
scientists jumping onboard the issue du jour because
there's lots of funding for things like studying satellite
photos of polar icecaps.... over and over again. And
the media begin a long, droning report of "scientific"
results, with some studies directly contradicting other
similar studies.
Meanwhile, the polarization of the quasi-science
junta creates a polarized opposite: a large, vocal
Luddite mob yelling nonsense.

But I found something especially for you, T. I think
this will restore your faith in science. It's all in the
link text.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...y-cholesterol/

On 2015-02-11, T wrote:

Tell that to the global warming crowd. Wow. They
explode when someone tries to question.

As opposed to the anti global warming crowd, who merely deny
everything?

nb

On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 at 8:55:00 AM UTC-5, Mayayana wrote:
| Science is all about questioning.
| Collect evidence, come to your best conclusion.
| QUESTIONING is an essential part of the process.
|
| Tell that to the global warming crowd. Wow. They
| explode when someone tries to question.

That's a good example. Superficial, policy science
just makes people think less of science in general.

Say what you may about global warming, there is nothing
superficial about the scientific evidence. I agree, you can
debate the evidence, what it means, but it's not superficial,
it's extensive. Even the global warming skeptics seem to
recognize that the earth has warmed about 1 deg C over the
last hundred years.



Probably most scientists in the field think that global
warming is happening and that we're causing it. That
seems reasonable.

Why? Because you're a hippie?

We should come up with a less
wasteful lifestyle, anyway.

Bingo.


Why don't we make that
the focus? But then the dogma comes out, claiming
that "we know" that humans are causing global
warming -- something we couldn't possibly know,
simply because we don't fully understand how climate
works. Then the piggyback research starts, with
scientists jumping onboard the issue du jour because
there's lots of funding for things like studying satellite
photos of polar icecaps.... over and over again. And
the media begin a long, droning report of "scientific"
results, with some studies directly contradicting other
similar studies.

That part is true, except that I don't see the media
reporting the studies that contradict.

Meanwhile, the polarization of the quasi-science
junta creates a polarized opposite: a large, vocal
Luddite mob yelling nonsense.

But I found something especially for you, T. I think
this will restore your faith in science. It's all in the
link text.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...y-cholesterol/

That science gets it wrong occasionally, doesn't mean that all
science now has the credibility of religion.

On 2/11/2015 10:40 AM, notbob wrote:
On 2015-02-11, T wrote:

Tell that to the global warming crowd. Wow. They
explode when someone tries to question.

As opposed to the anti global warming crowd, who merely deny
everything?

nb


No, we don't.

That global warming stuff is a natural cycle that the
Earth provides for us. It isn't caused by emissions,
totally not true. I deny that mankind is changing the
climate, except for very small areas like oil spills.
And then it's ground contamination, not climate.

-
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On 2/11/2015 11:10 AM, trader_4 wrote:
Say what you may about global warming, there is nothing
superficial about the scientific evidence. I agree, you can
debate the evidence, what it means, but it's not superficial,
it's extensive. Even the global warming skeptics seem to
recognize that the earth has warmed about 1 deg C over the
last hundred years.



It was just on talk radio. The scientists
changed the numbers when data didn't fit
the preconceived politically correct agenda.

-
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

| Tell that to the global warming crowd. Wow. They
| explode when someone tries to question.
|
| As opposed to the anti global warming crowd, who merely deny
| everything?
|
| No, we don't.
|

You're doing exactly that in your next paragraph.
Why would you deny that you deny current global
warming theory while you're denying it?

| That global warming stuff is a natural cycle that the
| Earth provides for us.

That's a good one. Is Mormonism really so
anthropocentric that it views God as a benevolent
fellow who put the Earth here for our pleasure?
Or have you simply done more research than the
global warming scientists?

I have a 6 foot snow drift on my deck right now,
and sore muscles from shoveling. I really don't think
"Earth" has provided that for *me*. If it did then
Earth and I seem to have a communication
problem.

On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 at 11:19:56 AM UTC-5, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 2/11/2015 11:10 AM, trader_4 wrote:
Say what you may about global warming, there is nothing
superficial about the scientific evidence. I agree, you can
debate the evidence, what it means, but it's not superficial,
it's extensive. Even the global warming skeptics seem to
recognize that the earth has warmed about 1 deg C over the
last hundred years.



It was just on talk radio. The scientists
changed the numbers when data didn't fit
the preconceived politically correct agenda.


Just to be clear, you vetted that, right? Traced it back
to the source, the actual evidence. I can find all kinds
of stuff on talk radio.

On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 at 11:40:47 AM UTC-5, Mayayana wrote:
| Tell that to the global warming crowd. Wow. They
| explode when someone tries to question.
|
| As opposed to the anti global warming crowd, who merely deny
| everything?
|
| No, we don't.
|

You're doing exactly that in your next paragraph.
Why would you deny that you deny current global
warming theory while you're denying it?

| That global warming stuff is a natural cycle that the
| Earth provides for us.

That's a good one. Is Mormonism really so
anthropocentric that it views God as a benevolent
fellow who put the Earth here for our pleasure?
Or have you simply done more research than the
global warming scientists?

I have a 6 foot snow drift on my deck right now,
and sore muscles from shoveling. I really don't think
"Earth" has provided that for *me*. If it did then
Earth and I seem to have a communication
problem.

What? A 6 foot snow drift with global warming? It is
entirely possible that the current warming, over the last
century, is due to natural events and not CO2. For
the last 15 years, global temp has been going sideways,
despite all the models and experts telling us that it had
to go up. Of course now, all the "experts" are making
excuses for their forecasts of a rise.

On 02/11/2015 05:58 AM, Mayayana wrote:
But I found something especially for you, T. I think
this will restore your faith in science. It's all in the
link text.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...y-cholesterol/


Yippee! Thank you. I does!

On 02/11/2015 08:10 AM, trader_4 wrote:
Probably most scientists in the field think that global
warming is happening and that we're causing it. That
seems reasonable.

Why? Because you're a hippie?

Trader,

Keep it in the arena of ideas. How ofter do you
find someone on the other side that will actually
dialog like a gentleman with us? Mostly, the
other side just name calls. She does not.
Be nice!

-T

| Why? Because you're a hippie?
|
| Trader,
|
| Keep it in the arena of ideas. How ofter do you
| find someone on the other side that will actually
| dialog like a gentleman with us? Mostly, the
| other side just name calls. She does not.
| Be nice!
|
She? No. It's Mayayana, Sanskrit for "vehicle
of illusion", which seemed like a suitable pen name.
It's not Maryanna.

Not to worry. Trader_4 doesn't operate in the
arena of ideas. Nor does he value basic civility
or kindness to others. Perhaps he has reasons
for his meanness and resentment. Or maybe he's
just panicked at getting old. (Like the rest of us.
I don't know. But that's his problem to work out.
Since his posts are almost always mean-spirited
and rarely helpful, I just ignore them.

On 02/11/2015 10:26 AM, Mayayana wrote:
She? No. It's Mayayana, Sanskrit for "vehicle
of illusion", which seemed like a suitable pen name.
It's not Maryanna.

Okay, so do I refer to you in the feminine or masculine?

Not to worry. Trader_4 doesn't operate in the
arena of ideas.

He actually does, but slips every now and then,
as do we all.

On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 11:48:30 -0800, T wrote:

On 02/11/2015 10:26 AM, Mayayana wrote:
She? No. It's Mayayana, Sanskrit for "vehicle
of illusion", which seemed like a suitable pen name.
It's not Maryanna.

Okay, so do I refer to you in the feminine or masculine?


You could use "gal-boy"!

Used before queer or gay became popular

| She? No. It's Mayayana, Sanskrit for "vehicle
| of illusion", which seemed like a suitable pen name.
| It's not Maryanna.
|
| Okay, so do I refer to you in the feminine or masculine?
|

?? As I just said, I'm not a she. I'm a man.
A 59 y.o. carpenter and remodeling contractor.
I'm assuming you thought I was a woman
because of the name I use in newsgroups. That's
not a woman's name. It's just a Sanskrit word
I made up in order to have a unique pen name.

On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 17:11:48 -0500, "Mayayana"
wrote:

| She? No. It's Mayayana, Sanskrit for "vehicle
| of illusion", which seemed like a suitable pen name.
| It's not Maryanna.
|
| Okay, so do I refer to you in the feminine or masculine?
|

?? As I just said, I'm not a she. I'm a man.
A 59 y.o. carpenter and remodeling contractor.
I'm assuming you thought I was a woman
because of the name I use in newsgroups. That's
not a woman's name. It's just a Sanskrit word
I made up in order to have a unique pen name.


"Isn't that special"?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmwqnqL3Hbg

On 2/11/2015 11:45 AM, trader_4 wrote:
It was just on talk radio. The scientists
changed the numbers when data didn't fit
the preconceived politically correct agenda.


Just to be clear, you vetted that, right? Traced it back
to the source, the actual evidence. I can find all kinds
of stuff on talk radio.


Why? it agreed with me.

-
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On 2/11/2015 12:28 PM, T wrote:
Keep it in the arena of ideas. How ofter do you
find someone on the other side that will actually
dialog like a gentleman with us? Mostly, the
other side just name calls. She does not.
Be nice!

-T


Not many liberals can stay on topic. I've
also noticed the endless dumping new distractions
into conversations, hurled accusations, name
calling, and it gets bad after that.

-
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 at 1:23:34 PM UTC-5, Mayayana wrote:
| Why? Because you're a hippie?
|
| Trader,
|
| Keep it in the arena of ideas. How ofter do you
| find someone on the other side that will actually
| dialog like a gentleman with us? Mostly, the
| other side just name calls. She does not.
| Be nice!
|
She? No. It's Mayayana, Sanskrit for "vehicle
of illusion", which seemed like a suitable pen name.
It's not Maryanna.

Not to worry. Trader_4 doesn't operate in the
arena of ideas.


BS. I've given you cite after cite that shows factually you are
very wrong. A recent example is your BS claim that it was a
conservative Supreme Court that let Monsanto get away with something
and that was a problem that needed fixing.
I quickly found that while you're blaming conservatives, the fact
is the SC refused to take the case, let the appeals court ruling,
which sided with Monsanto, stand. At least that's what I found for
the only recent case of relevance and as usual you never even told
us which case you're actually talking about. It only takes 4 votes for
the SC to take the case. So, even the libs on the court agreed with
letting the Monsanto win stand.

I also issued the challenge for you to back up your claim where you
said Monsanto forced farmers to use their seed. Or where they sued
a farmer where some Monsanto GMO seed innocently contaminated their
crops. No response from you on either. If it's really going on, there
should be plenty of examples.

And then you posted that whopper about science being the closest thing
we have to religion today. WTF? Nuff said.

Just the facts.





Nor does he value basic civility
or kindness to others. Perhaps he has reasons
for his meanness and resentment.

I just don't like ignorant lib hippies.



Or maybe he's
just panicked at getting old. (Like the rest of us.
I don't know. But that's his problem to work out.
Since his posts are almost always mean-spirited
and rarely helpful, I just ignore them.

Ignoring the truth, the basic facts that fly in the face
of your BS, that's why you don't learn. As to my posts always
being mean-spirited and not helpful, that's a lie too. I've
helped people here for years, before your dumb ass ever showed up.

On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 at 12:28:56 PM UTC-5, T wrote:
On 02/11/2015 08:10 AM, trader_4 wrote:
Probably most scientists in the field think that global
warming is happening and that we're causing it. That
seems reasonable.

Why? Because you're a hippie?

Trader,

Keep it in the arena of ideas.

It's impossible to keep it in the arena of ideas when the other
side makes crap up, has nothing to back it up, and then refuses to
acknowledge the actual facts when presented to them. See M's claim
blaming the conservatives on the SC for the Monsanto ruling, for
example. Or the claim that science is the closest thing we have to a
religion. There is only so much BS that I can tolerate.



How ofter do you
find someone on the other side that will actually
dialog like a gentleman with us? Mostly, the
other side just name calls. She does not.
Be nice!

-T

The nam

On 2/11/2015 11:43 AM, Mayayana wrote:
That's a good one. Is Mormonism really so
anthropocentric that it views God as a benevolent
fellow who put the Earth here for our pleasure?
Or have you simply done more research than the
global warming scientists?


My father is an editor. It's rare when someone
gets me with a new word, but this is one such
moment. Fortunately, I'm not very misogynist.


anthropocentric
[an-thruh-poh-sen-trik]

Examples
Word Origin

adjective
1. regarding the human being as the central
fact of the universe.
2. assuming human beings to be the final aim
and end of the universe.
3. viewing and interpreting everything in
terms of human experience and values.

-
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On 2/11/2015 11:43 AM, Mayayana wrote:

| That global warming stuff is a natural cycle that the
| Earth provides for us.

That's a good one. Is Mormonism really so
anthropocentric that it views God as a benevolent
fellow who put the Earth here for our pleasure?
Or have you simply done more research than the
global warming scientists?

I have a 6 foot snow drift on my deck right now,
and sore muscles from shoveling. I really don't think
"Earth" has provided that for *me*. If it did then
Earth and I seem to have a communication
problem.


Much of the Earth experience is for our benefit,
and a lot of it is just "well, stuff happens".
Sorry about all that snow. Where are you? I'm in
western NY, USA.

Have you tried prayer, and then listening? Might
find out why the snow drift.

-
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..