That’s because you don’t understand science isn’t a matter of just learning “facts” but understanding *why* we know something is true.

That might fly if it weren’t for the fact that drugs that test well in the lab and in human studies are constantly being recalled for being dangerous once they get out into widespread use. What happens in your laboratory, let alone your theoretical models, is not even close to being 100% predictive of what happens when your controlled conditions intersect with real life.

We don’t pick our own fruits and veggies. We can’t easily know much about them, and so labels stand in for direct experience. If our preferences are rooted in a more conservative standard of risk analysis than those of Monsanto, the FDA, Congress, or you, then why should our standards not be served by labels at least as well as Jews, Muslims, and dieters?

And if our preferences relate to anti-corporate or locavore tendencies, why shouldn’t we have access to that information as well? If such labels aren’t mandated, then at the very least they ought not be mandated against. And they certainly should not be so vigorously resisted by the companies which profit from aggressive modification; it just stinks.

Serge Lange, a math professor at Yale, wrote an interesting book about how a poll he received in the late ’70s that was claiming to be sampling the American professoriate had poll questions that were skewed to show professors had a conservative bent.

But for all that this may be politically irresponsible, it has nothing to do with a liberal war on science.

Most of their “reasoning” (if you can call it that) overlap between groups. What’s really interesting is the divergence – how the different sides occasionally split on different vaccines. (e.g. Gardasil)—— at risk of using a really stupid term

It’s not about “conflating science and the interests of industry”; this is the same nonsense that anti-vaxxers say — that supporters of vaccination are shills of Big Pharma. They don’t get that the influence goes *the other way* — *from* science *to* industry. I, and the majority of scientists who don’t work for industry have no financial gain in supporting industry.

Also, it *was* technically validated. We had a LiFTR running for several years. In this country. Here’s some lunchtime viewing: http://youtu.be/lG1YjDdI_c8

But I wouldn’t put too much stock in any definition from a country that declares an egg-laying duck creature to be a “mammal.”

Amniote to be precise.

As memoid notes, the classical definition is in widespread use outside the English-speaking world.  You can keep arguing with this fact but maybe you should just admit that you’re wrong on this one and let it go.

Frankly, I think my right to know what it is I’m putting in my body vastly outweighs your imaginary concerns about “dishonest labeling” (as if that would even be a change to the status quo).  Especially since I have this sense that Monsanto and ConAgra aren’t necessarily trying to feed me healthy foods or promote good stewardship of the earth.

And no, this is nothing like the “teach the controversy” bullshit in the evolution debate, but thanks for playing.

Again, when you try to hide from me what it is I’m purchasing I will tend not to trust you and to oppose you in any legal and ethical way that I can. I’m pretty pro-science but if you keep conflating science and the interests of industry then don’t be surprised if you start seeing more anti-science attitudes around.

Sure you are, boss…

A strong republican demographic, with a problem area.

The idea is to negate all issues except those few you want people to vote on (eg dislike for taxes).

Science magazines are a great place for such articles because they hit the target audience very specifically. You would definitely not want something like this to run in an evangelical christian interest magazine, they get the article about what a great job the party is doing fending off the godless scientists highfalutin baloney.

IMO this kind of message targeting has been a key strength for the right in the US over the past few decades. Evangelicals have had an entire parallel distribution network for newspapers, magazines, books, music, and movies for decades which doesn’t mix with the mainstream much at all and they tend to willfully wall themselves up in it. Going forward this is getting easier to do for other groups due to new communication media.

Actual leftiness? Not so much.

I do speak furriner, and I can tell you that the definition is a different one elsewhere. Also this side of the Enlightenment.

Thanks for filling me in though!

To be fair his discussion is about the Liberal “Armageddon on Science” (however you do that), he fails miserably to demonstrate anything approaching that, even if you grant him that Liberals are being mean and unfair to Monsanto and the politics of the GMO industry at large.