The significance of non-human life

[SmoothOper]

Monsanto has, BTW, made a binding promise that it will never sue for accidental contamination, which is there defined as "less than 1% of the total crop is contaminated".

Wouldn't that invalidate the patent though? I think enforcement is required, for the patent to be valid, sounds like Monsanto wants to outlaw planting any non-Monsanto seeds to me, I can't imagine a cross pollination being less than one percent for many generations given traits like pest residence have so much advantage. I could however imagine a situation where after multiple generations the crops would all have the BT trait, just like the round-up ready trait the farmers were able to select for.

[DrStraw]

You have really been brainwashed by the media, haven't you Herman?

He's been providing detailed posts displaying his knowledge of the subject, citing credible sources, and researching the validity of other people's sources. Instead of refuting the actual arguments he proposes, you attack his character.

Try to view this from a 3rd person's perspective - which one of you would seem like an informed, critical thinker, and which one would seem to be brainwashed?

It reaches a point where there is no further point in trying to refute people who quota bogus sources (that is anything posted by the MSM) and try to claim that is valid. Don't you get it? The MSM is paid for by the very people it purports to defend. Of course it supports them! Let's start quoting independent researchers who are not funded by the corporate giants. Nothing has any credibility until its funding is revealed. I am so tired of trying to argue this point with people (yes, I have to do it frequently) that I am passed the point of trying to waste my time on it. Just do the research yourself, and remember to ask who it paying for the research.

[SmoothOper]

You have really been brainwashed by the media, haven't you Herman?

He's been providing detailed posts displaying his knowledge of the subject, citing credible sources, and researching the validity of other people's sources. Instead of refuting the actual arguments he proposes, you attack his character.

Try to view this from a 3rd person's perspective - which one of you would seem like an informed, critical thinker, and which one would seem to be brainwashed?

It reaches a point where there is no further point in trying to refute people who quota bogus sources (that is anything posted by the MSM) and try to claim that is valid. Don't you get it? The MSM is paid for by the very people it purports to defend. Of course it supports them! Let's start quoting independent researchers who are not funded by the corporate giants. Nothing has any credibility until its funding is revealed. I am so tired of trying to argue this point with people (yes, I have to do it frequently) that I am passed the point of trying to waste my time on it. Just do the research yourself, and remember to ask who it paying for the research.

I agree. I find the scotch tape essays annoying. L19 seems to be especially prone to this form of communication where we cite/link several articles and write a five paragraph essay with very little content or a subtle contradiction.

[illluck]

You have really been brainwashed by the media, haven't you Herman?

He's been providing detailed posts displaying his knowledge of the subject, citing credible sources, and researching the validity of other people's sources. Instead of refuting the actual arguments he proposes, you attack his character.

Try to view this from a 3rd person's perspective - which one of you would seem like an informed, critical thinker, and which one would seem to be brainwashed?

It reaches a point where there is no further point in trying to refute people who quota bogus sources (that is anything posted by the MSM) and try to claim that is valid. Don't you get it? The MSM is paid for by the very people it purports to defend. Of course it supports them! Let's start quoting independent researchers who are not funded by the corporate giants. Nothing has any credibility until its funding is revealed. I am so tired of trying to argue this point with people (yes, I have to do it frequently) that I am passed the point of trying to waste my time on it. Just do the research yourself, and remember to ask who it paying for the research.

Wouldn't it make more sense to look at the argument and evidence themselves instead of trying to dichotomize studies by their funding? If you get down to it, every researcher has an incentive for a study - the idea is that the stance that is best supported by evidence eventually prevails. To brush away results incongruent with your view simply because they are "funded by the corporate giants" is akin to putting your fingers in your ears while singing "la-la-la" when you hear something you don't want to hear.

[SmoothOper]

It reaches a point where there is no further point in trying to refute people who quota bogus sources (that is anything posted by the MSM) and try to claim that is valid. Don't you get it? The MSM is paid for by the very people it purports to defend. Of course it supports them! Let's start quoting independent researchers who are not funded by the corporate giants. Nothing has any credibility until its funding is revealed. I am so tired of trying to argue this point with people (yes, I have to do it frequently) that I am passed the point of trying to waste my time on it. Just do the research yourself, and remember to ask who it paying for the research.

Wouldn't it make more sense to look at the argument and evidence themselves instead of trying to dichotomize studies by their funding? If you get down to it, every researcher has an incentive for a study - the idea is that the stance that is best supported by evidence eventually prevails. To brush away results incongruent with your view simply because they are "funded by the corporate giants" is akin to putting your fingers in your ears while singing "la-la-la" when you hear something you don't want to hear.

No, researchers at corporations are unable to report negative findings. It is not science.

[Mike Novack]

No, researchers at corporations are unable to report negative findings. It is not science.

We really have gotten very far afield from the original topic!

However you really need to be careful about things like the above vs things like what was previously said about grants. Not the same situation at all.

It is possible that a scientist working for some corporation might have signed an agreement with what could or could not be done with anything discovered while employed there. Even if not, a minor negative result wouldn't be worth leaving the job to publish. <<something really big* would>>

But just being financed by a grant, that's very different. The only "hold" the corporation would have would be to withhold future grants if they didn't like the results this scientist came up with. Restrictions on use of the grant funds would be on the area to be researched, perhaps materials and methods being financed by the grant, but certainly not results.

* This comes up every now and then with conspiracy folks. Stories about some major breakthrough based on discovery of new laws of physics being suppressed by an energy company. You can always dismiss as poppycock for a very simple reason. A new law of physics? There is no amount of money that would tempt any scientist to agree with suppressing this sure path to his or her seat among the immortals like Galileo, Newton, Einstein, etc. Not going to be poor anyway; Nobel Prize, chair at a major university, etc, The major vs minor distinction is important.

[SmoothOper]

No, researchers at corporations are unable to report negative findings. It is not science.

We really have gotten very far afield from the original topic!

However you really need to be careful about things like the above vs things like what was previously said about grants. Not the same situation at all.

It is possible that a scientist working for some corporation might have signed an agreement with what could or could not be done with anything discovered while employed there. Even if not, a minor negative result wouldn't be worth leaving the job to publish. <<something really big* would>>

But just being financed by a grant, that's very different. The only "hold" the corporation would have would be to withhold future grants if they didn't like the results this scientist came up with. Restrictions on use of the grant funds would be on the area to be researched, perhaps materials and methods being financed by the grant, but certainly not results.

* This comes up every now and then with conspiracy folks. Stories about some major breakthrough based on discovery of new laws of physics being suppressed by an energy company. You can always dismiss as poppycock for a very simple reason. A new law of physics? There is no amount of money that would tempt any scientist to agree with suppressing this sure path to his or her seat among the immortals like Galileo, Newton, Einstein, etc. Not going to be poor anyway; Nobel Prize, chair at a major university, etc, The major vs minor distinction is important.

Would a "scientist" ever accept hush money... Nah, it's not science.

[logan]

This video might be helpful to some. It's called, "Battling Bad Science" and talks a bit about the differences between 'industry' vs 'independent' funded research in a short and lively manner.

Ben Goldacre: Battling Bad Science

[DrStraw]

What would happen, if no animals would eat other animals?

_________________
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Are ads permitted in the signature?

EDIT: I removed the ad in the signature, which was later removed from the user's profile.

[Bonobo]

What would happen, if no animals would eat other animals?

_________________
[spam buzzwords deleted]
[spam buzzwords deleted]
[spam buzzwords deleted]

Are ads permitted in the signature?

That post has been reported (I know b/c I tried to report it and was told it already had been reported), and now it looks like this:

What would happen, if no animals would eat other animals?

_________________
I didn't read the terms of service.

and the profile doesn’t exist anymore.


Greetz, Tom

<edit>

I was too quick when I wrote “the profile doesn’t exist anymore” … had only moved my mouse over the nickname and overlooked that the link to the profile is under the post … I’d actually prefer such posters to be removed from L19.

</edit>

[Mef]

It reaches a point where there is no further point in trying to refute people who quota bogus sources

Yes, those pesky court rulings are terrible sources for discussions about the legal landscape! Likewise, evidence-based research is a poor choice because the evidence disagrees with you.

[DrStraw]

It reaches a point where there is no further point in trying to refute people who quota bogus sources

Yes, those pesky court rulings are terrible sources for discussions about the legal landscape! Likewise, evidence-based research is a poor choice because the evidence disagrees with you.

Wrong on both counts. Court rulings are often swayed by the politics of the day, not by Constitutional considerations. Read up on the rulings of Chief Justice Marshall if you doubt my claim. And the "evidence" in research is more often based on who sponsored it than anything else. Most research results which contradict the interests of the sponsor are supressed.

We live in a corrupt world in which very little is what it claims to be. Do not believe anything anymore unless you can find independent, unbiased corroboration. Above all, do not believe anything which is reported by the mainstream media.

[Mef]

It reaches a point where there is no further point in trying to refute people who quota bogus sources

Yes, those pesky court rulings are terrible sources for discussions about the legal landscape! Likewise, evidence-based research is a poor choice because the evidence disagrees with you.

Wrong on both counts. Court rulings are often swayed by the politics of the day, not by Constitutional considerations. Read up on the rulings of Chief Justice Marshall if you doubt my claim. And the "evidence" in research is more often based on who sponsored it than anything else. Most research results which contradict the interests of the sponsor are supressed.

We live in a corrupt world in which very little is what it claims to be. Do not believe anything anymore unless you can find independent, unbiased corroboration. Above all, do not believe anything which is reported by the mainstream media.

So just to confirm, you have no evidence to support your position, however this distinct lack of evidence is the justification for why it must be true?

Likewise, in a common law system, you feel that the text of rulings from the supreme court should not be used as a guideline for what constitutes law of the land?

[DrStraw]

So just to confirm, you have no evidence to support your position, however this distinct lack of evidence is the justification for why it must be true?

Likewise, in a common law system, you feel that the text of rulings from the supreme court should not be used as a guideline for what constitutes law of the land?

Correct. The law of the land and the Constitution are two different things. The Constitution is what the laws of the country are supposed to be based on. The law of the land at any given time, as passed by the legislators, is based on what is currently expedient for those in power to declare. Many of the laws which are passed these days violate the Constitution. If you really want a list I could provide hundreds of examples. The Supreme Court has been corrupt for two hundred years. What else would you expect when it is full of political appointees?

As for your first sentence, there is so much evidence around if you will just take the trouble to look that it is not worth my time trying to refute your statement.

[Mef]

As for your first sentence, there is so much evidence around if you will just take the trouble to look that it is not worth my time trying to refute your statement.

Ignoring the silliness about our legal system...

Can you please point to one evidence-driven source? I don't need a full rundown, but if there is so much evidence around, surely one credible source isn't terribly taxing...