OK - where to begin? I have a feeling passion and philosophy is going to make this an intense discussion. It already has! But, as the saying goes, “if you’re taking flak you must be hitting close to the target”.
First. Science MUST be the pursuit of truth. When we find that a particular area of science is not being truthful and scrupulously honest, its repute and its ability to speak with authority falls apart very quickly. It’s the same for business. We’ve all seen lots of examples of it. The tobacco industry is the prime example. AND because the basis of science IS the pursuit of truth, purveyors of many things try to be scientists, or at least masquerade as scientists. For example, someone should ask Al Gore if he is a professional climate scientist or a professional climate activist. His answer and body language would be interesting. Is David Suzuki a scientist or an economist - or a professional crusader? Why does he use his particular science credentials to try and demonstrate he knows with absolute certainty and is truthful about everything he promotes - including climatic and economic predictions?
Food production, nutrition, climate, pharmaceuticals, organic chemistry, inorganic chemistry, physics, mathematics. All these ‘things’ (and more) are building blocks of science or a result of scientific processes. All these disciplines are completely objective, and must strive to be. If they don’t, convenience, subjectivity, and even deception creep in. Subjectivity, because of its very nature, is what science strives to eliminate in its pursuit of knowledge and truth.
So I go back to basics to form my views. Because I’m NOT a scientist, that’s where I have to start. I have basic questions. Are genetically engineered food and pharmaceutical products less safe than those produced by other scientific methodologies? Where is the evidence, even of significant risk? Are “inorganic” crops, food, and pharmaceutical products safer than “organic” ones(interesting, if not misleading terms in themselves)? Where is the evidence? Without evidence statements, assertions, and advertisements are just opinions or claims, not facts.
Until there is evidence that there are scientific problems or scientific benefits that arise as a result of various methodologies and products, all have equal standing. Any and all real or perceived benefits are then subjective, and not science based. And once we enter into the world of subjectivity, truth becomes secondary and trust is lost.
When trust is lost, what are the costs? To whom do the costs belong - are they accurately distributed?
One final thought for now. Subjectivity is fine; in certain things. I’m completely subjective about a lot of my choices. My spouse for example! My taste in music and art. Even the foods I enjoy (as opposed to the ones that are good for me!). Where I am a consumer, I am allowed to be subjective. But where I’m a producer and a marketer, I believe I must be scrupulously honest and truthful. And that can only be derived through science and its pursuit of truth. I don’t want agriculture to suffer the setbacks and costs of other industries or businesses where “truth in advertising”, indeed truth in everything they do, is not a hallmark of their business ethic. Enron was in the business of trading energy. Bre-X was in the business of gold mining. Madoff was in the business of investing. Those were individual businesses. Tobacco is a whole industry. I’m sure they didn’t start down their slippery slopes with the “big lie”. In each case, they likely found it expedient to start with small deceptions; things where maybe even initially nobody got hurt or the costs were minimal. A saying again comes to mind, "Oh what a tangled web we weave, whenever we practice......"
This is getting too long, so that’s all for now. Plus, I feel like I'm on a high horse, and I strive to not make that a big part of my character!
First. Science MUST be the pursuit of truth. When we find that a particular area of science is not being truthful and scrupulously honest, its repute and its ability to speak with authority falls apart very quickly. It’s the same for business. We’ve all seen lots of examples of it. The tobacco industry is the prime example. AND because the basis of science IS the pursuit of truth, purveyors of many things try to be scientists, or at least masquerade as scientists. For example, someone should ask Al Gore if he is a professional climate scientist or a professional climate activist. His answer and body language would be interesting. Is David Suzuki a scientist or an economist - or a professional crusader? Why does he use his particular science credentials to try and demonstrate he knows with absolute certainty and is truthful about everything he promotes - including climatic and economic predictions?
Food production, nutrition, climate, pharmaceuticals, organic chemistry, inorganic chemistry, physics, mathematics. All these ‘things’ (and more) are building blocks of science or a result of scientific processes. All these disciplines are completely objective, and must strive to be. If they don’t, convenience, subjectivity, and even deception creep in. Subjectivity, because of its very nature, is what science strives to eliminate in its pursuit of knowledge and truth.
So I go back to basics to form my views. Because I’m NOT a scientist, that’s where I have to start. I have basic questions. Are genetically engineered food and pharmaceutical products less safe than those produced by other scientific methodologies? Where is the evidence, even of significant risk? Are “inorganic” crops, food, and pharmaceutical products safer than “organic” ones(interesting, if not misleading terms in themselves)? Where is the evidence? Without evidence statements, assertions, and advertisements are just opinions or claims, not facts.
Until there is evidence that there are scientific problems or scientific benefits that arise as a result of various methodologies and products, all have equal standing. Any and all real or perceived benefits are then subjective, and not science based. And once we enter into the world of subjectivity, truth becomes secondary and trust is lost.
When trust is lost, what are the costs? To whom do the costs belong - are they accurately distributed?
One final thought for now. Subjectivity is fine; in certain things. I’m completely subjective about a lot of my choices. My spouse for example! My taste in music and art. Even the foods I enjoy (as opposed to the ones that are good for me!). Where I am a consumer, I am allowed to be subjective. But where I’m a producer and a marketer, I believe I must be scrupulously honest and truthful. And that can only be derived through science and its pursuit of truth. I don’t want agriculture to suffer the setbacks and costs of other industries or businesses where “truth in advertising”, indeed truth in everything they do, is not a hallmark of their business ethic. Enron was in the business of trading energy. Bre-X was in the business of gold mining. Madoff was in the business of investing. Those were individual businesses. Tobacco is a whole industry. I’m sure they didn’t start down their slippery slopes with the “big lie”. In each case, they likely found it expedient to start with small deceptions; things where maybe even initially nobody got hurt or the costs were minimal. A saying again comes to mind, "Oh what a tangled web we weave, whenever we practice......"
This is getting too long, so that’s all for now. Plus, I feel like I'm on a high horse, and I strive to not make that a big part of my character!
Comment