Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[psyreporter]

The synthetic biology industry has been successful in framing the GMO debate around empirical value with a focus on denouncing a lack of belief in science by which opponents of GMO are declared 'anti-science'.

(2018) “Anti-science zealotry”? Values, Epistemic Risk, and the GMO Debate
The “anti-science” or “war on science” narrative has become popular among science journalists. While there is no question that some opponents of GMOs are biased or ignorant of the relevant facts, the blanket tendency to characterize critics as anti-science or engaged in a war on science is both misguided and dangerous.
Source: https://philpapers.org/rec/BIDAZVPhilPapers | Philosopher Justin B. Biddle (Georgia Institute of Technology)

It can be seen that from an outsiders perspective (a philosophy professor) the 'anti-science' or 'war on science' narrative is perceived as popular and as being used with a 'blanket tendency' (which means 'on meager grounds and on large scale').

An example:

A search for ‘anti GMO’ in Google provides a 2018 article of Alliance for Science. It starts with the statement that Russian trolls, aided by anti-GMO groups, have been successful in sowing doubt about science.

"anti-gmo" in Google: first result a lament of science
google-anti-gmo.png (50.74 KiB) Viewed 7577 times

Since the article is authored by a science journalist on behalf of a prominent science organization it is to be considered that science feels itself victimized by practices that presumably intend to 'sow doubt' about science, hence science considers itself 'under attack' by people engaged in a 'war on science'.

--

Why are critics of GMO characterized as anti-science?

The inability to capture meaningful experience (conscious experience) within the scope of empirical value (the foundation of scientific evidence) causes incompatibility with what science deems valid.

The problem is addressed in the philosophical zombie theory.

(2022) The philosopher’s zombie: What can the zombie argument say about human consciousness?
The infamous thought experiment, flawed as it is, does demonstrate one thing: science can’t explain consciousness.
Source: https://aeon.co/essays/what-can-the-zom ... sciousness

When it concerns morality, it concerns aspects related to meaningful experience.

In science the inability to define the meaning of life (purpose of life) has resulted in an ideal to abolish morality completely.

(2018) Immoral advances: Is science out of control?
To many scientists, moral objections to their work are not valid: science, by definition, is morally neutral, so any moral judgement on it simply reflects scientific illiteracy.
Source: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... f-control/

(2019) Science and Morals: Can morality be deduced from the facts of science?
The issue should have been settled by philosopher David Hume in 1740: the facts of science provide no basis for values. Yet, like some kind of recurrent meme, the idea that science is omnipotent and will sooner or later solve the problem of values seems to resurrect with every generation.
Source: https://sites.duke.edu/behavior/2019/04 ... f-science/

Morality is based on ‘values’ and that logically means that science also wants to get rid of philosophy.

When science is practiced autonomously and intends to get rid of any influence of philosophy, the ‘knowing’ of a scientific fact necessarily entails certainty. Without certainty, philosophy would be essential, and that would be obvious to any scientist, which it is not (examples).

It means that there is a dogmatic belief involved (a belief in uniformitarianism) that legitimizes autonomous application of science without thinking about whether it is actually ‘good’ what is being done (i.e. without morality).

Attacking and persecuting critics of GMO as heretics of science

The atheism religion (anti-religion religion) is a way out for people who would potentially (be prone to) seek the guidance that religions promise to provide. By revolting against religions, they (hope to) find stability in life.

atheism campaign
no-god-400.jpg (25.57 KiB) Viewed 7577 times

The emotional urge to attack people that do not share a dogmatic belief in the facts of science could originate from a feeling of vulnerability for religious exploitation of the weakness that results from the inability to answer the question “What is the meaning of life?” or “Why does life exist?”.

Besides the ideal of science to abolish morality, and the potential emotional motive of atheists, the GMO industry (including the pharmaceutical industry) has a multi-trillion USD interest.

--

In 2021, science organizations officially reported that the GMO debate is over and that science has won.

(2021) The GMO debate is over
While the GMO debate has been percolating for nearly three decades, data indicate it’s now over. ... Though we still hear some moaning and groaning it primarily comes from a small group. Most people simply aren’t concerned about GMOs.
Sources: American Council on Science and Health

It caused me to found the website www.gmodebate.org in February 2022. I am also author of the topic Eugenics on Nature that explores the origin and theoretical foundation of GMO.

I have been involved in a critical examination of practices closely related to GMO / eugenics on Nature since 2007. It has resulted in several personal attacks, first on my businesses and later a pretty serious personal attack. Investigation into the origin of that last attack have made it clear that the origin of the attacks has been GMO. It all started with a sneaky cola TV ad after I had reported about GMO in Coca Cola. Shortly after that TV ad a flood of nonsensical negative reviews for a popular WordPress optimization plugin followed, then to be followed by a plugin ban after a moderator performed an absurd slander attack to which I had responded decently, turning it into a true mystery.

Argumentum ad hominem was the primary tactic of the branch of science that I investigated (psychiatry). The idea that mind originates in the brain was seen as a corner stone of science.

I am a down to earth person, not religious (and not atheist either) and in my reasoning I most primarily questioned dogma's. Mentally, I am theory minded and less driven by emotions.

Atla recently wrote the following on a different philosophy forum:

you have a personal persecutory complex coupled with messiah syndrome, have you not?

I responded with the following:

I have communicated clearly and repeatedly, perhaps literally over 1000x times, that I have no political, ideological or religious motives. I have no intention in any way to tell other people what they should think, believe, or how they should live.

...

When it concerns psychiatry, it appears that they have attempted to divert attention away from them by playing a 'Jesus joke', among other things, and that it ultimately may explain the origin of all the fuzz. In a way, what has been observed, was a fight to survive by a practice that can't stand on its own legs. This is just my 'two cents' with regard what happened. Officially, it has remained a mystery.

More info: https://psyreporter.com/psychiatry/

What psychiatry and GMO (eugenics) have in common is that questioning it would question the foundation of science. From that perspective, my history with questioning psychiatry and the hostility that it caused (while I have been 100% decent, neutral, a-political and non-religious) may provide insights.

--

Questions:

1. is a blanket tendency to characterize critics of GMO as 'anti-science' a form of argumentum ad hominem?
2. would advocating for morality be anti-science under the conditions by which critics of GMO have been characterized as anti-science?

Last but not least (off-topic question, but important as indication of criticism of GMO): when it concerns GMO, can it be said that it is good for the animals and plants involved? If not: is an utilitarian value perspective an optimal influence for guiding evolution in animals (i.e. evolution guided by science)?

[Sculptor1]

I fully support rigorous methodology in science, and consider it the finest method of knowledge building ever devised by mankind.
However...

There is a well founded scepticism against the scientific method that is wholly justified. In the last 60 years one branch of science whose findings are of vital importance to human life have been responsible for widespread disinformation, and bias.
That "science" is the field of dietetics using the methods of epidemiology. It has consistently given bad advice to the western world in the interests of a growing processed food industry, and big pharma, and has condemned successive generations to misery, illness and death.

It is no wonder that ther is now a generalised fear and distrust of science and scientists.

[Pattern-chaser]

In support of what Sculptor1 just wrote, there is also the matter of scientists going beyond their own evidence to reach conclusions that are not scientifically justifiable. Like the doctor who stated that vaccines cause autism (which they don't and can't).

Misunderstandings can also occur, of course, so that someone might think that science confirmed a particular view when it did not.

Humans bring with them additional pitfalls that science itself does not contain.

Finally, there is the empirically-verifiable observation that humans go off 'half-cocked' with some ideas before we reach a full understanding. E.g. we created and exploded nuclear weapons with no real understanding of the consequences (pollution/poisoning caused by the spread of radioactive materials, etc). The American military forced their own soldiers to enter the area of recent nuclear 'tests', and roll around in the dust remaining, to see if there were any untoward effects. They had no idea if there were or not. All of those soldiers died early of cancer, of course. But this didn't stop the military from exploding their new toys.

Suspicion of GMOs is based on such considerations. Once a genetic variation is released into the environment, it can spread uncontrollably. So, before they are released, we need a REALLY good idea that the consequences will not be serious for humans, or for all the other lifeforms on this planet. If we cannot give such assurances, we should not allow GMOs into our wider ecosystem.

[AverageBozo]

Please tell me: does anti-GMO oppose anything other than food? Many foods, take corn for example, have been modified for crop yield, sweetness of produce etc for years. There must be other concerns, but what are they?

[LuckyR]

The problems folks have with "science" are actually against the effect of profit (in the case of GMOs) or power (in the case of nuclear weapons) on scientific products, not science itself.

[Pattern-chaser]

Please tell me: does anti-GMO oppose anything other than food? Many foods, take corn for example, have been modified for crop yield, sweetness of produce etc for years. There must be other concerns, but what are they?

The selective breeding of crop plants has been practised for millennia, but it does not introduce new or created genes into the ecosystem. GMO does, and the risks of that are probably low, but the likely severity of harm if we are wrong is ... difficult to quantify, but possibly dire. So we are right to be cautious, I think.

[AverageBozo]

Please tell me: does anti-GMO oppose anything other than food? Many foods, take corn for example, have been modified for crop yield, sweetness of produce etc for years. There must be other concerns, but what are they?

The selective breeding of crop plants has been practised for millennia, but it does not introduce new or created genes into the ecosystem. GMO does, and the risks of that are probably low, but the likely severity of harm if we are wrong is ... difficult to quantify, but possibly dire. So we are right to be cautious, I think.

Thanks.

[psyreporter]

I fully support rigorous methodology in science, and consider it the finest method of knowledge building ever devised by mankind.
However...

There is a well founded scepticism against the scientific method that is wholly justified. In the last 60 years one branch of science whose findings are of vital importance to human life have been responsible for widespread disinformation, and bias.
That "science" is the field of dietetics using the methods of epidemiology. It has consistently given bad advice to the western world in the interests of a growing processed food industry, and big pharma, and has condemned successive generations to misery, illness and death.

It is no wonder that ther is now a generalised fear and distrust of science and scientists.

At question is not the potential validity of criticism of the methodology of science, as if science were to be criticized to such an extent that a certain group of people (in this case 'anti-GMO' groups in general) is advocating that science were to be abolished or to be distrusted.

When it concerns the GMO debate, the 'anti-science' or 'war on science' narrative is used by science journalists and organizations with a blanket tendency and as a popular means (which indicates that it might be a strategy) to discredit people opposing GMO.

At question in this topic is whether the use of the anti-science narrative can be considered argumentum ad hominem (attack on the person) and if so, if the conditions used to characterize opponents of GMO as 'anti-science' would equally apply to arguments that advocate for morality.

The following reference shows applicability of the two questions (how morality in general may be related to the concerns of GMO opponents by which they receive the 'anti-science' characterization).

(2018) Immoral advances: Is science out of control?
To many scientists, moral objections to their work are not valid: science, by definition, is morally neutral, so any moral judgement on it simply reflects scientific illiteracy.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... f-control/

[psyreporter]

The problems folks have with "science" are actually against the effect of profit (in the case of GMOs) or power (in the case of nuclear weapons) on scientific products, not science itself.

The anti-science narrative is applied to opponents of GMO in general, apparently as a means to discredit their arguments. At question in this topic is whether that can be considered argumentum ad hominem.

With regard you argument that opponents of GMO are primarily against the effect of profit on scientific products. Can you provide an example argument or reference?

[psyreporter]

Please tell me: does anti-GMO oppose anything other than food? Many foods, take corn for example, have been modified for crop yield, sweetness of produce etc for years. There must be other concerns, but what are they?

The selective breeding of crop plants has been practised for millennia, but it does not introduce new or created genes into the ecosystem. GMO does, and the risks of that are probably low, but the likely severity of harm if we are wrong is ... difficult to quantify, but possibly dire. So we are right to be cautious, I think.

Selective breeding can be seen as a form of eugenics and that concept gives rise to several philosophical concerns.

With eugenics, one is moving ‘towards an ultimate state’ as perceived from an external viewer (the human). That may be opposite of what is considered healthy in nature that seeks diversity for resilience and strength.

A quote by a philosopher in a discussion about eugenics:

blond hair and blue eyes for everyone

utopia

-Imp

With selective breeding, one works with real animals and plants – meaningful beings with a purpose – and a population of millions of individuals. The potential for shaping evolution in that way is limited and the individual animals and plants may be able to overcome problems. Despite this, selective breeding does cause fatal problems due to the nature of eugenics that resides on the essence of inbreeding.

(2019) The way we breed cows is setting them up for extinction
Chad Dechow – an associate professor of dairy cattle genetics – and others say there is so much genetic similarity among them, the effective population size is less than 50. If cows were wild animals, that would put them in the category of critically endangered species.
Source: https://qz.com/1649587/the-way-we-breed ... xtinction/

While there are 9 million cows in the USA, from a genetic perspective, there are just 50 cows alive due to the nature of eugenics that resides on the essence of inbreeding.

“It’s pretty much one big inbred family,” says Leslie B. Hansen, a cow expert and professor at the University of Minnesota. Fertility rates are affected by inbreeding, and already, cow fertility has dropped significantly. Also, when close relatives are bred, serious health problems could be lurking.

With genetic engineering, artificial intelligence based automation, synthetic biology and in specific exponential growth, changes for an intended result can be applied on a massive scale, directly affecting millions of animals and plants at once.

The situation is quite different from selective breeding and the idea of the field synthetic biology is that the result of the whole endeavour will be that science will ‘master life’ and can create and control evolution of species in real time, as an ‘engineering approach’.

It can be seen in the quote from the special in The Economist (Redesigning Life, April 6th, 2019):

Reprogramming nature is extremely convoluted, having evolved with no intention or guidance. But if you could synthesize nature, life could be transformed into something more amenable to an engineering approach, with well defined standard parts.
Source: https://www.economist.com/weeklyedition/2019-04-06

Can life have well defined standard parts for science to master and ‘redesign’ life?

The following questions indicate that there may be important moral concerns that involve the core question whether GMO is good for the plants and animals involved.

1) Can a plant be ‘done’?
2) Can empirical science answer that question?
3) Can empirical science study the essence of a plant?

[psyreporter]

Please tell me: does anti-GMO oppose anything other than food? Many foods, take corn for example, have been modified for crop yield, sweetness of produce etc for years. There must be other concerns, but what are they?

The arguments of opponents of GMO may be moral arguments. Most vocal are arguments with regard food safety and concerns with regard human healthy, the reason being:

1) humans in general are sensitive for arguments that concern their health (on social media etc.)
2) organic food is a trillion USD industry and business

Organic food organizations can benefit financially by scare mongering GMO from a food and human health perspective.

From my perspective, the food/health concern focus appears to be a losing battle and potentially harmful to the GMO debate (an utilitarian value perspective is used to combat self-proclaimed science 'believers' who live by utilitarian value) but I understand that it may be the only way to acquire massive funding for marketing combined with actual attention/interest with the general public and I am certain that it's well intended.

There are a lot more arguments than mere food safety/human health concerns, especially from a philosophical perspective. There are moral arguments relative to the question whether GMO is good for the plants and animals involved.

Some example questions to get a quick insight into potential moral questions:

1) Can a plant or animal be ‘done’?
2) Can empirical science answer that question?
3) Can empirical science study the essence of a plant or animal?

The idea that plants and animals are meaningless lumps of matter is not plausible for diverse reasons.

If plants and animals are to posses of meaningful experience then they are to be considered meaningful within a context that can be denoted as ‘vitality of Nature’ or Nature’s bigger whole (Gaia Philosophy), of which the human is a part and of which the human intends to be a prosperous part.

From that perspective, a base level of respect (morality) could be considered essential for Nature to prosper.

The complex coherence of genes logically foresees in more than an outside-in perspective (the human or science) can 'see' in it.

While repeatability of science provides one with what can be considered certainty within the scope of a human perspective which value can be made evident by the success of science, at question would be if the idea that the facts of science are valid without philosophy (and thus morality) is accurate on a fundamental level. If the idea is not valid, then that has profound implications.

While as seen from the utilitarian value perspective one could argue that a ‘certainty factor’ isn’t at question, when it concerns the usage of the idea as a guiding principle, such as is the case with eugenics and GMO, it would become important.

Usefulness of a model of the world is merely utilitarian value and cannot logically be a basis for a guiding principle since a guiding principle would concern what is essential for value to be possible (a priori or “before value”).

Based on the previous reasoning GMO could be considered fundamentally bad and a violation of a base level of respect that is vital for Nature to prosper. Perhaps there are good use-cases for eugenics when certain fundamental questions are addressed and kept in awareness. As it appears however, the idea that the human can ‘master’ life itself is based on a dogmatic belief in uniformitarianism (the idea that the facts of science are valid without philosophy and thus without morality), which logically results in disastrous flaws in human evolution.

[Pattern-chaser]

To many scientists, moral objections to their work are not valid: science, by definition, is morally neutral, so any moral judgement on it simply reflects scientific illiteracy.

To many non-scientists, it is appalling to note the terrible indifference ("morally neutral") that scientists have for the potential uses to which their work might be put. It was not Oppenheimer who ordered the deployment of nuclear bombs, but without him and his peers, there would have been no bombs for the politicians to use. Some amount of responsibility must devolve to the scientists, just as some must devolve to those of us who elected the politicians.

So, to paraphrase the final words from your quote, any judgement on science and scientists probably reflects their moral illiteracy. They place the acquisition of knowledge above all else, and deliberately set aside the morality, leaving such difficult problems as responsibility for others to struggle with. For some people, this dereliction of (moral) duty is a Really Big Deal. I think it's a valid criticism.

[Pattern-chaser]

Selective breeding can be seen as a form of eugenics and that concept gives rise to several philosophical concerns.

[...]

The following questions indicate that there may be important moral concerns that involve the core question whether GMO is good for the plants and animals involved.

1) Can a plant be ‘done’?
2) Can empirical science answer that question?
3) Can empirical science study the essence of a plant?

Ah, this is a much wider issue than the desirability of GMO crops. It's not that I disagree with you (I don't), but that the topic is trying to focus on GMO crops, and the 'anti-science' narrative that accompanies it in every discussion.

My personal stance is that I have no problem with hunting and killing other living things for food. Many (most?) species do this as a normal part of living their lives, so I don't see how we can condemn such a universal aspect of life. But beyond eating them, I cannot see how anything else that we do to living creatures can be morally justified.

Horses (for example) are born into captive slavery, they are subjected to coercive control for their entire lives, forced to work, they breed in captivity, and they die slaves, just as they began. Can this really be defended? I don't think it can.

But I don't see how this contributes directly to the desirability of GMO crops?

[Sculptor1]

I fully support rigorous methodology in science, and consider it the finest method of knowledge building ever devised by mankind.
However...

There is a well founded scepticism against the scientific method that is wholly justified. In the last 60 years one branch of science whose findings are of vital importance to human life have been responsible for widespread disinformation, and bias.
That "science" is the field of dietetics using the methods of epidemiology. It has consistently given bad advice to the western world in the interests of a growing processed food industry, and big pharma, and has condemned successive generations to misery, illness and death.

It is no wonder that ther is now a generalised fear and distrust of science and scientists.

At question is not the potential validity of criticism of the methodology of science, as if science were to be criticized to such an extent that a certain group of people (in this case 'anti-GMO' groups in general) is advocating that science were to be abolished or to be distrusted.

I do not think that GMO science is problematic per se. What seems to be at fault is the media assassination of GMO which could otherwise provide many solutions in the avoidance of pesticides, and the enhancement of food in many other ways such as increasing the nutritional content and anti-inflammatory properties of plant based material.

When it concerns the GMO debate, the 'anti-science' or 'war on science' narrative is used by science journalists and organizations with a blanket tendency and as a popular means (which indicates that it might be a strategy) to discredit people opposing GMO.

Yes, and the war goes in both directions. But neither camp pro or anti is capable of rational debate on the subject.
Sadly many libertarians whilst having a major distrust of government and regulations also tend to distrust the scientific establishment.
In some ways GMO is nothing more than an accelerated selective breeding program which finds solutions that would otherwise take generations. But the industry is saddled with the "Frankenstein" myth.

At question in this topic is whether the use of the anti-science narrative can be considered argumentum ad hominem (attack on the person) and if so, if the conditions used to characterize opponents of GMO as 'anti-science' would equally apply to arguments that advocate for morality.

Ad hominems are used in both camps, no doubt.

The following reference shows applicability of the two questions (how morality in general may be related to the concerns of GMO opponents by which they receive the 'anti-science' characterization).

(2018) Immoral advances: Is science out of control?
To many scientists, moral objections to their work are not valid: science, by definition, is morally neutral, so any moral judgement on it simply reflects scientific illiteracy.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... f-control/

I'll set aside perusal of those for another time.
My interest at the moment is the degree to which the sugar industry controls organisations which ought to be under democratic control for the benefit of the people. In particular the American Dietetics Registry and the American Dietetics Association - by their grand titles one would think that Dietitians in the US were carefully vetted, and their advice controlled by the wisdom of science.
Sadly these bodies are not funded by government as they would be in civilized societies.
The rebranded ADA is now the even more grandly titles Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, is funded by Coca-Cola, Quaker , Nestle, Gatorade, Danone, Egg Nutrition centre and a large list of other purveyors of highly processed food.
This sort of protection racket goes way back to Ancel Key's Seven Countries Study which miraculously pushed for Canola against natural animal fats, and poisoned generations of Westerners with trans fats, which redily builds body fat but is almost impossible to use for energy in the body.
And whilst Big Sugar continues to tell lies about the harms of sugar they reap the benefits of a fake low fat diet by replacing missing fats with more and more high fructose corn syrup, and other processed carbs which has helped fuel the diabetics pandemic killing far more than COVID ever could.

You can directly map the increase in diabetics and CHD to the moment when the public were advised that Low Fat High Carb was a good idea.

Whatever the possible merits of GMO might be, and they could be great. How can we trust an insipid government who is regulation shy in the pockets of the interests of the processed food industry with their profit motives?

[Sculptor1]

There are still scientists willing to say it like it is, though they risk their careers.
And the more basic science get thrown on the bonfire of privatisation the less they can be trusted.

https://www.bmj.com/content/355/bmj.i6257.full