Ignorance of Science in the United States

[Cuauhtemoc]

People not educated in the sciences form their opinions (especially food and medicine) on the track record of science and it's corporate message. Eggs are bad. No, eggs are good. Milk is bad. No, milk is good. Saccharin is good. No, saccharin gives you fucking cancer. Breast feeding is bad, formula is good. No, your kid is a retard with no immune system.......
The list goes on and on and nutritional and medical science are still up to their same old shit. Just take a look at how many class action law suits are out there on MODERN medications that end up killing or maiming people in the (slightly) long run.
People have learned that fucking with nature, more often than not, ends up bad.

It's mostly nutrition and psychology. Psychology isn't really a science as it was practiced in the past and nutrition is still a huge joke.

But in terms of drugs we have been doing pretty well. And the OP wasn't even about transgenics but about DNA which just makes no sense. It's a bit like when people say they hate chemicals, although there is not really a difference from something concocted on a lab or by a plant if the structure is the same. You know the "high fructose corn syrup is bad" but agave nectar is good. Although they're virtually the same shit.

 

[TheComebackKid]

You would formulate a hypothesis based on your current understanding of the world

Philosophy in other words

 

[Cuauhtemoc]

Because you don't start with a theory and try and make observations and data fit within that theory. You start with observations and build your theory with the data and experiments that are developed.



You would formulate a hypothesis based on your current understanding of the world. A good example is Copernicus, he began with a Geocentric model of the universe (philosophy), made observations and hypothesized that a Heliocentric model explained his data better. Evidence changed his worldview.

It is still based on logic. Logic+observation. You can also make a hypothesis out of your own mind alone, as long as it's properly tested by experiments later on.
Now, you can say that indirectly everything that your mind thinks is a product of your interactions with your environment, observation.

There is no conflict at all between philosophy and science. Although it's obvious science, being focused on material things achieves material gains.

 

[44nutman]

I dont have a problem with GMO's, but with those companies, putting a shit load of money in politicians pockets and running the FDA, that is troublesome. They want to monopolize the food supply which is not a good thing, unless you run one of those companies, then you could have the hookers and blow you wanted.

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

It is still based on logic. Logic+observation. You can also make a hypothesis out of your own mind alone, as long as it's properly tested by experiments later on.
Now, you can say that indirectly everything that your mind thinks is a product of your interactions with your environment, observation.

There is no conflict at all between philosophy and science. Although it's obvious science, being focused on material things achieves material gains.

Yes, you have to start with a sound functioning mind that can utilize logic. The point I was making was that your current philosophical foundations can change depending on the data and conclusions found.

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

Philosophy in other words

Yes, you have to start with a sound functioning mind, with that will come a worldview or Philosophy. The point I was making was that your current philosophical foundations can change depending on the data and conclusions found. Just because the current paradigm contains a certain philosophy doesn't mean that it can never change depending on the data. Examples of the current paradigm being shifted because of experimental or field evidence:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories

Scientific theories and what people believe to be true (Philosphy) has had to change depending on the evidence. In the end the data will always trump Philosophy. Unlike your worldview of course that you admit will never change.

 

[dza76wutang]

Science is hard and the US is decadent, hence less science and more feelings.

 

[Ultrashogun]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-foods-containing-dna/?utm_term=.8c559ffc5747

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...taining-dna/?tid=a_inl&utm_term=.0cca552277d4

So, according to a survey carried out by Oklahoma State University http://agecon.okstate.edu/faculty/publications/4975.pdf

80 % of Americans support food with DNA being labeled. In case you are also completely ignorant about science, I'll explain to you why this is absurd: almost all food has DNA. Your cereal has wheat/oat/rice DNA, your cucumber has DNA that makes it a cucumber and not a carrot, your steak has cow DNA.

Although the respondents consisted of 1,000 people designed to match US demographics, I'm convinced that an even larger study would demonstrate a widespread lack of knowledge about even basic science information. It demonstrates that people often form strong opinions on things like GMO's without even a semblance of rudimentary knowledge about them. In case you don't trust the Washington Post or think it's "fake news" or whatever, I posted the original study PDF. It's really fucking depressing me that this is the state of science knowledge in the US.

You dont need a majority of science literate people, you need a competitive scientific elite.

Most people with masters dont understand enough about science to be able to dictate policy, so who cares what most people know.