BecomingV
Posts: 916
Joined: 11/11/2013
Status: offline
|
FR -
From the US Census Bureau:
"Women outnumbered men in 2012 among people whose highest level of education was a bachelor's degree (21 million versus 19 million) or a master's degree (9 million compared with 7.4 million). Conversely, more men had doctorate (2 million versus 1.2 million) or professional degrees (1.8 million compared with 1.2 million). Between 2002 and 2012, however, the gap between the number of men and women with professional degrees shrank."
What's that got to do with the discussion on GMOs?
The veracity of the facts as presented here is going to vary. Unless you've been trained in a graduate program, or been exposed to ways to separate the proverbial "wheat from the chaff," coming to a conclusion is going to be very difficult.
Peer-reviewed journals may be accessed through any public library system, with permission through the research desk. They may give you instructions on how to gain access to an Ivy League college's journals, free, online. Harvard allows anyone to request access online through their own website, for example.
Scientific trade journals are also available to the public, upon request.
But, as cited above, only a small portion of the population is formally educated enough, to even understand some research papers and reports. Understanding statistical bias within context and then in relation to other factors also comes into play.
In my view, this means there's a great barrier to being able to even debate an issue as complex as the effects, immediate and future, on the use of GMOs.
The general public gets information through Google, now (instead of newspapers, word of mouth, and magazines) In academia, pop culture is NOT a credible resource. While people may know how to use Ask.com or Wikipedia, these are not considered to be sound or acceptable sources of information.
Add to that the fact that Google uses a program that tailors search results to your previous searches and key words found in your private (ha ha ha) emails. So, two of us could both use the words "effects of GMOs" and google would give us two different sets of results! And, people don't know THAT.
Another complication is that a lot of information is tainted by those who fund the publications, and it's a worrisome criticism of professional journals, particularly when it comes to scientific journals. There's a hidden profit motive involved and it takes a little extra research to be sure about who is funding the presentation of information.
Along those lines, while many know how to search a topic online, how many know how to check the website for owners, authors and date of last update? A site may appear to be above board, when it isn't. Checking the authority of the webpage is important, too.
Documentaries vary wildly in terms of being holistic or balanced or professional in standards. It's fine to watch those that present a biased view, but also watch one biased towards the other "side." Sometimes, when you research the documentary director/writer, you'll discover their bias by seeing their body of work. You can determine if that person sees conspiracies everywhere or filters information through a religious context. There's no need to not listen to their point of view and it can, in fact, be helpful, if only in either challenging, or reinforcing, your current conclusions.
My point is that we meet here as a very varied group. I don't give more weight to those with degrees (how do you verify that anyway?) because a GMO farmer has something to contribute to this discussion and may not be formally educated, at all.
My issue with Ken's posts are that they only serve to gain him attention. The posts come off as if he's shouting, "I am the keeper of the truth and I am here as your teacher." Well, that's his issue and I do resent the way his need for attention detracts from the free flow in information, ideas and questions. I feel like he "kept at me" in hope of what? That I "cry Uncle" and admit that he is the only one whose point of view and research matter? LOL Yeah, NOT!
So, I'm with most posters here, in terms of being curious about what other people read, heard or found while looking into the subject.
It's easy enough to say, "I read what you posted and don't consider it to be accurate or valid for this (fill in the blank) reason. Have you seen this information here?" To belittle, attack and negate another's experience and perspective is not about an issue. That's a psychological problem and no amount of temper tantrums is going to help that poster appear to be trustworthy as a source of information. It's the opposite.
Four pages in, I'm saying this: I'd like to learn more on the topic of the safety and risks in consuming GMOs. While I have done and will continue to do research, life's short and I can't read everything. So, I welcome this opportunity to learn from each of you. Sometimes, I've thought one thing, then learned something new, which meant I needed to change how I originally thought. That's kind of scientific thinking, really.
The only people who I reject as valid sources of input, are the immature ones whose PRIMARY focus is really, their own egos! When someone's ego is that needy, I have to consider how they are unable to take in the knowledge and experience of others here. I'm saying that when I see a poster who presents their view as THE VIEW, and how they reject the information, experience and sources of others, when it differs from, or directly opposes their own position, I doubt that person's ability to actually consider all of the factors. Close-mindedness is not limited to how they treat others, it also affects their ability to incorporate complexities.
As I posted previously, when one of these characters begins to cloud the thread with attention-seeking verbiage, I discount them. That's sad, because maybe they actually do have credible information to share, but since I trust my own ability to research an issue thoroughly, I know I'll find credible sources without their input or influence. And, because I found it either on my own, or through respectable posters who share their research or experience, then I feel I can trust it.
Now, could we please get back to GMOs, and what each of us has learned, so far? The OP makes a great point, supported by other posters, that the LACK of labeling is cause for suspicion.
Well, okay, we feel wary. Does anyone know what can be done to require labeling? Is there an online petition initiative? Has anyone met with a Senator or Representative (if in the US) to demand that they vote FOR labeling? If you are in another country, can you offer some insight into how your government handled the GMO "problem"?
< Message edited by BecomingV -- 8/4/2014 2:40:06 PM >
|
RE: GMO's For or Against? - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread