Why am I posting this so called ‘science’ article? From ‘science daily’After reading this I asked myself two questionsIs this science?Or is this Scientism? Keep in mind that I am NO fan of "isms"Scientism defined:
“Scientism is a matter of putting too high a value on natural science in comparison with other branches of learning or culture.”
Science and a presentation of it as infallible, moral and all knowing, is religion.
Scientism abounds in recent times- and this article is Scientism at it's most blatant. The Science Daily piece tells us that philosophers and plant biotechnologists, using cognitive science, will explain to us all why we foolishly oppose GMO’s?The conclusion????- Basically it’s because we are irrational and ignorant. Relying on something innate in humankind- Intuitive knowledge- which the religion of scientism rejects.What science is necessary to come up with this type of conclusion? None.This is straight up public relations. The article is entirely based on an appeal to authority. The authority of the new religion“Scientism” The key sentence is right here-
"Scientists aren't generally involved with the public understanding of GMOs, not to mention the science of GMOs is highly counterintuitive and therefore difficult to convey to a lay audience--so they have been at a disadvantage form the start."
So, what we will likely be witnessing in the very near future is positive presentation/spin for GMO’s via the scientist as God, talking down to us all, as if we are ignorant, uneducated dregs needing to be told by an authority figure that GMO’s are great for us.In plain language what we will be soon exposed to is a hard sell. Using straight up, ordinary public relations, logical fallacies and all sorts of ad hominem garbage to erode our confidence in ourselves. To belittle our intuition- which is an innate knowledge- that informs us of danger etc., This innate knowledge appears to be informing humanity, globally, that there is something very wrong with GMO’s. There is nothing wrong with that global human intuition. It’s is quite likely a mode of discernment humans developed through the ages for dam good reason. There is a very sensible and logical reason for us having that feeling of concern or danger when it comes to GMO's. I'm going to explain that directly below-Before you read this pseudo science article- I’m going to give you all one reason that GMO’s should be rejected outright.- There are of course a multitude of reasons to reject these abominations, but, one stands out in my mind as being of the utmost importance. Unsurprisingly, that reason is not mentioned in this article.Food belongs to mankind!!! -It always has. It always should. Food, healthy clean food is the birthright of mankind (Birthright- a natural or moral right, possessed by everyone of humanity) Saving seed, sowing seed and harvesting the production of the seed via the partnership between the planet & humanity is an absolute human right.The creation of GMO’s takes that birthright away from us all- It denies us all access to that which developed alongside us through time- GMO’s gives control of our planetary legacy to a big multinational corporation, for their profit. This denial of what is rightfully ours leaves humanity enslaved to the whims of a corporate entity that has just one purpose: Profit.That one reason, stands alone, as reason enough to reject GMO's outright.The article masquerading as science, that is not: Psychology of the appeal of being anti-GMO
A team of Belgian philosophers and plant biotechnologists have turned to cognitive science to explain why opposition to genetically modified organisms (GMOs) has become so widespread, despite positive contributions GM crops have made to sustainable agriculture. In a paper published April 10 in Trends in Plant Science, they argue that the human mind is highly susceptible to the negative and often emotional representations put out by certain environmental groups and other opponents of GMOs. The researchers urge the general public to form opinions on GMOs on a case-by-case basis, thereby not focusing on the technology but on the resulting product.
"The popularity and typical features of the opposition to GMOs can be explained in terms of underlying cognitive processes. Anti-GMO messages strongly appeal to particular intuitions and emotions," says lead author Stefaan Blancke, a philosopher with the Ghent University Department of Philosophy and Moral Sciences. "Negative representations of GMOs--for instance, like claims that GMOs cause diseases and contaminate the environment--tap into our feelings of disgust and this sticks to the mind. These emotions are very difficult to counter, in particular because the science of GMOs is complex to communicate.
Examples of anti-GMO sentiment are present around the world --from the suspension of an approved genetically modified eggplant in India to the strict regulations on GM crops in Europe. Contributing to this public opposition, the researchers suspect, is a lack of scientific understanding of genetics (not even half of the respondents in a US survey rejected the claim that a fish gene introduced into a tomato would give it a fishy taste) as well as moral objections to scientists "playing God.
"Anti-GMO arguments tap into our intuitions that all organisms have an unobservable immutable core, an essence, and that things in the natural world exist or happen for a purpose," Blancke explains "This reasoning of course conflicts with evolutionary theory--the idea that in evolution one species can change into another. It also makes us very susceptible to the idea that nature is a force that has a purpose or even intentions that we shouldn't' meddle with."
While religious beliefs, particularly those that hold a romantic view of nature, have been accused of generating some of the negativity around GMOs, Blancke and his co-authors argue that there's more to the story. Using ideas from the cognitive sciences, evolutionary psychology, and cultural attraction theory, they propose that it is more a matter of messages competing for attention--in which environmental groups are simply much better at influencing people's gut feelings about GMOs than the scientific community.
"For a very long time people have only been hearing one side," Blancke says. "Scientists aren't generally involved with the public understanding of GMOs, not to mention the science of GMOs is highly counterintuitive and therefore difficult to convey to a lay audience--so they have been at a disadvantage form the start."
The researchers believe that understanding why people are against GMOs is the first step toward identifying ways to counteract negative messages. Blancke and co-author Geert De Jaeger, a plant biotechnologist, started in their community by developing a public lecture to dispel myths about GMOs. They urge others to build science education programs that can help balance out anti-GMO campaigns."We want to bring the two sides more together," Blancke says. "You cannot say every GMO is bad. You have to look at each case separately to make a judgement."
When the hard sell comes and it will, don't buy into it.