In this episode of Life, the Universe & Everything Else, Gem runs through several arguments for the existence of God with Ashlyn, Ian, and Laura, and the panel ponders whether it's worth talking about religious arguments at all.
Life, the Universe & Everything Else is a program promoting secular humanism and scientific skepticism that is produced by the Winnipeg Skeptics.
In this episode of Life, the Universe & Everything Else, we're recording live from SkeptiCamp Winnipeg! Gem, Ashlyn, and Lauren talk about logical fallacies and deductive reasoning, and Gem hosts a game of Name That Logical Fallacy!
In this extended round-table episode of Life, the Universe & Everything Else, Gem is joined by Ashlyn, Ian, and Laura to discuss thought experiments that range from the classical to the incomprehensible to the downright bizarre.
Announcement: We're going monthly! That means you'll get podcasts half as often, but we'll make the podcasts twice as awesome to make up for it!
Note: If any of our listeners are concerned about information hazards and wish to skip over the discussion of Roko's Basilisk, the content in question begins at the 1h24m mark and ends at 1h35m46s.
In this episode of Life, the Universe & Everything Else, Greg Christensen discusses the science of argumentation and persuasion with Richelle McCullough and special guest Seren Gordon.
If you travel (or read) in atheist (or apologetic) circles, then you've probably encountered the Kalam Cosmological Argument. It goes something like this:
Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
The Universe began to exist.
Therefore, the Universe had a cause.
Although it is historically linked to Islamic scholarship, it's most ardent proponent and popularizer is Christian apologist (and amateur Scott Bakula impersonator) William Lane Craig, who holds it up as unassailable proof of a Prime Mover.
This argument was brought to my attention again when I listened to a debate between Justin Shieber (one of the hosts of Reasonable Doubts, my favourite counter-apologetics podcast) and Scott Smith. Smith brought up this argument, and it was discussed briefly. Kalam is rife with problems, among them the compositional fallacy, one or more potentially unsupportable premises, and what amounts to special pleading. If you want a detailed deconstruction, I'd recommend the deconstructions of the argument on RationalWiki and Iron Chariots (we even covered it briefly on Life, the Universe & Everything Else). But as I listened to the debate, I got to thinking...
What does it mean for something to "begin to exist"?
As I thought about that some more, I got to wondering: Does anything "begin to exist", when it comes right down to it? I mean, at the level of common usage, things "come into being" all the time, from trains to mountains to people. But none of these things are created ex nihilo: they're merely examples of stuff (train parts, rocks, cells, molecules, subatomic particles) moving about. So while it makes sense to talk about these things "beginning to exist" in some sense (as we talk of the sun "rising and setting", for example), in the strictest sense I'm not sure.
I asked a physicist friend friend about this. He thought for a moment, chuckled, and said, "Maybe a photon? But not really..." And he couldn't come up with anything either. So this is something that I'm honestly wondering: Do we know of anything that can meaningfully be said to have "begun" to exist, rather than being simply an example of matter or energy changing form? Because if not, that's another significant blow to the argument. What do you think?
Addendum: On the Facebook thread, my friend Javier Hernandez has pointed out that virtual particles and perhaps even space itself may qualify as "beginning to exist":
How about the "creation" of space in our Universe. The Universe is expanding, which means that more Vacuum is being created. There does not appear to be a Energy-to-Vacuum conservation law that is being followed, so this Vacuum appears to be "coming into existence" on it's own.
I find the idea of space itself "coming into being" tough to wrestle with, since this expansion of "space" is hard to quantify in discrete units, and it's a process that is continuous, rather than instantaneous. That said, both virtual particles and perhaps space itself seem to be fair candidates for what I was looking for here. Thanks to Javier for that!
This in mind, however, neither space nor virtual particles would seem to be "caused" in the strict sense implied by Kalam, so among the examples we've been able to identify, the argument remains incredibly weak on that particular score.
In this episode of Life, the Universe & Everything Else, Gem Newman is joined by panellists Richelle McCullough, Javier Hernandez-Melgar, and Ashlyn Noble to discuss the way scientists, skeptics, and atheists are portrayed in fiction.
Correction: Near the end of the episode, I mention that the main character in Cosmos is an atheist. While I suppose that may technically be true, I meant to refer to Contact.
This is a talk that I gave at TEDxManitoba on 9 February 2012. Below the video you can find the full text of the talk, with annotations and sources provided.
As a kid, I loved playing Monopoly. I was great at it, too! I was very nearly unbeatable.
I remember one game, looking down at the board and wondering how I was ever going to win. My mother had just pulled a $500 bill out from where she'd hid it between the couch cushions, my stepfather's hotels were crowding two sides of the board, and my houses on Mediterranean and Baltic just weren't paying off. How could this be? I thought to myself. I'm a smart kid. I'm great at Monopoly! But the odds were stacked against me, and the situation seemed impossible.
But that's what made me such a great Monopoly player, I guess. Somehow, I'd always pull out a win in the end. Thinking back, I don't remember losing a single game!
At some point, we all need to come to terms with the fact that maybe things didn't happen quite the way we remember them. As humans, we're just not that great at telling what's true from what we want to be true. Let's be frank: I was ten. I probably sucked at Monopoly. But I remember being awesome.
As Yale neurologist Dr. Steven Novella notes, "Our memories are not an accurate recording of the past. They are constructed from imperfect perception filtered through our beliefs and biases... Our memories serve more to support our beliefs rather than inform them."[Source]
We're not great observers, we humans, and we tend to pay much more attention to data that confirm our preconceived notions than to details that don't fit our theories. We have a marked tendency to remember the hits and forget the misses; presumably why people like Sylvia Browne and John Edward remain so popular.
It's for this reason that independent confirmation is one of the cornerstones of science.
I'm not a scientist, but I do think of myself as a "science cheerleader". And science needs cheerleaders, for a couple of reasons.
First, because it's important for everyone to have a basic scientific understanding. Professor Art Hobson put it this way: "the most crucial decisions [in industrialized nations] concern science and technology, and in democracies, citizens decide."[Source]
The second reason that science needs cheerleaders is that it is so oft maligned. Scientific skepticism is often portrayed as cold, unfeeling; antithetical to compassion or human emotion. Those with a penchant for whimsical nostalgia stubbornly insist that life was better and that times were simpler before science got all muddled up in society.[Note]
Could it be that they're right?
Science is the quest to understand ourselves, our universe, and our place in it. Science is curious by nature, for its goal is to figure out what's really true—but for that reason, science must also be skeptical. It insists that we shouldn't simply take claims at face value, but instead we should proportion our belief in a proposition to the evidence supporting it.
A series of studies conducted in the 1980s found that roughly 80% of people consider themselves above average drivers.[Source][Source] A 1987 study of Australian workers found that only 1% of them rated their workplace performance as below average.[Source] Unless I badly misremember how numbers are meant to work, it seems to me that something very near to half of them are mistaken.
The way that we see the world is coloured by many things, our own egos foremost among them. Perhaps when it comes to Monopoly games we can be forgiven if we see ourselves through rose-coloured glasses. Concern may become warranted when our callous assumption that we outperform our contemporaries affects the quality of our work or the safety of our driving.
But what about when it really counts? What if your child is sick? There are clearly many cases where we simply cannot afford to let our petty biases influence the way we see the world. And that's where science comes in.
While it's true that public support for science has remained generally high over the last several decades, and scientific literacy has been increasing more-or-less steadily, there have been some troubling developments in the popular media and in culture at large.[Note]
The image of the "mad scientist" is deeply ingrained in our culture, and probably dates to Mary Shelley's celebrated Frankenstein, in which the relentless pursuit of knowledge leads inexorably to unspeakable horrors. This idea is not a new one. Anti-science messages have been with us for hundreds of years.
Here's the problem: science is seen by many as unnatural, inaccessible, or even sinister. Scientists are widely regarded as arrogant, superior, or closed-minded.
What's the common thread here? Aside from being totally awesome, that is. Any guesses?
As unbelievable as it might seem, all of these stories are riddled with anti-science or anti-reason messages. Even in science fiction, the genre that inspired so many of the technologies and conveniences that we take for granted today, it is common to see science portrayed as sinister and destructive.
In Star Trek, a series that celebrates human ingenuity, Spock is set up as a straw man, his much lauded Vulcan logic inevitably knocked down by Kirk's emotionally driven human pluck. When it comes time to choose between thinking with your head and thinking with your heart, the message is clear: human emotion wins every time.[Note]
In Jurassic Park, the audience is shown the consequence of scientists "playing God". As in Frankenstein, disaster is the inevitable result of scientific excess.
In Lost, John Locke constantly admonishes the other characters to have faith, that they are all on the island for some mysterious purpose. And, because it's a fictional story, it turns out that he's right.
Oh, and then there was that episode of The X-Files that showed faith in the supernatural triumphing over the skeptic... Which one was that again...? Oh, right: all of them. Don't get me wrong: I loved The X-Files, but seriously—it was always a monster? Every time?
And even Scooby-Doo, a longtime favourite among skeptics of the paranormal, isn't blameless. Recent adaptations are much more likely to feature real monsters than grumpy old groundskeepers who would have gotten away with it, too, if it weren't for those meddling kids!
But perhaps the most egregious example of anti-science rhetoric in popular fiction is found in Ronald Moore's 2003 reimagining of Battlestar Galactica.
While dramatically enjoyable, the emphasis of faith over reason was a thread that wound its way through the entire series. What's worse, the final episodes first hinted then proclaimed that in a society that embraces science and technology, a technologically driven holocaust is inevitable. This has all happened before, we are told, and it will all happen again.
The series culminates (spoiler alert) with the entire human race abandoning all technology in favour of founding a nomadic hunter-gatherer society. Science fiction becomes luddite fantasy—famine, disease, and the concomitant contraction of the human lifespan be damned.
This message is getting through to the public, loud and clear. A 2001 NSF survey found that 50 percent of Americans believe "We depend too much on science and not enough on faith".[Source] I find this distressing.
From The Terminator to The Matrix to 28 Days Later, the idea that science will lead to some sort of technopocalypse is ubiquitous these days. And after all, why not? Isn't there a grain of truth to the idea?
Perhaps you might rightly scoff at Ben Stein's contention in the pseudo-documentary Expelled that the science of evolution led to the Nazi holocaust...[Note]
...but what say you when the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are laid at scientists' feet? Who can help but shiver upon hearing Oppenheimer's words? "I am become Death, destroyer of worlds." How can we answer such a charge?
In the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve were forbidden the knowledge of good and evil, but their curiosity got the better of them. According to this story, it was our thirst for knowledge that led to the fall.
Curiosity, we're told, is what killed the cat.
Knowledge can, of course, be used for good or for ill. Scientists invented the bomb—but it was politicians who called for it, taxpayers who funded it, and the military who saw it deployed. If you want to lay death and destruction solely at the feet of scientists, I don't think that you're playing fair.[Note]
"Curiosity killed the cat." How unjust!
That we should be incurious is perhaps the single most damaging message that our children receive from popular culture. Curiosity is one of the greatest assets that we as a species possess. It fuels free inquiry! It fuels innovation! Without nurturing our curiosity we risk retarding our progress as a civilisation.
Knowledge is not evil, nor is the pursuit of it. Knowledge of the way this wondrous world really works equips us to better our own situation and that of every other living being with whom we share this planet.
"Curiosity killed the cat." You would be hard pressed to find an idiom that irritates me more.
You want to know what probably didn't kill the cat? Diabetes, hyperthyroidism, intestinal parasites! For every cat killed by curiosity, I would wager that there are hundreds who have been saved by veterinary practices unknown a century ago.
Curiosity cured the cat!
Norman Borlaug, the father of the Green Revolution, is credited with saving one billion people from starvation. We have indoor plumbing and flush toilets, and hand-washing, and the germ theory of disease, all of which save countless lives every day. These victories aren't just victories for science; they are victories for humanity. Science wins this fight.
As for the arrogance and closed-mindedness of scientists: I find this charge frankly startling, for in the process of skeptical inquiry I see the most amazing intellectual humility. The success of the scientific endeavour requires us to admit to our human foibles and failings, our petty biases and conceits. It is only in accounting for these human weaknesses that we make progress. Science is rooted in curiosity, and one cannot be curious without being humble. To wonder how something works, first you must admit that you don't know.
So if science is so successful in improving our lives, why does science still have such an image problem? Why do people fail to understand that science isn't the enemy of nature, but merely the study of it?
It probably isn't news to you that the media has a huge effect on how we think and behave. That's what advertising is all about, after all, and study after study shows that it works, even when we think that it doesn't.
In The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, Carl Sagan laments that "Scepticism does not sell well. A bright and curious person who relies entirely on popular culture to be informed about something like Atlantis is hundreds or thousands of times more likely to come upon a fable treated uncritically than a sober and balanced assessment."[Source]
In a culture so steeped in irrationality, a culture that prizes faith over evidence, it can be difficult to make progress in promoting science. Right now, the greatest obstacle to the public understanding of science is the way it's presented in the media.
So what if our stories had skeptical, pro-science messages? What if they encouraged the audience to think critically, rather than just nodding along? What if the heroes of our stories weren't those who simply fought for what they believed in, but those who had the courage to ask themselves why it was that they believed it?
We have the power to reignite the public passion for learning new things. We need to teach everyone (everyone) what science is, at its core. That may sound daunting, but it's really a very simple idea: Beliefs should be supported by good evidence.
None of us are perfect, and so if we're serious about figuring out what's really true we need to understand our own biases and apply a basic skepticism to all claims to knowledge. We need to avoid the temptation to look only for the evidence that confirms what we already believe. Or, as Randall Munroe put it, "You don't use science to show that you're right, you use science to become right."[Source]
And we already have allies in the popular media.
On the front lines, I see novelists like the excellent Robert Sawyer (from whom you heard only a moment ago) and the unbelievably popular J.K. Rowling.
Sawyer is famous for stories that show rationalism triumphing over superstition. In the Harry Potter series, Rowling provides an excellent role-model in Hermione Granger, whose success is due not to some innate talent, but to hard work and a willingness to question popular wisdom.
There are musicians like George Hrab and the inimitable Tim Minchin who encourage us to be skeptical of extraordinary claims. Sara Mayhew infuses her manga with a love of science. Randall Munroe and Zach Weiner pen comics that make us laugh and make us think. We have Bill Nye and Neil deGrasse Tyson working to communicate science to people of all ages. Adam Savage, Jaimie Hyneman, and rest of the gang at MythBusters remind us how exciting it can be to figure out what's really true.
At this point, you might be wondering what you can do to help.
Be curious. Question everything. Prize learning over simply knowing, because even things that we think we know can turn out to be wrong. As Carl Sagan said, "it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."[Source]
With everything that science has done for us, it deserves our support. So when you hear someone complain that science is arrogant, closed-minded, or dangerous: speak up. Because you know better.
[9] Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, page 16
Notes
[1] They set science and rationalism here and they set mystery and compassion there and demand that you choose between them, even though such a choice makes no sense. Science is no more a cold, unfeeling monstrosity than is a screwdriver or a pair of spectacles. Science is a tool that helps us overcome some of our inherent limitations. And yet, the idea that life was somehow better, humbler, and more existentially satisfying in some misty, bygone age is pervasive in our society.
[2] In our culture, the scientifically illiterate can get on by saying that they're just not "science people". Basic scientific literacy is very important, but ScienceDaily reports that in North America it sits around 30%. It's perfectly acceptable in our culture for a person to be scientifically illiterate, but just imagine what it would be like to have a similar attitude toward those who can't read or write.
[3] To learn more about the Straw Vulcan, I refer you to the TVTropes page that coined the term. I also highly recommend Julia Galef's talk from Skepticon 4, The Straw Vulcan.
[4] For more about the absurdity that is Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, I refer you to Expelled Exposed, a site created and maintained by the National Center for Science Education. This site cheerfully exposes the anti-science propaganda behind this so-called documentary, while managing at the same time to be an enjoyable read! I doff my proverbial hat to Eugenie Scott and the rest of the folks at the NCSE for their tireless work in combating creationism masquerading as science.
[5] Neil deGrasse Tyson expressed this sentiment well. "Scientists don't lead marching armies!" he said. "Scientists don't invade other nations! Yes, we had scientists who invented the bomb, but somebody had to pay for the bomb, and that was taxpayers, that was war bonds. There was a political action that called for it. But everyone blames the scientists! ... At the end of the day, a discovery itself is not 'moral', it's the application of it that has to pass that test." (This quotation is taken from an interview with Neil deGrasse Tyson at Montclair Kimberley Academy. The interivew was conducted by a rare out-of-character Stephen Colbert, and is fantastic. You can watch it here.)
SkeptiCamp is an open conference celebrating science and critical thinking. For more information please visit SkeptiCamp.org.
Polyamory and Mononormative Assumptions
Anlina Sheng is a freelance graphic and web designer, a feminist, and a polyamory activist. For more information about polyamory in Winnipeg, visit PolyWinnipeg.org.
Perpetual Motion and Free Energy... Science or Pseudoscience?
Javier Hernandez-Melgar is a student at the University of Manitoba, pursuing a joint honours degree in math and physics.
Evaluating Rational and Emotional Arguments
Brendan Curran-Johnson is a software developer, unrepentant geek, and incorrigible satirist.
SkeptiCamp is an open conference celebrating science and critical thinking. For more information please visit SkeptiCamp.org.
Logical Fallacies (A Spoonful of Sugar)
Paul Nordin is a member of the Winnipeg Skeptics and the Winnipeg Secularists. He is currently majoring in philosophy at the University of Winnipeg.
Free Will: What is it? and Do we have it?
Gem Newman graduated with distinction from the University of Manitoba with a B.Sc. in Computer Science, specialising in Artificial Intelligence. He founded the Winnipeg Skeptics in 2010, and more recently he co-produced a short documentary called "The Nonbelievers' Beliefs" with fellow skeptic Scott Carnegie. He blogs at WinnipegSkeptics.com, StartledDisbelief.com, and occasionally at SkepticsOnThe.Net.
Denialism
Jeff Olsson is a former Anglican priest and the current president of the Humanist Association of Manitoba. His book, Leaving Faith Behind, is available on Amazon from Xlibris. The Humanist Association of Manitoba can be found at mb.humanists.ca.
I recently watched an interview on the normally excellent Daily Show that annoyed me. So much so, in fact, that I was planning to write about it. But then I discovered that Donald Prothero had already done it for me.
This morning, I received the following email from a friend of mine.
Hi Gem,
My friend claims the following is a proof of God's existence. What do you think? It's not convincing to me, but I don't have much experience in recognizing logical fallacies. Could you help me out?
***
God is defined as THAT WHICH NONE GREATER CAN BE THOUGHT.
THAT WHICH NONE GREATER CAN BE THOUGHT can be thought of as existing only in the understanding. [This means THAT WHICH NONE GREATER CAN BE THOUGHT does not exist outside of the understanding (reality for example)].
"THAT WHICH NONE GREATER CAN BE THOUGHT conceived as existing only in the understanding" can be thought as greater still, "THAT WHICH NONE GREATER CAN BE THOUGHT existing in reality."
This creates a contradiction, THAT WHICH NONE GREATER CAN BE THOUGHT by definition cannot be thought as greater. Therefore, THAT WHICH NONE GREATER CAN BE THOUGHT cannot exist only in the understanding.
If P (that which none greater can be thought existing only in the understanding) then Q (that which none greater can be thought existing not only in the understanding) is not Q [because that which none greater can be thought can be thought as greater). Therefore P is false.
Note: this does not prove the Christian God or any known deity. It simply proves the existence of THAT WHICH NONE GREATER CAN BE THOUGHT. Whether THAT WHICH NONE GREATER CAN BE THOUGHT created humans or even cares about us cannot be determined. We simply know that there is something of such greatness that cannot be exceeded.
This may require modal logic to distinguish from Necessary Truths and Contingent Truths.
***
[NAME REDACTED]
"THAT WHICH NONE GREATER CAN BE THOUGHT"? Good lord.
Your friend's argument is phrased more along the lines of Anselm's original argument (although more awkwardly). In my reply, I'll refer to the following, more readable, ontological argument:
God is the greatest imaginable entity.
All else being equal, an entity that exists is greater than one that doesn't.
∴ God exists.
The problems with this argument are legion. Although the applicability of some of these objections is dependent on the wording of the argument, I believe that every proposed ontological proof has been adequately dealt with.
We'll begin with a point originally raised by Gaunilo of Marmoutiers: an argument with the same logical structure can be repurposed to apply to just about anything. Take the following ontological proof, for example:
Atlantis is the greatest imaginable island.
All else being equal, an island that exists is greater than one that doesn't.
∴ Atlantis exists.
Or this one:
The minotaur is the greatest imaginable animal.
All else being equal, an animal that exists is greater than one that doesn't.
∴ The minotaur exists.
Other philosophers, such as Immanual Kant (the great pissant), have objected that existence and non-existence are not properties as such, and in any event no rationale is presented for the supposition that existence is "greater" than non-existence. Personally, I would add that the argument assumes that "greatness" can be quantified and that it exists objectively, rather than simply being a subjective assessment of value or worth. If you believe that greatness is objective, what is the greatest colour?
But let's look at this from another perspective: does God taste good on a sandwich?
For the sake of argument, let's say that "THAT [THAN] WHICH NONE GREATER CAN BE THOUGHT" doesn't taste very good on a sandwich. But this presents a problem, because it would be greater still if it did taste good on a sandwich. Therefore, God is an excellent condiment.
Unfortunately, I can't take credit for this line of reasoning. While discussing this argument on The Atheist Experience, Russell Glasser had this to say: "I like Jeff Dee's comment on this argument... It's kind of silly to say that perfect things have every good quality. You know, by that logic, God should be an excellent floor polish, and putting him on your ribs should make them taste extra delicious."
This argument may also be guilty of begging the question: the first premise defines God as the greatest conceivable being; however, since the argument also states that the property of existence is required for the being to be of maximal greatness, the argument is actually in essence this:
God is defined as the greatest imaginable entity, which exists.
By premise 1, God exists.
∴ God exists.
And finally, as your friend pointed out, the argument doesn't actually say anything about God. Other than that he is awesome, and that he exists.
I hope that this helps, [NAME REDACTED]. All the best.
I just sent a quick email to the folks at The Skeptics' Guide.
Hey, folks.
It seems to me that this story's title should actually be "H1N1 vaccine linked to 700 percent increase in miscarriages, but not by anyone who knows what they're talking about".
It seems to me that they're just saying that as rates of vaccination rise, rates of miscarriage rise ("the rate of miscarriage among pregnant women during the 2009 H1N1 / swine flu pandemic soared by over 700 percent compared to previous years, pointing directly to the vaccine as the culprit"). Sure, this is interesting, and perhaps further analysis should be performed. But the fact that the buzz of my alarm clock strongly correlates to the rising of the sun does not indicate that the sun's rising is caused by my alarm clock. The assertion that this points "directly to the vaccine as the culprit" can only be either ignorant or dishonest.
The Natural News site continues to poison the well by saying "the CDC denies the truth and continues to insist nobody has been harmed", when in fact it seems to me that the CDC is actually saying "you haven't demonstrated a causal link". Straw man, anyone?
And then the article loses its last shred of credibility by bringing up Thimerosol. Again. In my opinion, they finally jump the shark in the "related articles" section, in which links to a video called "Autism - The Hidden Truth".
I don't know much about the actual science, here, but it seems to me that their reasoning is WAY off. It is, of course, entirely possible that there is a link between the two, and that the vaccines are harming the foetus. But this article seems to be overplaying its hand.
Great show as always, folks!
Gem Newman,
The Winnipeg Skeptics
I hope that this issue does get a bit of airtime on SGU, as the safety of the flu vaccine is a very important issue. I hope that the vaccines are safe. The precautionary principle may get a bit of play here, but at the same time the seasonal flu vaccine has a long history and has been very well tested. It seems implausible that that the H1N1 vaccine would pose safety risks beyond those of the seasonal vaccine; if this were the case, I would be surprised.
But I'm not a medical doctor or researcher, and I'll defer to their expertise.
Edit: You can read Steven Novella's thoughts here!
The King analysis is nothing but rank pseudoscience, twisted to his anti-vaccine agenda. It has been widely repeated by anti-vaccine, anti-government, and conspiracy-mongering sites – Natural News being just one site to uncritically parrot the false assumption that reported cases of miscarriage and stillbirth are additional cases caused by the H1N1 vaccine.
In reality there is no evidence of any increased risk of spontaneous abortion from the flu vaccine or H1N1 vaccine specifically. The CDC monitoring of reported cases has not revealed any increased risk, nor have any direct comparisons of vaccinated vs unvaccinated (with the flu vaccine) pregnant women.
And yet the NCOW accuses the CDC of lying and falsifying their reports – because they present the public with science rather than King’s pseudoscience.
Meanwhile, the H1N1 flu presents an actual risk to pregnant women and their unborn children. Fear-mongering about the vaccine, therefore, has a body toll attached to it. The NCOW does this under the guise of defending the rights of women. Mike Adams seems only to want to sell his wares. I’m not sure which is worse.
If you think that this is actually true, then you are actually a complete and total imbecile. This is the argumentum ad populum, and the fact that Q-Ray uses it means that either: (a) they are knowingly misleading you, in which case they are liars; or (b) they are unwittingly misleading you, in which case they are fools.
In either case, I would humbly recommend that you not buy their bogus products.
If they had actual evidence on their side, they would not be relying on fallacious arguments. Then again, they could just be idiots.
If you think that the appeal to numbers should be a persuasive argument, then I would respond with "940,000,000 Hindus Can't Be Wrong!"
Today, the Winnipeg Skeptics are hosting Winnipeg's first SkeptiCamp. Video of all of the talks are on the way, but below you'll find the text of the brief talk that I'm giving to kick off SkeptiCamp.
So today is the twenty-third of October. Those of you who pay any attention whatever to the field of cosmogony (or read Pharyngula) will know that today marks a very important date. Yes, according to Bishop Ussher, today is Earth's birthday—today, our planet (and, indeed, all of the cosmos) turns 6013. Also, as Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman pointed out, the Earth is a Libra.*
Have any of you ever heard of the Monty Hall problem? It's based on the television show Let's Make a Deal, and it goes something like this:
You're on Let's Make a Deal, and Monty Hall has offered you a chance to win big: you're asked to select one of three doors. Behind one of the doors is a fabulous new car! But behind the other two are hilarious gag prizes that no one would ever want!
You point your finger toward one of the doors, trembling with excitement. Monty Hall smiles, steps up to one of the other doors, and opens it, revealing a goat! And then, with a twinkle in his eye, Monty Hall offers you a choice: you can either keep what's behind the door that you originally selected or you can switch to the third (unrevealed) door.
Now, here's the question: What should you do?
I've heard that even mathematicians argue about this one, because the solution is so contrary to common sense. [If you're really dying to know what the solution is, click here.]
But that's the problem: common sense only gets you so far. You've probably heard it said before that "Common sense is neither common nor sensible." It's great for the little things, like determining whether your brother split the piece of pie fairly or roughly how long it will take to get to grandma's house—but when common sense fails, it can fail spectacularly. Try using common sense to ascertain the shape of the earth, the motions of the planets, the age of the universe, the origin of life, the causes of and cures for disease, or even the solution to a fairly simple math problem, and the whole thing falls apart: you either get an answer that is spectacularly wrong or spectacularly useless. In fact, I would wager that the entire scientific enterprise is built upon moving beyond common sense.
I really enjoy figuring things out. I love learning something new. Our species thrives on innovation—that really seems to be our niche.
Have you ever heard the old proverb "curiosity killed the cat"? I hate that saying. When I was a kid, I asked a lot of questions. I imagine that I wasn't alone in this. Anyone have kids? They're curious, right? Right. So I asked a lot of questions. I was mostly raised by my father, and he was—is—a great dad. (Sure, he had some strange ideas—but moms and dads and aunts and uncles and brothers and sisters and husbands and wives and children and friends and pretty much everyone who isn't you is going to have some pretty strange ideas, right? You deal with it.) But my dad is a really great dad, and one of the many really great qualities that really made that really great dad great was the fact that he always, without fail, every timeencouraged my curiosity. And that is, if you'll excuse me saying so, really great. If I asked questions, he'd answer them, but he'd also ask questions back. He made me think about things, and no question was ever off-limits.
I think that curiosity is really important. But... not everyone agrees with me. Try this quotation on for size:
"There is another form of temptation, even more fraught with danger. This is the disease of curiosity. It is this which drives us to try and discover the secrets of nature, those secrets which are beyond our understanding, which can avail us nothing and which man should not wish to learn."
Anyone know where that quotation comes from? That's from Saint Augustine's Confessions, and I like it in probably exactly the same way that Professor X likes Magneto. That kind of thinking is very dangerous. It leaves people dying of plagues and famines, it stifles innovation, it encourages an insular society closed to new ideas, it discourages free inquiry into the mysteries of nature, and ultimately it can avail us nothing.
This isn't about religion, so I'll put this train back on its tracks in just a second, but I want to share one more thought with you on the subject. Julian Begini expressed this quite well, I think: "It is arguable," he said, "that humanism has a better grip on life's mysteries than religion. For example, I'm genuinely in the dark about how the universe started, whereas plenty of religious believers have that hole in their understanding plugged by their deity."
I'd rather not know than have a non-answer. To me, saying "God did it" is like saying "it's magic!" You're not actually answering the question.
Okay, that's enough about that: I don't want to get preachy. Nobody likes preachy, right?
You know, I briefly considered calling this talk "The Disease of Curiosity". I frankly thought that would be a brilliant idea. Thankfully, my wife talked me out of it. We now have fewer talks that sound like they're about contracting a venereal disease.
Okay. Let's learn something!
You know what I learned? I learned that despite being a happily married heterosexual man, I have a huge crush on Adam Savage.
I'm the lead developer of a Winnipeg software company specialising in machine learning applications. As part of my job, I have to interview many prospective full-time, part-time, and co-op employees. I conduct about twenty interviews each year. These people are smart people, and the positions that they're interviewing for are challenging ones—many are going to be working in one or many programming languages with which they have little to no experience, they'll be working on cutting-edge expert systems, and, quite frankly, they won't be paid very well. For this reason, the interview process that we employ is what can only be called grueling.
These people's job will be to figure stuff out. You probably won't be surprised to learn that I prize the ability to solve a novel problem more highly than I do a knowledgebase. If an applicant tells me that she has a working knowledge of Scilab, Python, FreeMat, PERL, and SQL, that's great! But it won't get her a free pass. And so, as a warm-up, I like to ask a few riddles.
So.
You are presented with four cards lying on a table. Each card has a number on one side and a letter on the other, and the visible faces read "A", "B", "2", and "3". You are provided with an hypothesis, and it is this: each of these cards that has a vowel on one side has an even number on the other. You have permission to flip over two of the cards. If you want to conclusively confirm or disconfirm this hypothesis, which two should you flip?
I'll let you think about that for a moment. Once again, the hypothesis is: each card with a vowel on one side has an even number on the other.
Poll the audience for each of the six solutions: A & B, 2 & 3, A & 2, B & 3, A & 3, B & 2.
This problem is pulled directly from the pages of John Allen Paulos' Innumeracy, a wonderful and eminently readable book from which I try to plagiarise at least once a day.
One of the things that this problem does very well is showcase confirmation bias: that is to say our tendency to look for confirmatory evidence and ignore disconfirmatory evidence. While many will opt for flipping "A" and "2", flipping "2" will actually add no new information to the system. Remember that the hypothesis was that each card with a vowel on one side has an even number on the other, NOT that each card with an even number on one side has a vowel on the other. If "2" has a vowel on the other side, it is consistent with our hypothesis but does not confirm it, as "3" could still have a vowel on its reverse; if, however, "2" has a consonant on the other side, it will neither confirm nor disconfirm our hypothesis because it does not fit into the problem space. "A" and "3" are the correct cards to flip, because in all cases revealing their other sides will positively confirm or disconfirm our hypothesis.
Anyone remember the Infinite Improbability Drive from Hitchhiker's Guide? The basic idea was that if you could calculate precisely how improbable it was that you would spontaneously appear somewhere else, you could do just that. It also had the nasty side-effect of causing incredibly improbable things to happen.
Shall we make something really improbable happen? Let's talk about numbers for a bit. I work with numbers all day, and I love 'em. They're weird little monsters, though. I asked my computer to generate two sequences of twenty-five (pseudo)random numbers between 1 and 10, and then I sorted them so that you could easily see the distributions.
Which of those number sequences looks more random?
What do you notice when you look at the numbers on the left? The first thing jumped out at me was that there were no ones! The probability of selecting 25 random integers between one and ten and not receiving any ones is only about 7%! Did I make a mistake when I input the query?
Did you catch what I did just there? It isn't actually any more likely that I would arrive at that particular sequence of numbers than that I would pick seven every single time. Prior to the numbers being picked, the probability of arriving at any number sequence with that distribution of ones and twos and threes and so-ons was about one in 200 million, and the probability of arriving at that specific sequence of numbers was one in 10 septillion.
Afterward? The probability was one in one. It's important to remember that the chances of arriving at any random sequence of numbers is the same, and anything that was picked would be equally improbable. So next time someone tells you about some "one in a million thing" that just happened to them, you may have cause to be less impressed. Astoundingly improbable things happen all the time.
Now, I have to admit something: I lied to you all a moment ago when I said that I asked my computer to generate two sets of numbers. To my eyes, the sequence on the left doesn't look nearly as random as the sequence on the right. There are way too many threes, there are no ones, and three of the numbers were only selected a single time! Those are the things that I tried to correct when I hand-crafted the list on the right. Contrary to our expectations, randomness can actually be remarkably clumpy.
For those of you who are interested, I calculated the probability of arriving at that numeric distribution binomially, and it's entirely possible that I made a mistake. Feel free to work through it yourself. You'll need these equations, which you may remember from high-school pre-cal:
When you watch MythBusters, what is it that draws you in?
For me, it isn't the explosions. I love to watch Adam and Jamie trying to figure things out. Why? Well, partly it's because I want to know the answer, and I want to see how they intend on arriving at it. But more than that, I love to watch how excited they are. It's contagious! Be excited about learning. I'm sure that most of you can remember a teacher that you had in high-school who was really enthusiastic about his or her subject matter. That's a wonderful thing!
And as media expands, those people can rise to the top. Today we have Adam Savage, Jamie Hyneman, Phil Plait, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Brian Dunning, Rebecca Watson, Simon Singh, Richard Wiseman, the Novella brothers... the list seems endless.
Carl Sagan isn't around, anymore. Neither is Richard Feynman. But their legacy lives on. We need people to be excited about learning and about problem solving and about science, because we don't want our society to stagnate.
How about one for the road? This is a problem that is fairly well designed to confound computer scientists, and it's currently my favourite puzzle. Let's say that you are given a balance scale and eight weights. The eight weights are identical in appearance, but one is very slightly heavier than the rest. You can use the balance scale twice, putting any number of weights on each side and observing the result. Is it possible to conclusively determine which of the eight weights is heaviest in this way?
I'm not going to reveal the answer to you. If you think that you've got it, feel free to seek me out later, but please don't announce it to everyone, because you'll spoil the fun.
So what am I trying to say? What it really comes down to is this: this disease of curiosity against which Augustine railed has led to all of the amazing advancements in science and technology of which we avail ourselves on a daily basis. Curiosity is pretty much the best thing we've got going for us.
When you spend a lot of time trying to figure things out, sometimes you just won't get it. And that's okay. There have been times that I've literally spent five hours trying to solve a particular mathematics problem, for no other reason than that I wanted to know the answer. Sometimes, you're just not going to figure it out—but that's no reason not to try. I'd always rather see somebody fail than see that person not try at all.
* Technically, in 4004 BCE, I believe that the Earth would be a Scorpio, although 23 October is firmly Libra in today's sidereal astrology. But for some reason, Libra makes the joke better. This explanation, however, does not.
Do you think that it doesn't matter either way? Each door has a 50% chance of having a goat on the other side? Well, if so, then you'd be wrong. You should switch doors.
It's important to remember that Monty can and will always reveal a goat. Since we're dealing with a relatively small problem space, let's explore it. First, we'll assume that you decide you'll always stay. We'll label the winning door D1. There are three possibilities:
You pick D1. He reveals a goat (either D2 or D3). You stay. You win!
You pick D2. He reveals D3. You stay. You lose!
You pick D3. He reveals D2. You stay. You lose!
So if you stay, one time in three you'll win.
Next, assume that you decide you'll always switch. Again, we'll label the winning door D1. There are three possibilities:
You pick D1. He reveals a goat (either D2 or D3). You switch. You lose!
You pick D2. He reveals D3. You switch to D1. You win!
You pick D3. He reveals D2. You switch to D1. You win!
If you switch, two times in three you'll win.
A less intuitive (more "mathy") way of explaining it is that the door that you pick initially has a probability of ⅓ of being a winner. The other two doors, taken together, have a collective probability of ⅔ of having a winner among them. When Monty reveals that one of them is a goat (which he always will), that set of two doors still has a ⅔ chance of containing a winner. Since you know that one of them is a goat, the other has a ⅔ probability of winning.
I just finished listening to this week's episode of The Atheist Experience, a weekly, hour-long, call-in show out of Austin that allows dialogue between the atheist hosts and theist callers.
This week's episode (679 in the archive, show notes here) was nominally on the subject of conspiracy theories, however one caller managed to single-handedly derail the show.
The argument went something like this: the cell is an incredibly complex machine and we know that machines are the result of intelligence; therefore, the cell is the result of intelligence. Or, more formally:
Every machine that we have examined is the result of intelligence.
Cells are machines.
∴ Cells are the result of intelligence.
This is clearly not a deductively valid argument, however at first glance it appears to be fairly straightforward example of logical induction. So that's fine, as far as it goes. If we assume that the proponent of intelligent design is making an inductive argument, I have two main problems with it:
The fellow kept saying that this is what he had deduced. Once wasn't a big deal, but when he said it over and over again I began shouting at my car stereo and swerving all over the road while flailing my arms wildly, much to the alarm of other drivers.
Not only is the argument invalid, the premises are questionable. He never defined what he meant by "machine". This is actually a fairly major problem, as, depending on one's definition, we have some seventy sextillion machines without intelligent creators.*
But the truly glaring problem with the argument is that it actually isn't a good example of induction at all! Let's compare the argument above to actual logical induction:
Every machine that we have examined is the result of intelligence.
∴ Every machine the result of intelligence.
It seems to me that the first argument is actually an argument by analogy, and not a very good one.
* One such was described by They Might Be Giants as a "miasma of incandescent plasma". The creationist dismissed the "stars as machines" idea out of hand, however, without actually addressing the point, despite the fact that they are fusion reactors responsible for the manufacture and proliferation of heavy elements throughout the cosmos.
I was going to call this post Revenge of the Jedi, but apparently Jedi don't take revenge, so I'll talk about genetically engineered crops, instead.
I've been involved in a discussion with Rob, a fellow member of the Winnipeg Skeptics and blogger over at The Plan.
It started with a post here on Startled Disbelief briefly commenting on a recent report from the U.S. National Research Council, which found that "many U.S. farmers who grow genetically engineered (GE) crops are realizing substantial economic and environmental benefits".
Rob commented that he had changed his mind about GE crops after watching a YouTube video, to which he posted a link. My response was somewhat terse, due to the many noted problems with YouTube as a medium for the communication of ideas, especially when those ideas are contentious.
Rob replied via email, informing me that he had responded to my second post on his blog. I'll be excerpting heavily from that post in my response, but interested readers ought to read his original post.
In retrospect, I should not have just posted a video link without actually giving my perspective on the matter and saying which specific arguments in the video convinced me. ... I should have re-viewed the video before posting it because I hadn't seen it in a few months and didn't recall the exact content.
Hear hear! The video was rather long, and I had not found the transcript that Rob links to in his post, which also made it difficult and time-consuming to quote. I find few things more frustrating than receiving an email which amounts to nothing more than a link to a video, and if the video exceeds five minutes I'm unlikely to watch it at all. (If you want to know why, read the previous GE post, in which I address the specific video in question, or read the posts that I linked to above from the Conspiracy Science and Atheist Experience blogs.)
I should have also specified that my problems with GE organisms were largely outside the scope of the scientific issues you tackled in your original post.
I'm glad to hear it! It's easy to forget that although many of us have a tendency to be rather combative on "teh intertoobs", we're real people, and (most) real people have a visceral dislike for conflict. Believe it or not, I would really like it if we could all just get along—but I will not allow that ideal to compromise the free expression of ideas.
It would be fantastic if everyone could completely separate their egos from their ideas. Alas, it seems that our puny ape brains will not easily free us from that bizarre defensiveness that arises from the idea that someone disagrees with one of our precious opinions. And so I'm glad to hear that our points of contention are narrowing!
And the scientific issues are really what concerns me. I certainly do think that the industry requires oversight and regulation, and many of their practices do seem to be cause for concern. So let's get started.
Allow me to summarize your first post: "all natural" and "organic" are scientifically meaningless[;] genetic engineering is more efficient than artificial selection; genetic engineering results in lower production costs, fewer pest problems, reduced use of pesticides, and better yields; we need to be vigilant about the over-use of certain pesticides; overall, GE crops are good for people and the planet. I agree with every single point you make except for the conclusion that you reach (good for people and planet).
Sure. I think that, for the most part, you've fairly summarized my position. But allow me to make a few clarifications:
"All natural" is scientifically meaningless. "Organic" is scientifically meaningful ("of or pertaining to carbon-based compounds"), but is most often used in a scientifically meaningless way. But close enough.
I did claim that genetic engineering is more efficient than artificial selection in many (not necessarily all) ways. When I say "efficient", I mean than genetic engineering can allow scientists to achieve their goals with minimum wasted time and effort. Providing that the genetic structure of the organism is sufficiently understood (a fairly large caveat, I know), the use of recombinant DNA technology and/or direct genetic manipulation could accomplish in one generation what would take several with the use of forced breeding alone.
I did not assert in my original post that genetic modification results in "lower production costs, fewer pest problems, reduced use of pesticides, and better yields". That assertion comes (word for word) from the NRC report that I was discussing. It also bears mentioning that when I quoted this contention, I included the qualifier "many U.S. farmers" from the original article. By removing this qualifier it may be (erroneously) argued that this statement applies in all cases.
Where Rob really loses me is when he claims that "the conclusion that [I] reach" is that "overall, GE crops are good for people and the planet". Perhaps I missed it during my reread, but I don't believe that I said anything of the sort. The first article concluded with "Science isn't the enemy", and the second with the slightly more verbose:
I want to be clear (something that apparently I'm not very good at): I am not saying that all GE foods are safe. I am not saying that organic foods are bad for you. I am not saying that testing new products is unnecessary. And I am not simply siding with biotechnological companies.
What I am saying is that the label "organic" is not scientifically meaningful: it's marketing, like putting vitamins in your shampoo. What I am saying is that GE crops have been shown to provide specific benefits over traditional crops.
I think that genetic engineering has great potential for good, and reflexive dismissal or absolute denial of its benefits serves no purpose. (I am not saying that this is what Rob is doing. I am simply clarifying my position.)
As some readers may note, some of my points of contention with Rob's summary of my position relate to the removal of a simple qualifying word or statement (e.g., "many"). This may seem like a small point, but I believe it to be a very important one. Many colleagues have encouraged me to take firmer stances and to make grand, sweeping declarations about the way things are, as it would add authority to my position. But I am not, as I have told CEOs and executives on many occasions, a businessperson—and I'm going to make every attempt to stay within the bounds of the evidence, even when that may weaken the perception that others have of the positions that I take or the work that I do.
We're not talking about evolution versus creationism or the heliocentric and geocentric views of our solar system—this is a fairly young science, and it isn't as cut-and-dried as all that. And so I'm going to approach the subject with at least a modicum of intellectual humility. It also leads to fewer "gotcha" moments later on, as more evidence comes in.
And for those of you who would accuse me of picking nits: well, you're probably right. Let's move on.
How is it possible that we agree on all these facts and yet reach different conclusions? The answer is that you left out some very important questions about implementation in your analysis.
As aforementioned, I have some objections to Rob's analysis of my position. I am also vaguely annoyed with the (uncharacteristically) patronising tone that he takes, here. If a person feels the need to describe him- or herself as either "pro-GE" or "anti-GE" (or even "pro-organic" or "anti-organic"), that person is likely not sufficiently considering the complexity of the issue, which is excusable: we have a tendency to crave the simplicity of black/white dichotomies. But it is also wrong-headed. The fact that I have pointed out that many of the arguments made by pro-organic, anti-GE ideologues are fallacious does not mean that I am pro-GE and anti-organic. There is reason to be cautious about genetic engineering, and I would not want the practice to be completely unregulated.
Rob claims that I "left out some very important questions about implementation in [my] analysis". My analysis of what? Of the study conducted by the NRC? Isn't that what we were talking about? That study had nothing to do with "implementation"—it had to do with impact. (I'm assuming based on context that by "implementation" he means the process by which a genetically engineered organism moves from the realm of theory to the realm of your dinner table.)
Unsurprisingly, the same types of greedy corporations that build showers that electrocute soldiers in Iraq and drill for oil without adequate safety measures or contingency plans also do shady things with GE crops that don't show up in scientific studies about crop production and profitability.
This is an interesting paragraph. It seems that Rob is attempting to link KBR and BP (two companies with fairly ugly histories) with Monsanto (another company with a fairly ugly history) and its ilk. Aside from (convincing) allegations of corruption and corporate misconduct, I was not able to find any meaningful connection between these companies. This paragraph seems to be a fairly straightforward example at poisoning the well supported by a red herring.
This strikes me as fairly odd, considering that Monsanto (for example) is already by most accounts a pretty awful company, and are correspondingly easy to smear. I actually work across the street from Monsanto's Canadian head office (which qualifies me to speak about Monsanto with roughly the same authority than an Alaskan governor can bring to bear in a discussion of Russian foreign policy), and they seem like genuinely nice folks. That doesn't mean that they aren't misguided or mistaken on some fronts, however, and it doesn't speak to the beneficence of the company for which they work. Take it away, Ben:
If you really want to dig deeper, Monsanto is also very simply an unpleasant company (it made Agent Orange during the Vietnam War, for example).
—Ben Goldacre, Bad Science
If I have in any way misunderstood Rob's argument, here, I apologise. But I have been unable to find any relevant connection between companies that electrocute soldiers or recklessly drill for oil besides his assertion that they all fall under the category of "greedy corporations" (which I grant, by the way). But perhaps I'm doing his argument an injustice. This is what it seems to amount to:
Greedy companies have done bad things in the past.
Monsanto and similar biotech companies are greedy.
Therefore, Monsanto and similar biotech companies will do bad things in the future.
While that may pass muster as a rule of thumb, it is certainly not a logically valid argument. But let's look at what these companies are actually doing.
For starters, some GE companies sell "terminator seeds". These seeds only produce one generation of plants because the seeds produced by the first generation are sterile. This is very harmful for impoverished farmers in the third world because they rely on saving seeds from the previous year's crop. Terminator seeds force them to return to agriculture companies year after year in order to buy new seeds. The companies' goal is not to feed the world more efficiently; they are only motivated by profit.
Yes.
For those of you who haven't read it, I highly recommend Bad Science, by Ben Goldacre.
I remain extremely wary of GM for reasons that have nothing to do with science, simply because it has created a dangerous power shift in agriculture, and 'terminator seeds', which die at the end of the season, are a way to increase farmers' dependency, both nationally and in the developing world, while placing the global food supply in the hands of multinational corporations.
—Ben Goldacre, Bad Science
I agree—with some caveats, that is. I don't think that it's fair to say that the companies are only motivated by profit. Primarily motivated by profit? Absolutely!
But there are other concerns, too. Rob goes on to state:
When one company's GE crop dominates a region then there is a drastic loss of genetic diversity. Genetic diversity is an important safe-guard against catastrophic crop failure due to disease, fungus or pests. Crop failure on a large enough scale could result in millions of deaths due to starvation.
I definitely agree that genetic diversity is important, and I'm all in favour of preventing millions of deaths. But, according to seed manufacturers, it is precisely that diversity that genetic use restriction technologies (terminator crops) are meant to protect:
The induced sterility in seed using GURTs cannot spread. By its very nature, sterile seed cannot reproduce and thereby produce pollen necessary for propagation. Biodiversity is not threatened.
Now, don't get me wrong: I recognise that these companies are worried about their bottom line, protecting their intellectual property, etc. Credit should go where credit is due, but I think that most intellectual property laws are straight-up bonkers. All the same, I feel that it is incumbent upon me to present the other side of the argument. Yes, terminator seeds do force local farmers "to return to agriculture companies year after year in order to buy new seeds." But they are also intended to address the biodiversity argument that Rob raised.
Are terminator seeds a good idea? I certainly don't think so! But let's be fair.
GE crops are patented and many can only be sprayed with patented pesticides that are produced by the same companies that make the seeds.[citation needed]
I'm not saying that's not true. I am saying that I couldn't find any references to it.
Another problem with the patenting of life that occurs with GE crops is that it results in multinational corporations enforcing their patents by suing farmers.
Agreed. I don't like the idea of patenting life any more than Rob does, and large, multinational corporations do seem to have a tendency to behave poorly.
One big problem with GE crops is that they are less nutritious than their pre-GE counterparts. In fact, selective breeding is also guilty of causing our food to be less nutritious than it once was. For the entire history of agriculture, plants have been bred for their resistance to environmental factors, quick growth, pleasing appearances and ease of transportation. The most important thing that genetic engineers should be worried about is making sure that the food we eat is more nutritious, not less.
I agree that nutrition should be a focus for future genetic engineering, although I think that in developing countries food quantity may outrank food quality as a priority for the moment.
I've heard the organic-is-more-nutritious argument before, although I've never heard it explained plausibly until now. Thanks to Rob for the link! Nutrition is important (I have to say that: my wife is a dietitian, after all!), but I don't think that the issue is as clear as all that. While the mechanism proposed by Davis in the Steattle Post-Intelligencer article linked to by Rob seems superficially plausible, we need to assess whether the effect that it explains actually occurs.
It may. Davis' findings seem to suggest that nutritional degradation is a reality. But a recent literature review comparing the nutrition-related health outcomes of consumption of organic and conventional agriculture concluded:
From a systematic review of the currently available published literature, evidence is lacking for nutrition-related health effects that result from the consumption of organically produced foodstuffs.
There are other plausible mechanisms for deficient nutrition that don't involve genetically engineered foodstuffs. Soil depletion due to over-farming, for example.
As I said, nutrition is important. If GE crops are currently insufficiently nutritious, this is simply a matter of focus: we could concentrate our engineering efforts on nutrition in addition to size and pest control.
Despite the fact that his rhetoric is a little over the top and many of his facts related to the science of GE crops are questionable at best, Mr. Smith's recommendations to only grow GE crops indoors and to end the practice of patenting life seem quite reasonable to me. He encourages us to be vigilant of both the scientific and economic dangers involved with GE crops.
I'm not certain that I'd go so far as to mandate indoor cultivation for GE crops, primarily because of the additional cost that it would involve for the farmers who depend on them. But if Monsanto is willing to foot the bill? Why not?
I emphatically agree with you when you say, in summarizing the original post, that "science isn't the enemy." You've outlined several arguments that demonstrate that there are clear advantages to using GE foods and that the labels 'all natural' and 'organic' rely on consumer ignorance of the naturalistic fallacy. However, while science isn't the enemy, it also isn't the panacea that some make it out to be. Science needs to be reigned in by sound legislation and rigorous regulation in order to protect the environment and future generations of humanity. ... What better ways could there be to assure cautious progress?
Agreed.
And props to Rob for making me blow coffee into my sinuses with his link to Spider-Goat.
.png)
.jpg)
