In the 1980s, the pro-regulation food activists at Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) campaigned to get polyunsaturated fats out of food – and suggested trans fats as a viable alternative.
This is why scientists should never be allowed to have power.
K.D.: Seems like you need to research who benefited then from sale of trans fats, and who stands to benefit now from their banning. I would guess that there's a lobby group that has the "best recommended alternative" that the FDA will be pushing.
B.R.: And how do you have any idea how fat works? Oh yeah, that's right...science.
Me: Science isn't the problem. Scientists are.
B.R.: Unpack that for me, please.
Me: It's a Category Error.
J.S.: Follow the money. Scientists need to pay bills like the rest of us. Mercenary science.
B.R.: You need more logic in your life, buddy.
Me: So, you know what I need in my life? Spoken like a true scientist.
S.L.: Wait, I am a scientist and totally disgusted that The EPA and our gov agencies are implementing policies that is NOT based on common sense or science. Science is totally not what it used to be and lacking....Its all sensationalism and politics NOW....Arbitrary.
J.S.: Sharon, where Government and agenda driven groups are concerned, does money drive the expected outcome?
B.R.: Science doesn't have all the answers. Religion doesn't have all the answers. Politics doesn't have all the answers. Community doesn't have all the answers. Everybody gets stuff wrong, and all man is fallible. We need each other. We need to share power. And no, I certainly don't know what you need in your life, despite my joke. I just don't understand why your world view requires such strict limitations as "scientists should never be allowed to have power". I don't think any category of people should be allowed to have ALL the power. But if a category of people (such as scientists) has useful and intelligent gifts to offer, if they have the capability to help people live happier and healthier lives, regardless of whether they screw up from time to time, I at least recognize that they should have SOME power.
B.R.: A scientist friend of mine sent this to me, and I'd like to share it anonymously. I don't really care if it makes you change your position, Rich, but I'd really appreciate it if you incorporated it into your view of scientists:
"I saw your conversation about powerful scientists in the news feed and my head just about exploded. I've been a federal contractor for 10yrs now, which means I have ZERO job stability. My longest contract has been one year, but most are 3-6mo...as funding allows. My field (marine toxicology) is so poorly funded, we can barely do work. My old lab got significantly more funding out of settlements (Exxon Valdez & Deepwater Horizon....your friend may have heard of them) than the government. My colleagues at EPA were furloughed 13d without pay BEFORE the October furlough. My friends with PhDs can barely afford their studio apartments. My PIs all drive 20yr old pieces of crap that are falling apart. We scrape by on less and less every single year and are questioned on every move we make. I've been told to not discuss my findings without going through a PR person. I haven't been able to get a job back in my field for the last 5yrs, cause there's no funding. We rely on handouts. Private sector science is a different animal, but it's not conducting the research that is brought up in these conversations; rather it's more food science, pharma, petrol etc. We absolutely need entree to the political side of things if we're to affect any real change other than putting out papers with fun factoids. But not at the risk of being controlled/edited/silenced. Our job is not to provide talking points or convenient factoids. It's to prove or disprove, using evidence. We have the data, but they have the pulpit, and most often, our purse strings."
Me: It seems you think a sob story about a poor scientist is relevant in some way. It's not. I haven't discussed their job security, rate of pay, or what they apparently deserve out of life. I only commented on the fact that because scientists tell us something is scientific doesn't mean it grants them political power to implement.
I don't care how bad football is for people. Anyone who wants to play it is free to do so. I don't care that sugary drinks cause obesity. It isn't government's place to enforce my health. I don't care that regular exercise is good for me. What is good for me is not a matter for legislation. What is good for me is not a concern of government. What is good for me is my business, not yours, or science, or anyone else's.
B.R.: I shared the story to illustrate the reality, that scientists don't have the power you seem to fear they do, in fact quite the opposite. If you're going to post your opinions in hyperbolic form, and then recoil when challenged rather than being open to different views, that's completely your choice. If you want to write off all that science has to offer in the realm of government and regulation, rather than making the effort to discern which developments are beneficial and which aren't, that's completely your choice. Have fun with your private business, which by the way relies on politically-implemented scientific development more than you'll admit it does.
Me: You're naive if you think scientists don't have power in government. They have claimed the mantle of all-knowing truth. They are the new religion. Bow down to the purveyors of truth. Anyone who disagrees is deemed a science denier, an apologist for Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Industry...
Sorry, your assertion doesn't even meet the smell test.
I did not recoil. I responded. I did not claim to reject "all that science has to offer." This is typical leftist rhetoric, to amplify a position or opinion until its unrecognizable in order to suggest an absurdity not present in the original comments.
And then comes the irony. After claiming that scientists don't have the power I seem to think they do, your post concludes with a affirmation of all the wonderful politically-implemented scientific development that comes to bear on my business.Ttruly astounding.
B.R.: Damn, you're an intelligent man, Rich! I'll keep the backhanded side of that compliment to myself.
Me: I'm hard on you because I know that you are a thinking man, and you can handle it. Other people of your political persuasion rarely are that way.
B.R.: I'm hard on you because your posts sometimes betray your nature.
Me: I doubt you know my nature beyond the caricatures.
Me: Science isn't the problem. Scientists are.
B.R.: Unpack that for me, please.
Me: It's a Category Error.
J.S.: Follow the money. Scientists need to pay bills like the rest of us. Mercenary science.
B.R.: You need more logic in your life, buddy.
Me: So, you know what I need in my life? Spoken like a true scientist.
S.L.: Wait, I am a scientist and totally disgusted that The EPA and our gov agencies are implementing policies that is NOT based on common sense or science. Science is totally not what it used to be and lacking....Its all sensationalism and politics NOW....Arbitrary.
J.S.: Sharon, where Government and agenda driven groups are concerned, does money drive the expected outcome?
B.R.: Science doesn't have all the answers. Religion doesn't have all the answers. Politics doesn't have all the answers. Community doesn't have all the answers. Everybody gets stuff wrong, and all man is fallible. We need each other. We need to share power. And no, I certainly don't know what you need in your life, despite my joke. I just don't understand why your world view requires such strict limitations as "scientists should never be allowed to have power". I don't think any category of people should be allowed to have ALL the power. But if a category of people (such as scientists) has useful and intelligent gifts to offer, if they have the capability to help people live happier and healthier lives, regardless of whether they screw up from time to time, I at least recognize that they should have SOME power.
B.R.: A scientist friend of mine sent this to me, and I'd like to share it anonymously. I don't really care if it makes you change your position, Rich, but I'd really appreciate it if you incorporated it into your view of scientists:
"I saw your conversation about powerful scientists in the news feed and my head just about exploded. I've been a federal contractor for 10yrs now, which means I have ZERO job stability. My longest contract has been one year, but most are 3-6mo...as funding allows. My field (marine toxicology) is so poorly funded, we can barely do work. My old lab got significantly more funding out of settlements (Exxon Valdez & Deepwater Horizon....your friend may have heard of them) than the government. My colleagues at EPA were furloughed 13d without pay BEFORE the October furlough. My friends with PhDs can barely afford their studio apartments. My PIs all drive 20yr old pieces of crap that are falling apart. We scrape by on less and less every single year and are questioned on every move we make. I've been told to not discuss my findings without going through a PR person. I haven't been able to get a job back in my field for the last 5yrs, cause there's no funding. We rely on handouts. Private sector science is a different animal, but it's not conducting the research that is brought up in these conversations; rather it's more food science, pharma, petrol etc. We absolutely need entree to the political side of things if we're to affect any real change other than putting out papers with fun factoids. But not at the risk of being controlled/edited/silenced. Our job is not to provide talking points or convenient factoids. It's to prove or disprove, using evidence. We have the data, but they have the pulpit, and most often, our purse strings."
Me: It seems you think a sob story about a poor scientist is relevant in some way. It's not. I haven't discussed their job security, rate of pay, or what they apparently deserve out of life. I only commented on the fact that because scientists tell us something is scientific doesn't mean it grants them political power to implement.
I don't care how bad football is for people. Anyone who wants to play it is free to do so. I don't care that sugary drinks cause obesity. It isn't government's place to enforce my health. I don't care that regular exercise is good for me. What is good for me is not a matter for legislation. What is good for me is not a concern of government. What is good for me is my business, not yours, or science, or anyone else's.
B.R.: I shared the story to illustrate the reality, that scientists don't have the power you seem to fear they do, in fact quite the opposite. If you're going to post your opinions in hyperbolic form, and then recoil when challenged rather than being open to different views, that's completely your choice. If you want to write off all that science has to offer in the realm of government and regulation, rather than making the effort to discern which developments are beneficial and which aren't, that's completely your choice. Have fun with your private business, which by the way relies on politically-implemented scientific development more than you'll admit it does.
Me: You're naive if you think scientists don't have power in government. They have claimed the mantle of all-knowing truth. They are the new religion. Bow down to the purveyors of truth. Anyone who disagrees is deemed a science denier, an apologist for Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Industry...
Sorry, your assertion doesn't even meet the smell test.
I did not recoil. I responded. I did not claim to reject "all that science has to offer." This is typical leftist rhetoric, to amplify a position or opinion until its unrecognizable in order to suggest an absurdity not present in the original comments.
And then comes the irony. After claiming that scientists don't have the power I seem to think they do, your post concludes with a affirmation of all the wonderful politically-implemented scientific development that comes to bear on my business.Ttruly astounding.
B.R.: Damn, you're an intelligent man, Rich! I'll keep the backhanded side of that compliment to myself.
Me: I'm hard on you because I know that you are a thinking man, and you can handle it. Other people of your political persuasion rarely are that way.
B.R.: I'm hard on you because your posts sometimes betray your nature.
Me: I doubt you know my nature beyond the caricatures.
No comments:
Post a Comment