• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

American Denialism and Science

Experts Everywhere

People will believe what they want to believe. To compound this problem, there are so many experts from the general population to the braniacs. Many Americans are prone to believe these experts or dismiss those who are really informed. On top of this is the expertise that is spread by the media. Right Wing-Left Wing-Racism-Feminist-Liberals-Conservatives-Religious-My Agenda...etc.

Who knows? You know it was a scam that Americans landed on the moon..and the trade towers were destroyed by Americans so we could rationalize attacking the Middle East.....and we really don't have a 10 bajillion dollar national debt...and we really need to have 10 televisions per home. It could go on and on, but the bottom line is we will believe what we want to believe in spite of science and the truth.

By the way my truth is the only one we all need.
 
Upvote 0
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Denialism is choosing to deny reality as a way to avoid an uncomfortable truth[1]: "[it] is the refusal to accept an empirically verifiable reality. It is an essentially irrational action that withholds validation of a historical experience or event."[2]
 
Upvote 0
People are diverse in their viewpoints, so on science just like everything else there's going to be people all over the spectrum. People that straight out deny everything that science tells us might be hurting themselves as well as the population as a whole, but so are those on the other side that take science as the absolute most important thing and don't consider the consequences of pushing it too far. (See: guys who invented the atomic bomb).

To straight out be opposed to "genetically engineered food" might be a little extreme, but in all fairness scientists really don't know THAT much about nutrition on an individual level as everyone seems to have at least some difference in the nutrients that they need to be at their healthiest, so it at least might be a good idea to be cautious when considering how food is engineered. Having someone question it is better then having everybody go down the wrong path blindly
 
Upvote 0
scooter1369;1690179; said:
Funny how this is an issue with "American denialism" when there are are countries that absolutely refuse to accept foriegn aid of food that has been genetically enhanced and prefer to let their poor and destitute die a slow and agonizing death instead.

Google search results

Actually, in the case of African countries, the argument makes sense. The genetically-modified corn was to be sent in a form that would allow it to be planted. The African countries had three concerns.

First, they rejected genetic modifications. There are scientific arguments to support their claims.

Second, and more compelling, is that emerging market governments knew their people would plant some of the seeds. Donor offers included a requirement that licensing fees be paid for any seed that was planted, which the emerging markets could not afford to pay.

Third, and most compelling, is that the emerging markets asked the US and Europe to adopt the same "free markets" and lack of industry subsidies that they forced on emerging markets in return for aid. If American and European trade barriers in agriculture were lowered, then emerging market countries could build their own agricultural sectors. Instead, every time that they have begun to build their industries, American and European firms have exported products at prices below the cost of production in the US and Europe, less than half the price they charge Americans and Europeans, not only below the cost of production in American and Europe but even below the cost of production in Africa.

The failure of the Doha Round derives from the World Bank estimates that "trade not aid" would benefit America and Europe but that emerging markets would gain six times as much benefit as they derive from aid. The sad shortsightedness of the American government, driven by agricultural lobbyists and subsidies, is directly limiting the ability of exports in other industries and laying incentives to develop intellectual property in emerging markets.

Who's lobbying whom? OpenSecrets.org: Money in Politics -- See Who's Giving & Who's Getting Conservation, biodiversity sustainability environment issues, automated lobbying database at Information for Action
 
Upvote 0
im not sure on denialism. from my views, and a historical view being skeptical has been a very good thing. science should be open for public debate and discourse and should not be limited to 'its beyond debate' or other such, shall i call them tactics. if you go back in history that is essential to slavery and creating/maintaining inferiority persons. you know, women arent as tough as men, they shouldnt be allowed to contract, or exercise free will, they are incapable of holding any sort of property, thus relegated to mere chattels and held there based on "science." use that for native american, african americans, and nearly any other group which does not fit the wasp profile here in america... "scientific fact" was the basis of american eugenics, and the extermination of people here in the us, the sterilization of tens of thousands in the us (all the way into the 1970s), along with many other wrongs. all in the name of indisputable science. i mean if you want to discuss gravity at sea level under "normal conditions" that is one thing, but many of the others, should be open for public discourse, debate, research, and discussion... imo.
 
Upvote 0
Back
Top