Some excellent news on GMOs. There is evidence that the GMO “shills” (paid propagandists and lobbyists masquerading as promoters of “scientific awareness”) do not have many hits on their sites. They are truly unpopular. These small gangs can attack GMO opponents, & terrorize and bully some lone scientist all they want. I can see that the strategy of GMO companies is to lobby governments and newspapers, which is much easier.
—-
People make the mistake of engaging a paid shill. All one should do is *expose* them.
—
Finance people were risk-blind, but were a 1000 times more sophisticated than GMO-biologists (at least finance people can understand an insult). I noticed that the GMO promoters make elementary risk mistakes of showing the “benefits” of GMO (which I don’t contest) as if it meant anything about the “risk” of GMOs. This is the standard Russian Roulette fallacy by which someone tells you the probability of getting the bullet is lower *because* the money you win is now larger.
So far all arguments are fraught with these fallacies: 1) The “evidentiary fallacy” (or Turkey problem, mistaking evidence of absence for absence of evidence), 2) The potato fallacy, 3) The technological salvation fallacy (risk-blind), aside from other similar elementary mistakes.(paid propagandists and lobbyists masquerading as promoters of “scientific awareness”) do not have many hits on their sites. They are truly unpopular. These small gangs can attack GMO opponents, & terrorize and bully some lone scientist all they want. I can see that the strategy of GMO companies is to lobby governments and newspapers, which is much easier.

—-

People make the mistake of engaging a paid shill. All one should do is *expose* them.

—

Finance people were risk-blind, but were a 1000 times more sophisticated than GMO-biologists (at least finance people can understand an insult). I noticed that the GMO promoters make elementary risk mistakes of showing the “benefits” of GMO (which I don’t contest) as if it meant anything about the “risk” of GMOs. This is the standard Russian Roulette fallacy by which someone tells you the probability of getting the bullet is lower *because* the money you win is now larger.

So far all arguments are fraught with these fallacies: 1) The “evidentiary fallacy” (or Turkey problem, mistaking evidence of absence for absence of evidence), 2) The potato fallacy, 3) The technological salvation fallacy (risk-blind), aside from other similar elementary mistakes.

via Some excellent news on GMOs. There is evidence… – Nassim Nicholas Taleb.

On GMOs: “A pound of algebra is worth a ton of verbal commentary”. I managed to fit the Precautionary Principle into a few lines. The GMO paid propagandists are pounding tons of verbalistic statements (even an incompetent smear campaign), but this simple summary should cancel about everything they are trying to say. In a single column. They need to refute my representation or show that f(breeding) has the same maximum as f(GMOs).

via Timeline Photos – Nassim Nicholas Taleb.