GM foods.

Nah man Glyphosate is 100% safe and so is Walmart produce.

too long didn't watch, you retard - is coming pretty soon.

wait for it...

I wouldn't bother watching those videos, the guy behind them is not credible. Lots of picking things out of context to push his various biases - he mostly spends his time trying to promote veganism.

  On 9/30/2015 at 5:04 AM, caze said:

I wouldn't bother watching those videos, the guy behind them is not credible. Lots of picking things out of context to push his various biases - he mostly spends his time trying to promote veganism.

...yet in this video despite his crazy pro-vegan bias he is warning people of a potential danger of soy consumption. Your argument would've been fallacious anyway but it would have been a bit less ironic if the contents of the video actually suited his agenda.

  On 9/30/2015 at 5:35 AM, eugene said:

lol

wonder if dank memes will ever move to badly photoshopped propaganda style

  On 9/30/2015 at 9:17 AM, manmower said:

 

  On 9/30/2015 at 5:04 AM, caze said:

I wouldn't bother watching those videos, the guy behind them is not credible. Lots of picking things out of context to push his various biases - he mostly spends his time trying to promote veganism.

 

...yet in this video despite his crazy pro-vegan bias he is warning people of a potential danger of soy consumption. Your argument would've been fallacious anyway but it would have been a bit less ironic if the contents of the video actually suited his agenda.

 

no, maybe his luddism is stronger than his veganism. and at the end of the day, quackery is quackery, it rarely works rationally anyway.

  On 9/30/2015 at 4:41 PM, caze said:

 

  On 9/30/2015 at 9:17 AM, manmower said:

 

  On 9/30/2015 at 5:04 AM, caze said:

I wouldn't bother watching those videos, the guy behind them is not credible. Lots of picking things out of context to push his various biases - he mostly spends his time trying to promote veganism.

 

...yet in this video despite his crazy pro-vegan bias he is warning people of a potential danger of soy consumption. Your argument would've been fallacious anyway but it would have been a bit less ironic if the contents of the video actually suited his agenda.

 

 

no, maybe his luddism is stronger than his veganism. and at the end of the day, quackery is quackery, it rarely works rationally anyway.

 

Care to react to the scientific content or are you just going to keep bringing up irrelevant crap? You can do what you like, just asking.

I don't consider some random quotes from a bunch of randomly selected papers in a youtube video to be scientific content.

  On 9/30/2015 at 5:35 AM, eugene said:

Lol these are great

I love how people pretend "scientific content" is free from bias and totally legitimate. My personal anecdotal evidence is stronger than a lot of the "research" out there.

Like when people request clinical trial information to determine whether something is effective. So amusing. Anyone who has spent any time at all looking into research knows that the majority of it is unreliable and the most important thing is to come to your own conclusions using several sources of information.

  On 10/1/2015 at 6:29 AM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

I love how people pretend "scientific content" is free from bias and totally legitimate. My personal anecdotal evidence is stronger than a lot of the "research" out there.

 

Like when people request clinical trial information to determine whether something is effective. So amusing. Anyone who has spent any time at all looking into research knows that the majority of it is unreliable and the most important thing is to come to your own conclusions using several sources of information.

I think you should read that post again. It sounds incredibly smug and makes you come across as someone who has an irrational level of confidence in their own ability to make observations. Are you yourself impervious to things like error or confirmation bias? The majority of research is unreliable, really? I understand that there are some poorly-designed studies out there, and in certain cases discoveries made in the laboratory aren't representative of what's occurring in the real world, but your post sounds preposterous. No one is saying that all studies are 100% objective, but with most well-designed studies precautions are taken to try to minimize bias at the very least. I don't really need to argue the merits of the scientific method because you likely couldn't get through an hour of your day without using something, to your benefit, that was created or refined by that process. Assuming you're sources are reliable, and the overwhelming majority of the scientific community seems to support a particular hypothesis, it's usually a pretty good bet that they're on to something. Being skeptical is healthy obviously, and looking into things like who is conducting the experiment and who is funding it is always a great idea, but if you really think that you just have some sort of intuitive understanding of what's going on and everyone else, many of whom have devoted their lives to a certain branch of research, are just idiots and that science is "overrated", that's just incredibly sad.

  On 10/1/2015 at 7:44 AM, Hail Sagan said:

 

  On 10/1/2015 at 6:29 AM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

I love how people pretend "scientific content" is free from bias and totally legitimate. My personal anecdotal evidence is stronger than a lot of the "research" out there.

 

Like when people request clinical trial information to determine whether something is effective. So amusing. Anyone who has spent any time at all looking into research knows that the majority of it is unreliable and the most important thing is to come to your own conclusions using several sources of information.

 

I think you should read that post again. It sounds incredibly smug and makes you come across as someone who has an irrational level of confidence in their own ability to make observations. Are you yourself impervious to things like error or confirmation bias? The majority of research is unreliable, really? I understand that there are some poorly-designed studies out there, and in certain cases discoveries made in the laboratory aren't representative of what's occurring in the real world, but your post sounds preposterous. No one is saying that all studies are 100% objective, but with most well-designed studies precautions are taken to try to minimize bias at the very least. I don't really need to argue the merits of the scientific method because you likely couldn't get through an hour of your day without using something, to your benefit, that was created or refined by that process. Assuming you're sources are reliable, and the overwhelming majority of the scientific community seems to support a particular hypothesis, it's usually a pretty good bet that they're on to something. Being skeptical is healthy obviously, and looking into things like who is conducting the experiment and who is funding it is always a great idea, but if you really think that you just have some sort of intuitive understanding of what's going on and everyone else, many of whom have devoted their lives to a certain branch of research, are just idiots and that science is "overrated", that's just incredibly sad.

 

Change majority to much and the statement stands I think.

  On 10/2/2015 at 12:29 PM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

Change majority to much and the statement stands I think.

A single study is very rarely going to provide strong evidence for anything, that's what meta-analysis is for, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochrane_Library. This isn't a flaw in the scientific method, it's just how it works.

Of course, it's generally not the mainstream people in medical and scientific communities that fall afoul of this fact, it's the quacks and ideologues (like that vegan youtube guy on the previous page).

  On 10/2/2015 at 3:24 PM, caze said:

 

  On 10/2/2015 at 12:29 PM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

Change majority to much and the statement stands I think.

 

A single study is very rarely going to provide strong evidence for anything, that's what meta-analysis is for, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochrane_Library. This isn't a flaw in the scientific method, it's just how it works.

 

Of course, it's generally not the mainstream people in medical and scientific communities that fall afoul of this fact, it's the quacks and ideologues (like that vegan youtube guy on the previous page).

 

Meta analysis is ok for certain things, but still capable of distortion.

anecdotal evidence is incredibly weak and is much more capable of 'distortion' when compared to actual scientific studies. In general most studies are legitimate and are mostly concerned about objectivity which is the best way to understand the natural world.

Yes some studies can be slanted but I bet you the so called 'scientists' doing these kinds of studies have holes poked in it by actual scientists who care about objective truth, and are in general ostracized for faking things. Science is a collaboration between many individuals, so it's easy to spot when things are slanted or done incorrectly when many people are getting consistent results elsewhere.

Caze is one of those guys sent into message boards by the govt to derail discussions and keep the status quo.

lol. busted

great thread. i would love to see same about of opinions about organic food here in watmm.