SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
For example, one on GM foods:
"Consuming foods with ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming foods modified by conventional plant improvement techniques."
The primary conclusion is that for a number of claims that are generally held to be true by consensus, opposition to those results show interesting correlations: opposition correlates negatively with objective knowledge (what the final test indicated that the subject knew about the field), and positively with subjective knowledge (what the subject thought they knew about the field). Those who were most opposed tended to exhibit a large gap between what they knew and what they thought they knew.
Here's the list of subjects and then I'll get to the punch line:
- GM foods
- Vaccination
- Homeopathic medicine
- Nuclear power
- Climate change
- Big bang
- Evolution
Which one wasn't like the others?
Climate change!
The question was in the same vein as the rest:Most of the warming of Earth’s average global temperature over the second half of the 20th century has been caused by human activities.
Unlike every other field listed in this research, there was a slight positive correlation between opposition to the claim and objective knowledge of the subject (see figure 2).
What other consensus viewpoints are out there where agreement with the consensus correlations with greater ignorance of the subject? Economics maybe?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by deimtee on Saturday August 20 2022, @02:12PM
What were the "consensuses"?
I find their lack of nuance disturbing.
There are several common types of GM "improvements" they make to plants.
1/ Something like Golden Rice where they add genes for a commonly deficient vitamin.
2/ The addition of genes that improve the efficiency or yield of the plant.
3/ The addition of genes that give resistance to applied herbicides.
4/ The addition of genes that produce an internal insecticide. (eg. Bt)
In terms of "risk", 1 is actually negative, 2 is neutral, 3 has the risk that farmers will over-apply herbicides leading to more residues in the food, 4 is straight up putting insecticides inside your food.
In terms of the actual literal meaning of the statement, it is true but misleading. The GM foods are no riskier than making the same modifications by selective breeding, but you cannot make some of the changes by selective breeding in any reasonable timescale.
No problem is insoluble, but at Ksp = 2.943×10−25 Mercury Sulphide comes close.