On the Nature of Things | Forum

noddy wrote:i think you will find its "muh science" that identified and quantified the drop in nutrition for the commercial varieties.

anti science hippies vs monsanto paid shills just clouds the boring analysis of each food crop on a case by case basis.

Mr. Perfect wrote:

Brecher wrote:

Mr. Perfect wrote:

Typhoon wrote: No, but they do spend their days walking.

Really. Did you ask them?

Good point. They probably fly around in hover cars and eat shoo-fly pie all day.

Or lounge around in the bush or huts.

Mr. Perfect wrote:. . .

Either way study the sedentary lives of Japanese office workers and ask why they aren't fat like us.

Mr. Perfect wrote:False choice. GMOs only save millions from starving in corporate marketing.

Typhoon wrote:

Mr. Perfect wrote:. . .

Either way study the sedentary lives of Japanese office workers and ask why they aren't fat like us.

Lower caloric intake, daily commute by train which involves walking/bicycling to and from train station. walking up and down stairs, etc.

noddy wrote: science is just facts

Mr. Perfect wrote:

noddy wrote: science is just facts

Science is, yes, but lots of people think their opinions are fact, including members of the Church of Scientism.

“If a doctrine is not unintelligible, it has to be vague; and if neither unintelligible nor vague, it has to be unverifiable.”
― Eric Hoffer, The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements

Typhoon wrote:Nat Rev | Sigmund Fraud

When the cancer research journal Tumor Biology retracted 107 papers last year, a dubious new world record was set — and the world's scientists took notice.

Largely because all 107 papers were penned by Chinese researchers.

"The fact they were all from one journal was eye opening", Ivan Oransky, who co-founded Retraction Watch, a publication that investigates scientific misconduct, said.

The author admits that “my own anthropocentric frame” makes it difficult to judge animal consent. Still, the paper claims dog parks are “petri dishes for canine ‘rape culture’ ” and issues “a call for awareness into the different ways dogs are treated on the basis of their gender and queering behaviors, and the chronic and perennial rape emergency dog parks pose to female dogs.”

All of this prompted me to ask my own questions. My email to “Helen Wilson” was answered by James Lindsay, a math doctorate and one of the real co-authors of the dog-park study. Gender, Place & Culture had been duped, he admitted. So had half a dozen other prominent journals that accepted fake papers by Mr. Lindsay and his collaborators—Peter Boghossian, an assistant professor of philosophy at Portland State University, and Helen Pluckrose, a London-based scholar of English literature and history and editor of AreoMagazine.com.

The three academics call themselves “left-leaning liberals.” Yet they’re dismayed by what they describe as a “grievance studies” takeover of academia, especially its encroachment into the sciences. “I think that certain aspects of knowledge production in the United States have been corrupted,” Mr. Boghossian says. Anyone who questions research on identity, privilege and oppression risks accusations of bigotry.

noddy wrote:https://www.wsj.com/articles/fake-news- ... _opin_pos2

The author admits that “my own anthropocentric frame” makes it difficult to judge animal consent. Still, the paper claims dog parks are “petri dishes for canine ‘rape culture’ ” and issues “a call for awareness into the different ways dogs are treated on the basis of their gender and queering behaviors, and the chronic and perennial rape emergency dog parks pose to female dogs.”

All of this prompted me to ask my own questions. My email to “Helen Wilson” was answered by James Lindsay, a math doctorate and one of the real co-authors of the dog-park study. Gender, Place & Culture had been duped, he admitted. So had half a dozen other prominent journals that accepted fake papers by Mr. Lindsay and his collaborators—Peter Boghossian, an assistant professor of philosophy at Portland State University, and Helen Pluckrose, a London-based scholar of English literature and history and editor of AreoMagazine.com.

The three academics call themselves “left-leaning liberals.” Yet they’re dismayed by what they describe as a “grievance studies” takeover of academia, especially its encroachment into the sciences. “I think that certain aspects of knowledge production in the United States have been corrupted,” Mr. Boghossian says. Anyone who questions research on identity, privilege and oppression risks accusations of bigotry.

noddy wrote:https://www.wsj.com/articles/fake-news- ... _opin_pos2

The author admits that “my own anthropocentric frame” makes it difficult to judge animal consent. Still, the paper claims dog parks are “petri dishes for canine ‘rape culture’ ” and issues “a call for awareness into the different ways dogs are treated on the basis of their gender and queering behaviors, and the chronic and perennial rape emergency dog parks pose to female dogs.”

All of this prompted me to ask my own questions. My email to “Helen Wilson” was answered by James Lindsay, a math doctorate and one of the real co-authors of the dog-park study. Gender, Place & Culture had been duped, he admitted. So had half a dozen other prominent journals that accepted fake papers by Mr. Lindsay and his collaborators—Peter Boghossian, an assistant professor of philosophy at Portland State University, and Helen Pluckrose, a London-based scholar of English literature and history and editor of AreoMagazine.com.

The three academics call themselves “left-leaning liberals.” Yet they’re dismayed by what they describe as a “grievance studies” takeover of academia, especially its encroachment into the sciences. “I think that certain aspects of knowledge production in the United States have been corrupted,” Mr. Boghossian says. Anyone who questions research on identity, privilege and oppression risks accusations of bigotry.

noddy wrote:will be interesting to see how much they are punished.