Glyphosate: an effective ecological herbicide, not carcinogenic, not endocrine disrupting

[Janic]

by ABC2019 "21/02/20, 11:39

. I know what a scientific approach is,

uh .... me too!

well no, what you are describing there is not the scientific approach.

No it's you! You see where this kind of ping pong leads!
Now, what you believe to be scientific is not, since humans are not machines and therefore they consider their point of view to be scientific.

contrary to the idea which is spreading (and in particular on climatology !!), and which you seem to advocate,

I do not advocate anything, I note like everyone, especially agricultural, that there are season shifts, that's all!

the scientific approach does not consist in placing blind faith in scientists, and even less in scientists who say what you want to believe and treating others as bad scientists !!! - even if that's roughly what you do and you think everyone does.

You're the one talking about bad scientists, not me.
I am talking about scientists having different views, although scientific! It's the snake biting its tail!

The scientific method is based on the critical examination of the methods by which we have reached a conclusion. Showing a youtube video of a guy with red patches, for example, is NOT part of the scientific evidence.

If on the contrary, since it is observable, which is not scientific, it is to draw a conclusion on a simple observation only.

except when you don't want to see what's wrong with your beliefs, cultural conditioning. So you can't change your mind about what you don't know !!!!

I can change my mind if someone brings me arguments factual.

You want arguments, I prefer the facts, it's just a question of choice, of priority. Your system leaves people in their illnesses, whereas I prefer (and they especially) that they get them out of this bad situation, Whatever the means used, while others play with numbers, graphs, hypotheses , arguments.

Answer as you do "find out from the real specialists", that is not a factual argument,

We don't care TES factual arguments, it is not when the house burns that one wonders if the equipment has been polished or that the firefighters have brushed their teeth.

and the fact that you are not able to give it by yourself,

rebelotte I am not a doctor, nor a specialist in medicine (but user and therefore consumer) and only they can answer you, which you are reluctant to do.

it only makes me think that you give your trust only to those you want to believe, without any critical examination of how they arrived at their conclusions.

When they have asked these same questions for 2 centuries and come to the same conclusions, even in opposition. The poor clampin that the client has to do with what is called .... oh yes, his conscience!

. Scientists of all stripes, are trained, deformed, by cultural conditioning above all. Being humans, they reason, like all the others in the same type of society, except in special circumstances that may cause them to change their minds; but this represents only a tiny proportion of individuals. As Coluche said "it is not because they are most likely to be wrong, that they are right"

precisely, on that we agree,

Not possible! arms fall to me!

and I am by no means claiming that scientists as humans always rigorously apply the ideal scientific method. It is precisely for this reason that the argument of 'trusting the specialists' is not valid.

so you don't believe in specialists in one area, but you believe in non-specialists in that same area

And you have to judge the type of argument that is presented and its scientific validity.

or its factual results!

You tell me to go see H doctors on the other wire, but nothing tells me that these H doctors have a scientific methodology, and the fact that they have a medical degree absolutely does not guarantee it.

which show that between those who think they know and those who know nothing but want to make believe that they know better, there you believe these. Champion the scientist!
Lots of blah, but not without logic (for once). No diploma certifies anything (as proof you have one which means nothing either, then)

You tell me to go see H doctors on the other thread, but nothing tells me that these H doctors have a scientific methodology,

It's silly, just ask them!

Precisely what would assure him is to explain how they did to get to know them,

It's always that simple, just ask them!

and this is precisely the thing that you stubbornly refuse to point out

- for a very simple reason,.
I especially do not indicate what is not my competence, there are professionals for that!

you didn't even ask yourself the question

are you a soothsayer? rock the guy! It's pretty much like asking me if I wondered if the water is wet or the fire is burning. No scientific reference needed for that, just try! Ouch, go, it's a boo!

[realistic ecology]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7BguYzO_Xk

A video of particular testimonies, without measures, is irrelevant for people wishing to learn. Or it would be people without critical spirit, for whom the emotion (and prejudices, particularly on the links between the effects and the suggested causes) are enough for them to believe they know something.

[realistic ecology]

...

"Scientists of all stripes are trained, deformed, above all by cultural conditioning."
=> No. They are first trained in the scientific method.

"all are paid to defend the system that employs them"
=> No. They are paid to study and report results, facts and measures, whether they like it or not.
Just because he is paid by Monsanto does not mean that a scientist will produce false results on glyphosate, thereby discrediting himself in his own eyes, and ruining his reputation in the eyes of his colleagues.
Ditto, a researcher paid by Edf will generally not give false results on the reliability of power plants. A paid researcher from the Department of Fisheries will not give false results on the state of fish stocks. A researcher paid by the ministry of health will not invent more or less deaths according to who knows what. Etc.

Researchers may be wrong, sometimes too, but their methodology and results are constantly under the critical eye of other researchers. Nothing better, or worse, than colleagues and competitors, competent and vigilant, capable of detecting all the weaknesses of a study. The competition between researchers is fierce, it is this competition that provides the most reliable results.

Of course there are exceptions, scientists who forget the scientific method because they are in the grip of an ideology. Their colleagues and competitors are responsible for highlighting the weaknesses of their studies, remember the Séralini case.
Unfortunately the public, who is not very attentive to scientific rigor, is strongly influenced by the hype of the media, who are not very attentive, around these researchers under influence.
Economic lobbying, ideological lobbying

[GuyGadebois]

A video of particular testimonies, without measures, is irrelevant for people wishing to learn. Or it would be people without critical spirit, for whom the emotion (and prejudices, particularly on the links between the effects and the suggested causes) are enough for them to believe they know something.

This disgusting contempt ... You should have died of shame but no. Gerbant.

[dede2002]

...
Just because he is paid by Monsanto does not mean that a scientist will produce false results on glyphosate, thereby discrediting himself in his own eyes, and ruining his reputation in the eyes of his colleagues.
Ditto, a researcher paid by Edf will generally not give false results on the reliability of power plants. A paid researcher from the Department of Fisheries will not give false results on the state of fish stocks. A researcher paid by the ministry of health will not invent more or less deaths according to who knows what. Etc.

...

There is all the same a difference between a multinational which is there to make profit, and a ministry which is there, theoretically, to make the link between the system and the population ...

[Janic]

by realistic ecology »21/02/20, 13:08 PM

janic wrote: ... "Scientists of all stripes are trained, deformed, by cultural conditioning above all."

=> No. They are first trained in the scientific method.

No, they are already in a social environment, with different cultures, which influence ALL individuals from infancy to death. So the supposed methods (or cramming) are repeated all year long, by the media of all kinds and school and university conditioning to finish. It is like background music which is no longer even perceived but which is inscribed in the brain in an indelible way. It is the role of sociologists and psychoanalysts to decipher this kind of reality and NO ONE escapes it.
So before talking about method or science we must first define what the words science and method mean before seeing any application. And there is a job!

"all are paid to defend the system that employs them"

=> No. They are paid to study and report results, facts and measures, whether they like it or not.

This is theory, once again. If some scientists work (and therefore are paid too) a little more independently than the "scientists" who work for industrialists, the results must correspond to the requirements of their employers and none can challenge an authority without risking being fired , so yes, they depend first of all systems that use them

Just because he is paid by Monsanto does not mean that a scientist will produce false results on glyphosate, thereby discrediting himself in his own eyes, and ruining his reputation in the eyes of his colleagues.

This is still a waking dream, health scandals demonstrate the opposite. On the one hand in research, the sectors are divided according to the successive stages, (if only for organizational reasons) and the final results (as in any industrial sector) are disseminated or not, according to financial imperatives and industrialists.

Ditto, a researcher paid by Edf will generally not give false results on the reliability of power plants. A paid researcher from the Department of Fisheries will not give false results on the state of fish stocks. A researcher paid by the ministry of health will not invent more or less deaths according to who knows what. Etc.

This is partly true, if we relate the subject to individuals in bottom of the ladder in the business and where they do their job to the best of their ability but under the authority of their industry. None of them can decide which point of their profession, priority should be given, nor the means to have.
For example, the SNCF has favored the TGV and its network to the detriment of other less profitable sectors and therefore this has resulted in insufficient maintenance of other networks and accidents precisely. It 's all about money as usual and the choice of priorities. After the so-called statistical analyzes will depend again and again on those at the top of the scale, not on the guys working in the field.
In terms of medical research, only diseases with a high industrial future ratio will be favored and diseases, such as orphan diseases, will be little or not financed by private laboratories. It does not bring in money and even it costs.

Researchers may be wrong, sometimes too, but their methodology and results are constantly under the critical eye of other researchers. Nothing better, or worse, than colleagues and competitors, competent and vigilant, capable of detecting all the weaknesses of a study. The competition between researchers is fierce, it is this competition that provides the most reliable results.

On the one hand, great opportunities lie in in all industrial circles, there is no sharing between researchers for reasons of confidentiality and industrial secrets making it possible to apply for patents prohibiting other industries, of the same kind, from entering the market. It is naive to believe the opposite.
Then you need long and expensive research studies that all manufacturers must make profitable, this is why their studies in the field are limited to a few years before AMM and the rest are the populations who serve as guinea pigs and victims since all medoc is accepted with acknowledgment of a benefit report /RISK mostly. Risks then minimized, path denied, as for alu vaccine precisely and the rest. Behind it are not only the jobs involved, but also the profits that break the figure, if not!

Of course there are exceptions, scientists who forget the scientific method because they are in the grip of an ideology. Their colleagues and competitors are responsible for highlighting the weaknesses of their studies, remember the Séralini case.

Bad example that Seralini, which was the subject of an Omerta on its work because calling into question a huge industrial sector. It is still a question of big money. If he had had the same financial means as those of the pharmaceutical industry, he could, on the contrary, have demonstrated the opposite.

Unfortunately the public, who is not very attentive to scientific rigor, is strongly influenced by the hype of the media, who are not very attentive, around these researchers under influence.

Economic lobbying, ideological lobbying. It is precisely the ideological lobbying of the economy that prevails.
Except that the most important hype is made, once again, by those who have significant financial means and networks of influences of the same kind. The media only talk about scandals when they have already happened and they can no longer hide them.

[realistic ecology]

There is all the same a difference between a multinational which is there to make profit, and a ministry which is there, theoretically, to make the link between the system and the population ...

I was describing things from the researchers' point of view. It doesn't matter if they work for a company that wants to make a profit, or for a government. In both cases the researcher remains a researcher, produces facts and measures according to the scientific method, and publishes his results under the eye of his conscience and his colleagues and competitors.

[GuyGadebois]

I was describing things from the researchers' point of view. It doesn't matter if they work for a company that wants to make a profit, or for a government. In both cases the researcher remains a researcher, produces facts and measures according to the scientific method, and publishes his results under the eye of his conscience and his colleagues and competitors.

Do you really believe that the bullshit you serve us is an absolute rule? That there are no researchers rotten to the marrow and / or incompetent, or outdated? Cheaters and / or corrupt? Yes really you do not stop making fun of the world and trying to persuade yourself.

[realistic ecology]

I was describing things from the researchers' point of view. It doesn't matter if they work for a company that wants to make a profit, or for a government. In both cases the researcher remains a researcher, produces facts and measures according to the scientific method, and publishes his results under the eye of his conscience and his colleagues and competitors.

Do you really believe that the bullshit you serve us is an absolute rule? That there are no researchers rotten to the marrow and / or incompetent, or outdated? Cheaters and / or corrupt? Yes really you do not stop making fun of the world and trying to persuade yourself.

"A shallow do not do the spring."
Two and a half thousand years ago, Aristotle (the quote is from him) already had a better sense of statistics and the non-weight of particular cases than you have.

[GuyGadebois]

"A shallow do not do the spring."

The quote is "One swallow does not make spring; one moral act does not make virtue". Too strong the unrealistic non-environmentalist ... who skews even the "proverbs" and of course chooses a fascist philosopher!