Support NeoGAF

[wazoo]

As a statistician, i love this answer lol.

Under uniform distribution, one plus one equals two 12.5% of the time.

Scientific jokes. 1+1 = 2.

for the mathematician, this is a model and it is true if assumptions are satisfied.

For the physician, this has been always been observed, and it is true depending on the precision of the instruments.

For the informaticien, 1 +1 = 10

etc

 

[llien]

I might be a bit too pedantic here, I'm atheist, I'm all in for science, but I don't like the questions that have been asked (the way it is outlined in OP):

52 per cent of respondents agreed that "genetically modified organisms are bad for your health." (This is an issue where there recently has been the biggest divide between scientists and the public.)

The subject is actually quite controversial, e.g. GMed salmon. Environmentalists claim that safety studies are not adequate and there is a lot of noise around it, with Supermarkets promising they won't sell it.

You also cannot make claims about GMed food in general. One kind of it can be safe, when other type isn't..

47 per cent (up from 41 per cent last year) agreed that "the science behind global warming is still unclear," despite what scientists have been calling for years "unequivocal" evidence.

Global warming itself is a fact.
Whether humans are the major factor, is mostly answered as yes, although there is non-ignorable number of those who disagrees:

Whether human influence being major factor is the only thing that one means with "science behind it" is not clear, but if not, there is no single clearly right model behind it.

19 per cent agree "there is a link between vaccinations and autism," even though the study that made the link was found years ago to be "an elaborate fraud."

This is an absolutely valid point.

Brilliant.

 

[Mivey]

So 1+1=2 is an opinion now?

What's a '2'? Obviously it's 1+1 = 10.
EDIT: Like, wazoo said.

 

[Koren]

I'd argue that science behind global warning is still unclear after reading a good number of papers on the subject

I don't argue it's not getting warmer, I believe humans plays a (possibly big) part on this (not sure on exact %), but the whole models behind climate are far from clear-cut. You can twitch the parameters and get vastly different results, and scientists themselves say they don't understand everything.

So yes, it's unclear. And while a minority, there's still several people that have different results and NOT unrespectable.

And I don't think it's that good a thing to tell people that science is a sure thing.


(On GMO, I'm sure there's definitively nothing wrong with them with the technique, but I'd say the most common sold Monsanto variant, and the fact that it allows an heavy use of round-up and the like, is definitively not healthy)

So 1+1=2 is an opinion now?

It sure isn't a scientific fact unless you define 1, 2 and +.

Even in maths.

1+1=10 for addition in base 2
1+1=0 in Z/2Z
1+1=1 in boole algebra
...

 

[knkng]

Not surprising. I love my country, but there's no doubt that there's still plenty of ignorant pieces of shit living here. I can also confirm that at least some of them have stepped their game up since the whole Trump/fake news stuff started taking off last year. They feel more confident since they now have something to point to while affirming their beliefs.

 

[Baron Doggystyle von Woof]

Not you as well Canada, not you as well.

We really live in the age of stupid.

 

[Bustanen]

I truly despise the assholes who came up with "GMO FREE" as a fucking ad campaign.

Yeah who wouldn't want traces of roundup and antibiotics in their food.

 

[nelsonroyale]

Hmm, this isn't too surprising unfortunately. However, was the question framing science as a homogeous thing? part of this is poor understanding of what science actually is. It is essentially a mental framework and associated methods for carrying out explorations of phenomena...Science isn't a bounded thing...although it seems it is increasingly being thought of as such by some people...There are so many fields of inquiry with so many different assumptions, worldviews, methodologies, etc.

I also find the GMO conversation is always over simplified and misleading. Just like any technology, there are ethics related to how information is obtained, how information is communicated and how it is put to use. I despise what many agri-businesses are trying to do with genetic modification, since the underpinning reasoning is often driven by narrow profit driving concerns. However, there is massive potential in genetic engineering in the field of sustainable materials, etc.

 

[cameron]

Yeah who wouldn't want traces of roundup and antibiotics in their food.

 

[Steel]

Yeah who wouldn't want traces of roundup and antibiotics in their food.

That has nothing to do with a product being GMO free. A GMO free product can still have those in them.

 

[Keasar]

Canada! Hurry! Close your borders immediately, it is spreading from the US.!

 

[Koren]

That has nothing to do with a product being GMO free. A GMO free product can still have those in them.

Indeed. Problem is, GMO have often *more* in them.

Either because the plants create their own chemicals (needed or not), or because they're designed to support an heavier use of roundup. USA have seen an increase of use of Round-up and the like since the arrival of those variants of GMO.

GMO are perfectly fine, the problem is that the usage which can be done of them is often dubious.

 

[i-Lo]

When some Canadians started wearing MAGA caps we knew things were going to go wrong. So, the American election has reverberated across the globe and now across the border we are seeing its results.

Our government needs to find better ways to ensure our citizens and residents can tell fact from fiction and objectivity from subjectivity.

 

[Koren]

Our government needs to find better ways to ensure our citizens and residents can tell fact from fiction and objectivity from subjectivity.

I think the belief that science is black and white and clear-cut conclusions is misleaded at best, and probably dangerous.

You're probably right, but I don't think the questions are really good to have a decent insight of why people choose an answer over another. There's valid reasons to choose several of those "bad" answers.

 

[norinrad]

Time for Great Britain to reclaim what they had lost. It's time to make Canada part of Britain again.

 

[llien]

That has nothing to do with a product being GMO free. A GMO free product can still have those in them.

Funny part is that GMO likely needs antibiotics less (if at all), than non GMO.

 

[Dandy Lyin]

Oh, Canada...

 

[Bustanen]

That has nothing to do with a product being GMO free. A GMO free product can still have those in them.

Yeah but in every GMO thread you have people downplaying organic food. Organic food should never have that shit but then again US organic isn't the same as EU organic.

 

[Dragon Puncher]

Damn, I really thought Canada was more well-informed.. For some context; in a 2015 survey here in Denmark 82% agreed that global warming was real and caused by humans.

 

[Impeccable]

Wonder who was polled.

 

[boiled goose]

Indeed. Problem is, GMO have often *more* in them.

Either because the plants create their own chemicals (needed or not), or because they're designed to support an heavier use of roundup. USA have seen an increase of use of Round-up and the like since the arrival of those variants of GMO.

GMO are perfectly fine, the problem is that the usage which can be done of them is often dubious.

Then the label should be about roundup. Not gmo.

 

[Camwi]

Ha! It's not just we Americans who am dumb.

 

[Hari Seldon]

Funny part is that GMO likely needs antibiotics less (if at all), than non GMO.

Yeah I thought the entire point of GMO was to engineer plants that would need less external chemicals lol.

 

[Bisnic]

I blame all those years of Harper's influence.

Just wait until what 4-8 years of Trump will do to the US.

 

[Phoenix RISING]

Feelings will ultimately prevail over all the facts.

They have historical priority and longevity.

Consider that Enlightenment was a short period of time--Shorter than the Dark Ages.

 

[M3d10n]

This, ladies and gentlemen, is the Great Filter. After reaching a certain point in technological development, stupidity and ignorance erupt like an overflowing clogged toiled.

 

[oneils]

They polled 1514 people...
CANADIAN population is around 34million...

Lol. How ironic.

 

[wazoo]

Damn, I really thought Canada was more well-informed.. For some context; in a 2015 survey here in Denmark 82% agreed that global warming was real and caused by humans.

I read that global warming is caused by the extra entropy generated by Danishs not using Euros

 

[Windam]

*sigh*

why why can't people just not be stupid

 

[Heshinsi]

I blame all those years of Harper's influence.

Just wait until what 4-8 years of Trump will do to the US.

A creationist as the Minister of Science still has ROFL, and Con voters want to put these jokers back into office.

 

[Jarsonot]

Couldn't find the 43% in the article... is this an aggregate of some other factors?

Did see this:

"Respondents said they trusted museums and science centres (89 per cent), scientists and professors (88 per cent) and educational institutions (87 per cent) as sources of information, but far fewer said they trusted word of mouth (25 per cent) or social media (20 per cent.)"

Which seems to contradict the premise.

 

[MikeyB]

Canada's schools need to teach critical thinking in grade 7-9 if they aren't already doing it. Formal and informal logic, rhetorical strategy, and epistemology.

Get those brain shields up before they get to the age where there are less restrictions on marketing to them.

 

[bionic77]

Science keeps changing year by year.

But the Bible hasn't changed in a long ass time.

Which one are you going to trust? The people that can't seem to make up their damn minds or the people who have stayed on point with a consistent message for 2,000 years?

 

[AuthenticM]

Couldn't find the 43% in the article... is this an aggregate of some other factors?

first line in the quotation box in the OP

 

[bremon]

I'm sure the climate change denial has a strong foothold in AB and SK. The anti-vax stuff...I don't know where those people are and I'm happy to not know any of them.

Science keeps changing year by year.

But the Bible hasn't changed in a long ass time.

Which one are you going to trust? The people that can't seem to make up their damn minds or the people who have stayed on point with a consistent message for 2,000 years?

Actually laughed at this. Thanks

 

[Buba Big Guns]

I'd love to see the stats from 10-15 years ago. These numbers look bad in a vacuum.

 

[Jarsonot]

first line in the quotation box in the OP

WHERE in the article is my question.

 

[AuthenticM]

WHERE in the article is my question.

...first line in the article

 

[99Luffy]

Pretty vague question imo. That climate change question can be interpeted in alot of ways.
ie. If tommorows weather forecast is wrong, the science is unclear..

 

[Switch Back 9]

Yeah wouldn't be surprised if a lot of this was from Ontario.
Or anywhere that isn't BC. #westcoastbestcoast #gocanucks

As someone who has spent the last ten years back and forth between Ontario and BC, from my point of view the Anti-Vax/GMO shit is like 100% a hippie/granola/yuppie BC thing. Ontarians in my experience are way less likely to buy into that Internet health fad nonsense. I fucking LOVE BC but lets not pretend there aren't a ton of idiots in that province. People from Ontario are generally way more on the ball.

The GMO stuff is definitely mostly BC and Québec, and maybe the Atlantic provinces.

The climate change stuff sounds hardcore Alberta/Saskatchewan with a touch of Ontario.

Anti-vax sounds like a BC thing.

Totally.

 

[saveweyard]

Yeah who wouldn't want traces of roundup and antibiotics in their food.

Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, is one of the safer pesticides in use. The enzyme which glyphosate inhibits does not exist in animals; thus, it has very low toxicity. The evidence for an association between glyphosate exposure and adverse health outcomes is lacking. It is safer than many organic pesticides. The introduction of GM crops that are Roundup resistant is why its use has increased significantly. Which, by all accounts, is not a bad thing.

Oh also, Roundup is manufactured by Monsanto, but it is off patent and generic versions are available.

 

[Vermillion]

See everyone, not just Americans are dumb!

Pretty much, lmao

 

[Varvor]

What the?

Where did they sample this from heavily?

 

[Wereroku]

Yeah but in every GMO thread you have people downplaying organic food. Organic food should never have that shit but then again US organic isn't the same as EU organic.

All farmers use pesticides and herbicides. The fact that you think they don't is kind of sad. There is even a list of EU approved chemicals. Also the use of antibiotics on livestock isn't the problem even an EU farmer would treat their animals if they are sick. The problem is companies using them continuously instead of just on sick animals.

 

[slit]

Yeah but in every GMO thread you have people downplaying organic food. Organic food should never have that shit but then again US organic isn't the same as EU organic.

They both allow poisonous pesticides which is why it is misleading. People seem to think an organic label means no lab chemicals when that's just not true.

 

[Two Words]

Realistically, all science is an opinion, a collective opinion of mostly everyone.

Then maybe someone with a different opinion will completely prove all of us wrong!

I think it is better to say it is a collection of laws and conjectures.

 

[Bustanen]

Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, is one of the safer pesticides in use. The enzyme which glyphosate inhibits does not exist in animals; thus, it has very low toxicity. The evidence for an association between glyphosate exposure and adverse health outcomes is lacking. It is safer than many organic pesticides. The introduction of GM crops that are Roundup resistant is why its use has increased significantly. Which, by all accounts, is not a bad thing.

Oh also, Roundup is manufactured by Monsanto, but it is off patent and generic versions are available.

California deemed it carcinogenic this year as have WHO before.

All farmers use pesticides and herbicides. The fact that you think they don't is kind of sad. There is even a list of EU approved chemicals. Also the use of antibiotics on livestock isn't the problem even an EU farmer would treat their animals if they are sick. The problem is companies using them continuously instead of just on sick animals.

Yes but these Roundup Ready GMOs mean they can drown the crops with that shit. In the US even healthy livestock are fed antibiotics which is crazy.

They both allow poisonous pesticides which is why it is misleading. People seem to think an organic label means no lab chemicals when that's just not true.

US allows some synthetic pesticides with organic food but EU doesn't.

 

[siddx]

As a life long traveler and expat, I can promise you that ignorance and stupidity has no nationality or regional bias. It exist in every nation, every culture, every crook and corner of the world. Anyone surprised by this topic was simply naive.

 

[saveweyard]

California deemed it carcinogenic this year as have WHO before.


Yes but these Roundup Ready GMOs mean they can drown the crops with that shit. In the US even healthy livestock are fed antibiotics which is crazy.

US allows some synthetic pesticides with organic food but EU doesn't.

Going against all evidence out there. Their decision has been widely criticized. The IARC, the part of the WHO which made the decision, has a reputation for naming almost anything a carcinogen. Out of nearly 1,000 substances and activities it has reviewed, only one has been deemed noncarcinogenic. Many expert panels have flat out refuted their decision regarding Roundup; additionally, the scientist leading the IARC review had unpublished data showing no cancer link.

A paper published April 10 in Nature Communications found that "even though glyphosate use has increased greatly over the last 25 years, my analysis suggests the relative contribution of glyphosate to the chronic toxicity hazard has remained relatively low. Glyphosate has a very low chronic toxicity compared to most other herbicides."

 

[iRAWRasaurus]

Science keeps changing year by year.

But the Bible hasn't changed in a long ass time.

Which one are you going to trust? The people that can't seem to make up their damn minds or the people who have stayed on point with a consistent message for 2,000 years?

You do know how science works right?