Post: #1

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/06/us/foo....html?_r=1

"Corporations have poured money into universities to fund research for decades, but now, the debate over bioengineered foods has escalated into a billion-dollar food industry war. Companies like Monsanto are squaring off against major organic firms like Stonyfield Farm, the yogurt company, and both sides have aggressively recruited academic researchers, emails obtained through open records laws show."

"The emails provide a rare view into the strategy and tactics of a lobbying campaign that has transformed ivory tower elites into powerful players. The use by both sides of third-party scientists, and their supposedly unbiased research, helps explain why the American public is often confused as it processes the conflicting information."

I've always wondered why a lot of the usual chic-nerd sites in the last few years seemed to have really jump on the whole anti-natural living lifestyle out of nowhere and I'm wonder if what we're seeing is a result of the sort of ideological battles being wagered by large firms.

Also quite chilling to see how much influence over science that institutions with deep pockets considering how pointing to a study of some sort backing up your point is seen as making an in-refutable point for your position. I know that if I was some maniacal NWO/Freemason/reptile alien overlord wishing to push some sort of viewpoint I would def go the route of recruiting scientists to come out with favorable studies.

This points to a deeper problem about the possibility of making rational decisions that I've been wondering for a long time now. "Appeal to authority" is one of the classical logical fallacies but it seems it's usually not adhered to when the authority has scientific clout of some sort. Someone could object with "Well the authority is using the scientific method for his position and we could trust that since it's proved so reliable" that but I would argue that to the average person who is not a practicing professional scientist, he simply wouldn't be able to understand whether a scientific argument being advanced is valid or not since he not only doesn't have the training the scientist does but he also doesn't have access to the data being used. In other words, the average person is essentially appealing to authority and he can only hope that the authority isn't lying to him.

For example I am a believer in climate change. However upon thinking about why exactly I believed in it the only reason I could come up with is that is simply because a lot of scientists have said it is a fact. I am not knowledgeable in meteorology and other scientific disciplines that are involved in determining whether it global warning is indeed happening so I can't actually make a determination with my own mind on whether it's a fact or not and instead I have to hope that the authorities aren't lying or aren't mistaken-ed.

People are always implored to "think for yourself" and not be one of the sheeple but going through all the thoughts I've described above made me really realize how limited one person's mind can be even if that mind is an intelligent one.

Post: #2

It really isn't nothing new to be honest. This is why it is best to stick to the basics than to look into esoteric information. Then build your knowledge upwards from there.

Post: #3

This has been going on for awhile and is good and bad. Each side of the political spectrum, speaking in America here, has all kinds of institutes and to a smaller degree universities that do all sorts of studies or finance studies in other universities for the benefit of driving policy.

Post: #4

Just wait until we have supercomputers telling us what is right and wrong. This will be fun. It will make scientists look like shaman.