I’m not a genetic engineer.
I’m not a chemist.
I’m not a farmer.
I’m not a statistician.
If you’ve by some chance read any of the bulk of posts on this blog, you’d know I’m also not an economist, a political scientist or a pundit.
I’d like to call myself a science communicator, but I don’t feel comfortable doing that. There are science communicators out there that are waaaaaaaay more science-knowledgey than I. Many of them have degrees and PhDs and whatnot.
I’m just a guy. Sometimes, I’m an asshole - mostly in retaliation. Or frustration (keep repeating the same thing after I’ve already debunked it and see how I get).
But all that aside, there is one important thing I do consider myself to be:
Not ideological.
I also try to not be opinionated; sometimes, I fail.
What does all this mean? It means that even though I’m not any of those professionals, I do understand that they know what they’re talking about and I understand to not maintain an uninformed or biased “feeling-based” ideology. They’re smarter than me. My opinion is irrelevant when dealing with facts. I don’t look for articles that corroborate my opinion and disregard all those to the contrary. I am scientifically literate, so I look to experts for their opinions and peer-reviewed research. I know where to look for credible citations - and where not to look.
This cannot be said for many people. They’re the ones who say, “DO YOUR RESEARCH!” And they’re the ones who haven’t. Confirmation bias is not research.
I like these dialogue posts. You get to see both sides of an argument: the misinformed, ideological, confirmation biased side, and the peer-reviewed, reputable, science-based information side. This one is about the IARC (mis)classification of glyphosate earlier in the year.
Be forewarned: it is quite lengthy. I have to rebut a large amount of woo.
Enjoy…
