Editorials & Other Articles

mike_c

(36,281 posts)

17. with all due respect...

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 02:49 PM

Apr 2013

...the Samsel and Seneff paper does little more than articulate hypotheses cherry picked from other sources that support the author's prior biases. It presents no actual data in support of its major conclusions, but rather obfuscates them by citing other unsupported or irrelevant hypotheses, or by citing studies in systems that are of dubious relevance. I also question the author's competence.

Regarding your last question, I would prefer not to offer arguments from authority, an obvious fallacy, but your comment appears to be a backhanded ad hominem so I'll respond. I am a full professor of zoology at the California State University with over twenty years experience in academic science and higher ed. So yes, I can read unimpressive papers and recognize the woo hidden among the jargon.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

33 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

condemning Monsanto with bad science is dumb [View all] mike_c Apr 2013 OP

Whatever. bunnies Apr 2013 #1

that study was also bogus.... mike_c Apr 2013 #2

Its a "personal bias" to say that poison is poison? bunnies Apr 2013 #5

it is when the actual evidence doesn't support that bias.... mike_c Apr 2013 #8

Its only called that by monsanto representatives socialsecurityisAAA Apr 2013 #9

What about Monsanto's own studies, Mike? appal_jack Apr 2013 #20

oh no, it's well understood that self study is about as objective... mike_c Apr 2013 #22

I agree that most scientists are good, ethical people. appal_jack Apr 2013 #23

Xenoestrogens are known to be toxic BethanyQuartz Apr 2013 #3

and yet folks doing bad science rely upon confirmation bias rather than... mike_c Apr 2013 #4

I'm not a chemist BethanyQuartz Apr 2013 #6

The body produces the estrogens we need socialsecurityisAAA Apr 2013 #10

You don't have to try to convince me xenoestrogens are horribly toxic BethanyQuartz Apr 2013 #11

Just giving you more ammo for your arsenal to use against monsanto reps socialsecurityisAAA Apr 2013 #12

More ammo is always good BethanyQuartz Apr 2013 #13

The wealthy can afford organic, free range food. socialsecurityisAAA Apr 2013 #19

No. Zoeisright Apr 2013 #15

K&R Progressive dog Apr 2013 #7

You have completely ignored the important part of that study. Zoeisright Apr 2013 #14

with all due respect... mike_c Apr 2013 #17

The academy protects its own shava May 2013 #24

Welcome to DU my friend! hrmjustin May 2013 #25

long time listener first time caller shava May 2013 #27

We are glad you came aboard! hrmjustin May 2013 #28

for more discussion on this on my G+ shava May 2013 #29

this paper describes areas KT2000 Apr 2013 #16

Thanks, Mike. (And, TBH, I wish Mrs. Haspel could do a similar article on the AGW issue as well.) AverageJoe90 Apr 2013 #18

I don't like Monsanto's practices either, uriel1972 Apr 2013 #21

That is a reasonable Newest Reality May 2013 #26

I assume you have a plan to fund this then? shava May 2013 #30

I appreciate your Newest Reality May 2013 #31

When people respond to a news story, it's as though it weren't to a real situation shava May 2013 #32

Ok, then. Newest Reality May 2013 #33