National Review: Neil de Grasse Tyson cover

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Why am I not surprised by the cover, or the unflattering editorial?

Tyson's own reaction on Bill Maher's program, Friday night.

Comments

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

But they're not GMO.

GMO (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gmo): "an organism or microorganism whose genetic material has been altered by means of genetic engineering."

They're GMO.

No, it's consistent. If people had issues with yellow bananas but not an issue with seedless grapes, they would be inconsistent.

But they're not doing that. They're differentiating between that breeding process and GMO bred plants.

Right, they have issues with one genetic modification, but not another.

As mentioned, it's the difference between the breeding results caused by people having sex vs genetically splicing a man with a horse for a glorious race of centaurs.

So you're saying that genetically modified food creates a new species?

[mylaptopisevil.livejournal.com]

Selective breeding isn't GMO.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Because you've chosen to define it as "not GMO" to justify an anti-scientific position.

[mylaptopisevil.livejournal.com]

No, because it isn't what GMO is understood as.

Methodology to obtain specific results matter. Selective breeding isn't GMO. It is a methodology that falls outside of that metric.

You can keep stomping your feet and say "anti-science!" but, as I said, there's a difference between selective breeding and GMO.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

There really isn't, as much as you want to stop your feet and say "they're not the same!" That's the problem.

[mylaptopisevil.livejournal.com]

They're the same if you ignore the methodology, which matters.

So, yes, ignoring the critical detail that makes them different could give someone the excuse to say they're the same. But that would be silly.