[lbo-talk] glyphosate

[Wojtek S]

The problems is that evaluating these claims is very difficult for
non-specialists.  This is true of most science today - it is accepted on
trust rather than on evidence since evaluation evidence poses enormous cost
for anyone who does not specialize in that particular area.  From that pov,
the classical definition of truth (congruence between thought and reality)
has been de facto supplanted by what for a lack of better term I can call a
legitimacy definition of truth (tuth is a claim that has been legitimized).

 I think Huber implies the legitimacy definition of truth when he mentions
peer reviewed articles, but he forgets that USDA has a greater legitimating
power than individual scientists and their peer reviewers.

I consulted Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate and found that the
claims made in the article are not inconsistent with what is reported in
the Wiki article - that evidence is inconclusive thus far, but there is
reason to be concerned and continue further investigation.

The real question, though, is not scientific but political.  What are the
grounds for the official approval or disapproval of use of potentially
toxic substances?  Or stated differently - how much evidence must be
established before a substance is allowed or pulled from the market?

-- 
Wojtek

"An anarchist is a neoliberal without money."