"A red flag is shown when there has been an accident or the track conditions are poor enough to warrant the race being stopped." Wikipedia
Otherwise known as "Cleanup in Aisle 5..."
When the explanation involves relatively new and fairly in-depth science...
When it has the potential for making major, unpredictable changes in the world we live in...
When there are large corporations involved...
When the genii won't go back into the lamp, and people are afraid it might not be friendly...
And when a few people have realized that they can start a fight simply by mentioning it, and are itching to do so...
Then we generally have a problem.
Today's Red Flag is - ahem -
Genetically Manipulated Organisms.
Well, actually, it isn't. The immediate segues into pesticide and insecticide use, industrial and agricultural runoff, modern farming practices, the ignominy that should be overtaking Monsanto in a just world, food labeling, all the odd diseases and conditions that have been identified but not solved in the last fifty years that might be attributable to one or more of the previous items, scientific ethics, and a handful of even more loosely related problems and complaints, has kept any actual discussion of GMOs to a minimum.
And part of the problem is that if there are six partially related items being argued in the same comment thread, the potential for throwing an argument for or against one item up against an argument for a significantly different item, and confusing the hell out of both issues, is tremendous.
The arguments:
There are several distinct fights going on here, even if the topics are muddled together. Let's take a look at a few.
Statement: "The plural of anecdote is not data."
Counter: "Bullshit."
Statement: "You should be able to support your case with peer-reviewed data."
Counter: " All the scientists work for the corporations. Why should I trust them?"
Statement: "The data do not support the negative consequences you suggest."
Counter: "We shouldn't do things until we know their long term consequences. These are all short term studies."
Statement: "You need to apply the scientific method to this problem if you want good solutions."
Counter: "We shouldn't leave this to the scientists. They don't live in the real world."
Statement: "No individual is capable of seeing all the areas we need. Why not bring in non-scientists and let regular people have their say?"
Counter: "We should form a committee to study the problem?"
Statement: "Scientists have made mistakes in the past, why not now?"
Counter: "Trust me."
Statement: "I don't want fish genes in my tomatoes."
Counter: "They already are there. Read the literature."
Statement: "Somebody must be paying you to write this."
Counter: "Elfling!"
Statement: "If you can't simplify something enough for me to understand it, then you are bullshitting me."
Counter: "Luddite."
Counter: "Troll."
Counter: "New Ageist."
Counter: "Sockpuppet."
Counter: "Dingbat."
Counter: "HR for insult."
Notice please:
None of this has anything to do with GMOs (except for the one I added for the hell of it).
These are not science vs. anti-science arguments.
These are not authoritarian vs. anti-authoritarian arguments.
These are science vs. anti-authoritarian arguments, and I have no clue as to how to get people to either realize it or recast the questions so that they can be considered without throwing the discussion into this mode, which is pretty much non-productive no matter who's doing the arguing, or what the subject is.
Suggestions?