EquALLity wrote:
Yeah, but Wikipedia is often edited by experts and regulated from bias due to the amount of people editing it who are experts.
Sometimes, and sometimes by non-experts who think they're experts and who have been on Wikipedia so long that they can control the content and write in their biases so nobody can fix them.
The Editors at Slate have total control, and are experienced journalists with substantial integrity as far as I've seen. I've seen more substantial problems on Wikipedia. Have I read every article on Slate, or every article on Wikipedia? No. But I've read enough to make an inductive conclusion reasonable.
EquALLity wrote:That's completely different. Anyone can become a scientist, but it requires a lot of studying, and publishing in a peer reviewed journal has a very high standard of evidence.
Disappointingly, that's not always the case.
https://www.reddit.com/r/television/comments/3x32b4/adam_ruins_everything_published_the_script_for/
I think this is a short clip:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29v6rNFjlLI
A number of doctors and critics have published bullshit studies on purpose to prove that these journals will accept anything and don't even read the submissions. The same is not true of Slate.
Many of these Journals charge heavy fees for publication, and have no editorial standards (or very poor ones). They make money from publishing this shit as paid by the writers, not the other way around.
Remember those terrible meta analyses that were published in Annals?
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2014/03/19/dietary-fat-and-heart-disease-study-is-seriously-misleading/
http://www.todaysdietitian.com/newarchives/111114p32.shtml
EquALLity wrote:That link says nothing about Slate's standards.
[...]
Ok, but that's just an anecdote.
It explains the submission process. It's not just enter text in a form and press submit, then it shows up. It has to be read by professional human editors and approved. Slate doesn't just publish anything. And chances are most emails are completely ignored for unsolicited articles. It's not Wikipedia, or some blog site.
It's owned by Washington Post.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slate_%28magazine%29
I'm sure if you search hard enough, you can find an error or a bad article, but their track record is very good. I find errors in Wikipedia, and whole studies in peer reviewed journals that are deeply flawed.
Everything in the space of credibility is essentially anecdotal; it's all based on track record and inductive reasoning.
We can expect an article from Slate to be good, because based on available evidence of other Slate articles and a lack of bad ones, they have high journalistic standards.
Hell, I tried to find something bad just now by searching for "plant intelligence slate". Look what I found:
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/11/intelligent_plants_plants_attract_wasps_can_hear_themselves_eaten_alive.html
The New Yorker recently brought the unusual debate about plant “intelligence” to popular attention, and regardless of its merits, the science of how plants ward off threats is rich and fascinating. University Missouri researchers have offered an especially eerie example.
They're talking about a piece in the New Yorker by Michael Pollan (which could be better informed, but wasn't the worst article on Plant "intelligence" I've seen by far), and they put "intelligence" in quotations in the description.
EquALLity wrote:
Did you watch the video? They're not the same on vaccines. The distinction is that Jill Stein says she is essentially agnostic on vaccines, but is leaning towards supporting them (she said she "isn't aware of evidence" that vaccines cause autism, changing her tweet from flat out saying there is no evidence), while Trump advocates for delays in vaccinations and says he has personal experience with a kid becoming autistic from vaccination. That is a big difference.
That's really not a big difference, I don't see a meaningful gradation here. They're both pandering to the anti-vaxxers. Stein also has much less of an excuse to believe that garbage because she's supposed to be a doctor.
Trump is still in favor of vaccinations, he thinks they're given too early and too many of them at once.
Referring to his and his wife Melania’s 22-month-old son Baron, Trump continued: “What we’ve done with Baron, we’ve taken him on a very slow process. He gets one shot at a time then we wait a few months and give him another shot, the old-fashioned way. But today they pump the children with so much at a very young age. We do it on a very, very conservative level.”
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2015/ ... ald-trump/
He vaccinated his own children, If Trump is really anti-vaxx, then so is Jill Stein. They're promoting the same garbage about the science and government being corrupt on this issue, and failing to confidently assert the safety of vaccines.
Trump is just much less politically subtle.
EquALLity wrote:
We don't have evidence Trump supports GMOs (the only info we have is a tweet saying GMOs made people in Iowa stupid and that's why he wasn't doing well in polls there).
In a very rare move for him, the tweet was deleted, suggesting it was a mistake, or a bad joke that he actually regretted because he doesn't want to set himself at odds with his conservative base who are substantially farmers and (for good reason) support GMO.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/donald-trump-deletes-tweet-iowa-voters
EquALLity wrote:
He'd probably support labeling as it's a populist position (the same as Bernie does, just supporting labeling),
If he did, he would have said so by now. Trump is far from coy with his outlandish conspiracy claims. Consider the personality you're talking about here. There's no evidence he opposes GMOs, and even some that he's afraid to be branded that way and realizes it would be bad politics for him.
Jill Stein actually wants a moratorium on GMO. Not just labeling, but banning it entirely, from the whole country including imports.
She's far FAR worse on GMO than Sanders was. That would be disastrous. It would mean billions of dollars and many years of animal testing, despite all evidence already saying they're safe -- she wants more and more testing, until SHE is satisfied they're safe, and if the current science doesn't satisfy her, her positions are essentially unfalsifiable which means we can say goodbye to modern agriculture (she wants a moratorium on pesticide too, which means she would force all farms to convert to Organic and ban modern agriculture). Collapse of our economy, mass starvation, fun stuff like that.
She's one of the most dangerous people on the planet, bar none. And she could be the reason Trump is ultimately elected since she's stealing votes and support from Hillary.
EquALLity wrote:
and he is pro-nuclear energy but denies climate change.
We already discussed this though; it doesn't matter if somebody accepts climate change if that person rejects the solutions to it. Trump is accidentally better for climate change. I don't care if he supports Nuclear power because he thinks the glow is a pot of leprechaun gold. The bottom line is the consequence.
EquALLity wrote:
I think Hillary Clinton definitely beats Trump and Jill Stein, but of course, I think Bernie is better than all of them.
But will you at least admit that Jill Stein is one politician who is worse than Trump?