Rationality when Insulated from Evidence

JustinMElms

Basically: How does one pursue the truth when direct engagement with evidence is infeasible?

I came to this question while discussing GMO labeling. In this case I am obviously not in a position to experiment for myself, but furthermore: I do not have the time to build up the bank of background understanding to engage vigorously with the study results themselves. I can look at them with a decent secondary education's understanding of experimental method, genetics, and biology, but that is the extent of it.

In this situation I usually find myself reduced to weighing the proclamations of authorities:

I review aggregations of authority from one side and then the other--because finding a truly unbiased source for contentious issues is always a challenge, and usually says more about the biases of whoever is anointing the source "unbiased."
Once I have reviewed the authorities, I do at least some due diligence on each authority so that I can modulate my confidence if a particular authority is often considered partisan on an issue. This too can present a bias spiral checking for bias in the source pillorying the authority as partisan ad infinitum.
Once I have some known degree of confidence in the authorities of both sides, I can form some level of confidence in a statement like: "I am ~x% confident that the scientific consensus is on Y's side" or "I am ~Z% confident that there is not scientific consensus on Y"

Once that establishes a baseline on an issue, I am able to do some argumentation analysis to see what arguments each side has that simply should not be included in the discussion. This is usually irrelevant appeals (e.g.: In the GMO labeling debate, "It must be better because it's more natural") or corollary citations that are screened off by evidence closer to the source (e.g.: In the GMO labeling debate, "X many countries require GMO labeling" should be screened off by looking at the evidence that led to that decision).

After that, I find myself with a rather unfulfilling meta-assessment of an issue. I fear that I am asking for a non-existent shortcut around the hard solution of: "If an answer is important to you, do the necessary learning to at least be able to engage directly with the evidence," but I will ask anyway: does anyone else have strategies for seeking the truth while insulated from direct evidence?

Basically: How does one pursue the truth when direct engagement with evidence is infeasible?

In this situation I usually find myself reduced to weighing the proclamations of authorities:

I review aggregations of authority from one side and then the other--because finding a truly unbiased source for contentious issues is always a challenge, and usually says more about the biases of whoever is anointing the source "unbiased."
Once I have reviewed the authorities, I do at least some due diligence on each authority so that I can modulate my confidence if a particular authority is often considered partisan on an issue. This too can present a bias spiral checking for bias in the source pillorying the authority as partisan ad infinitum.
Once I have some known degree of confidence in the authorities of both sides, I can form some level of confidence in a statement like: "I am ~x% confident that the scientific consensus is on Y's side" or "I am ~Z% confident that there is not scientific consensus on Y"

Why?

Because if we're too suspicious, we pay the opportunity cost of whatever makes it an attractive new food in the first place.

the discussion is not about banning the food but about people's right to know that they are eating a new food.

The problem is that this bakes in certain assumptions about what makes a food new in a potentially dangerous way and so requires mandatory labeling.

Agricultural technology is always changing. We don't require labeling for most of the changes, even though our prior for their potential danger might be much higher than for GMOs. Examples of things that don't require labeling: which pesticides and antibiotics were used, and in what amounts; what diseases and parasites may have been present; what the storage and transportation conditions were.

For all of these things there are regulatory frameworks. But I can't think offhand of any examples, other than GMOs, where the legal status is "you may do X, but you have to label it appropriately". E.g., there's no "you may use the new pesticide X, but you have to label each piece of fruit sold as being X-positive". When people want to signal they're not using something, it's up to them to label produce as "organic" or "X-free"; everyone else doesn't have to label theirs as "non-organic". This difference sends a strong signal to the public that GMOs are presumed to be more dangerous (or risky/unproven) than every other legal agriculture technology.

And, as you point out, generalizing and regulating all GMOs as a group makes no more sense than regulating all pesticides as a group.

And, as you point out, generalizing and regulating all GMOs as a group makes no more sense than regulating all pesticides as a group.

I wouldn't have a problem if we distinguish GMOs into different classes and put the resulting class on the label.

But I can't think offhand of any examples, other than GMOs, where the legal status is "you may do X, but you have to label it appropriately".

That's not really true. Ingredient lists require the disclose of many substances that are added to new foods. People have a right to know whether their food... (read more)

4

Rationality when Insulated from Evidence

4

4

4

Rationality when Insulated from Evidence

4

4