Eisen’s hypocrisy<\/a> drenched attacks on — Informed Consent, Food Safety proponents, <\/strong>and the possibility of harm from Genetically Modified (GMO) food<\/a> includes one sentence expectorating six (6) Logical Fallacies.<\/strong><\/p>\n It shows admittedly “mad scientist<\/strong>” and genetic researcher Michael Eisen’s impressive wholesale use of fallacious reasoning<\/a><\/strong>(2) while ironically brandishing the banner of “Science.”<\/strong> (And No, contrary to his claims, Eisen failed to provide any evidence of a war or attack on science by Food Safety proponents; nor did he show GMOs can be proven harmless<\/a>.)<\/strong><\/p>\n Michael Eisen “Pegs” the Hypocrisy Meter<\/strong><\/p><\/div>\n An article on Genetically modified (GMO) food entitled “The anti-GMO campaign’s dangerous war on science<\/a>“(4) is written by an admittedly “infuriated” genetic researcher in California named Michael Eisen claiming to support Open Science.<\/p>\n Eisen’s article initially attracted me because for a few decades I’ve been helping to inspire people <\/strong>with the wonders of science and promote science-based governmental decisions<\/strong>, I am concerned about\u00a0 attacks on science philosophy<\/a> and its credibility, and I’m a bit familiar with environmental impacts<\/a><\/strong> — so sounds good right ?<\/p>\n Wow, was I ever in for a disturbing surprise.<\/strong> With deeply profound irony the admittedly angry Eisen falsely claims he’s fighting to defend science (“My vested interest here is science, and what I write here, I write to defend it”).<\/p>\n Instead Eisen’s article pummels and batters science reasoning and logic so relentlessly<\/strong> I had to set it aside for a few days to recover from my shocked dismay. (What he was really doing is defending his genetic research)<\/p>\n Wildfire demonstrating Eisen’s False Claims<\/strong><\/p><\/div>\n The article’s overarching theme is an attack on GMO Food Safety proponents<\/strong> for not meeting an unnamed set of standards (presumably “science reasoning”) – and to do so Eisen violates those same standards. In short — well . . . hypocrisy<\/a>.<\/p>\n Eisen’s article attacks Informed Consent<\/a>, GMO Food Harm, and Food Safety proponents themselves, with a non-stop blast of logical fallacies<\/strong> (meaning they prove nothing) and demonstrably misleading and false science “facts.”<\/strong><\/p>\n My analysis turned up more than two dozen fallacies that mortify rational discourse and science reasoning – including a single sentence that commits six (6) logical fallacies<\/strong> !(5)<\/p>\n Commentary: What disturbs me most is how his article ignites a wildfire of false claims about GMO harm using numerous serious logical and factual errors – while fiercely and falsely proclaiming he is doing so in the name of Science with a capital “S”<\/strong>. — Ouch.<\/p>\n Eisen never mentions (or realizes?) that he and Food Safety proponents might each embrace science philosophy and facts but have different values. Not a different view of science methods, reasoning or facts, but different judgments on how to apply scientifically generated facts to potential harm from GMOs to the real world, to real people, to real farmers who don’t want GMOs, and to actual living animals and ecosystems.<\/strong><\/p>\n That’s not a conflict with science methodology or facts, its just a political dispute between different values for harm and benefit. Eisen apparently sees all benefits and no possible harm from GMO food, and Food Safety people presumably find serious potential harm and little to no benefits.<\/p>\n Here’s what I found after carefully reviewing his article<\/a>.<\/p>\n Red-Herring – a Distraction Fallacy<\/strong><\/p><\/div>\n What really makes me uncomfortable is when Eisen claims high authority as spokesperson for “Science<\/strong>,” then he’s purporting to speak for me and anyone else who cares about science based research and reasoning.\u00a0 In that case he darn well better have his logical ducks in a row. But, he doesn’t. Not even close.<\/strong><\/p>\n If you enjoy a logical puzzle – before you read my analysis<\/a>, see if you can identify the sentence with the six logical fallacies in Eisen’s article “The anti-GMO campaign’s dangerous war on science<\/a>“. Warning note: Eisen’s article contains two other sentences with at least three logical fallacies each – this guy’s loose grip on logic<\/strong> is a marvel.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Here is the entire analysis<\/a> in PDF format: “Michael Eisen’s Angry, Hypocrisy Drenched Assault on Informed Consent using Massive Fallacious Reasoning while Ironically Brandishing the Banner of ‘Science’<\/a>”<\/p>\n # # #<\/p>\n Next, lets have a Contest to see who can find the most logical fallacies in any single sentence that was intended as a public statement.<\/p>\n The best answers will get a copy of Darrell Huff’s book “How to Lie with Statistics<\/a>.” To enter – just write up your findings in a reply.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n 1. Click here for the full Analysis (in PDF) \u201cMichael Eisen\u2019s Angry, Hypocrisy Drenched Assault on Informed Consent using Massive Fallacious Reasoning while Ironically Brandishing the Banner of \u201cScience\u201d<\/a>\u201d<\/p>\n 2. Logic\u00a0Fallacy Resources: Logically Fallacious, by Bo Bennett<\/a>, Wikipedia’s list of logical fallacies<\/a>, a 3. Susan in \u201cPatrick\u2019s Love Cupboard\u201d episode<\/p>\n 4. Michael Eisen\u2019s article \u201cThe anti-GMO campaign\u2019s dangerous war on science<\/a>\u201d<\/p>\n 5. Full (Award Nominated) quote of sentence with six logical fallacies \u2014<\/p>\n \u201cFor the backers of the initiative to claim otherwise as a finding of fact is an outright lie, and an outlandish attack on science.\u201d<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n 6. \u201cDo Seed Companies Control GM Crop Research?\u201d, Scientific American, August 13, 2009<\/a><\/p>\n \u201cScientists must ask corporations for permission before publishing independent research on genetically modified crops. That restriction must end<\/a>\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n and<\/p>\n “… when scientists are prevented from examining the raw ingredients in our nation\u2019s food supply or from testing the plant material that covers a large portion of the country\u2019s agricultural land, the restrictions on free inquiry become dangerous.<\/a>“<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Update Oct 2013: It appears I have been duped by a standard PR technique of the GM industry in believing Eisen’s article was legitimate. Here’s an excerpt from expose by Peter Melchett<\/a> —<\/p>\n “Monsanto’s pro-GMO propaganda efforts take the same form:<\/p>\n 1. Choose an “objective” scientist who is not directly associated with the company but is beholden to the industry<\/strong>; (Eisen, a Genetic researcher) Update March 2014: Here are two jaw-dropping resources illuminating how Genetic Engineering money is corrupting scientific findings, research and publication – as well as public media about Genetic Engineering. Why haven’t we read about these facts?<\/p>\n 1. European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility<\/a><\/p>\n Press Releases include:<\/p>\n 10 Dec 2013 -“297 scientists and experts agree GMOs not proven safe<\/a>“, 2. Fighting for Genetic Engineering, Pamela Ronald’s Lab had two papers retracted and other researchers have raised questions about a third. The two retracted papers form the core of her research program into how rice plants detect specific bacterial pathogens. The article is — “Can the Scientific Reputation of Pamela Ronald, Public Face of GMOs, Be Salvaged?”<\/a><\/p>\n dd: Pamela Ronald’s a mean one. Her public columns use name-calling logical fallacies\u00a0<\/strong> attacks (ad-hominem) on those who oppose her pro-industry opinions with facts<\/strong><\/a>.<\/strong><\/p>\n (c) Copyright 2012-2025 David Dilworth This is an article about an Analysis(1) of a web article written by\u00a0 genetic researcher Michael Eisen (\u201cThe anti-GMO campaign\u2019s dangerous war on science\u201d). Eisen’s hypocrisy drenched attacks on — Informed Consent, Food Safety proponents, … Continue reading “Well I’m angry, making sense gets in the way.<\/em><\/strong>“(3)<\/h3>\n
![\"Hypocrisy](\"http:\/\/daviddilworth.com\/pol\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/08\/hypocrisymeter.jpeg\" "\\"Hypocrisy")
<\/a>![\"Wildfire](\"http:\/\/daviddilworth.com\/pol\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/08\/wildfire.jpg\" "\\"Wildfire")
<\/a>![\"Red-Herring](\"http:\/\/daviddilworth.com\/pol\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/08\/RedHerringFallacy.jpeg\" "\\"Red-Herring")
<\/a>\n
“Master List of Logical Fallacies” courtesy of the University of Texas<\/s>, and a (sometimes hilarious) list of wonderfully ironic examples of fallacies<\/a>.<\/p>\n
\n2. Start with the standard fear-mongering<\/strong> about world population growth and food supply (yes)
\n3. Grab a few convenient supporting facts and misrepresent their true weight with confident bravado (double check !)
\n4. Claim that only GMO has chance of providing food for a growing world<\/strong> if only opponents would get out of the way (check)
\n5. Suggest that anyone who has a contrary fact or opinion just isn’t smart enough to understand<\/strong>.” (triple check)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n21 Oct 2013 – “No scientific consensus on GMO Safety<\/a>“, and
\n17 Dec 2013 – “End double standards in evaluating GMO safety studies – say scientists<\/a>“<\/p><\/blockquote>\n