Don't have an account? Update your profile Let us wish you a happy birthday! Make sure to buy your groceries and daily needs Buy Now. Let us wish you a happy birthday!
Day 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Month January February March April May June July August September October November December Year Please fill in a complete birthday Enter a valid birthday. Skin care Face Body.
- Trust the science.
- Truth Truth Dont Deny Me.
- Denialism - Wikipedia;
- Seeing Space.
Low to High Price: High to Low New Arrivals. You Can't Lie to Me: The Truth of Me The Doggie in the Window: You Are a Barnabas to Me Explain That to Me!: Searching the Gospels for the Honest Truth about Jesus Give Me That Book: Take Me To Truth: Persons and social groups who reject propositions on which there exists a mainstream and scientific consensus engage in denialism when they use rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument and legitimate debate, when there is none. Then there are those who engage in denialist tactics because they are protecting some "overvalued idea" which is critical to their identity.
Since legitimate dialogue is not a valid option for those who are interested in protecting bigoted or unreasonable ideas from scientific facts, their only recourse is to use these types of rhetorical tactics. He states that "For denialists, the facts are unacceptable. They engage in radical controversion, for ideological purposes, of facts that, by and large, are accepted by almost all experts and lay persons as having been established on the basis of overwhelming evidence".
A article published in the journal Globalization and Health also notes "recourse to data debates and pseudo-scientific 'evidence ' " as a common feature of several types of denialism. Evans mentioned as part of his analysis of the David Irving 's work which he presented for the defence when Irving sued Deborah Lipstadt for libel:.
Trust your body
Reputable and professional historians do not suppress parts of quotations from documents that go against their own case, but take them into account, and, if necessary, amend their own case, accordingly. They do not present, as genuine, documents which they know to be forged just because these forgeries happen to back up what they are saying. They do not invent ingenious, but implausible, and utterly unsupported reasons for distrusting genuine documents, because these documents run counter to their arguments; again, they amend their arguments, if this is the case, or, indeed, abandon them altogether.
They do not consciously attribute their own conclusions to books and other sources, which, in fact, on closer inspection, actually say the opposite. They do not eagerly seek out the highest possible figures in a series of statistics, independently of their reliability, or otherwise, simply because they want, for whatever reason, to maximize the figure in question, but rather, they assess all the available figures, as impartially as possible, in order to arrive at a number that will withstand the critical scrutiny of others.
They do not knowingly mistranslate sources in foreign languages in order to make them more serviceable to themselves. They do not willfully invent words, phrases, quotations, incidents and events, for which there is no historical evidence, in order to make their arguments more plausible. Mark Hoofnagle brother of Chris Hoofnagle has described denialism as "the employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none". Tara Smith of the University of Iowa also stated that moving goalposts, conspiracy theories, and cherry-picking evidence are general characteristics of denialist arguments, but went on to note that these groups spend the "majority of their efforts critiquing the mainstream theory" in an apparent belief that if they manage to discredit the mainstream view, their own "unproven ideas will fill the void".
In author Michael Specter defined group denialism as "when an entire segment of society, often struggling with the trauma of change, turns away from reality in favor of a more comfortable lie". If one party to a debate accuses the other of denialism they are framing the debate. This is because an accusation of denialism is both prescriptive and polemic. Prescriptive because it carries implications that there is truth to the denied claim; polemic since the accuser implies that continued denial in the light of presented evidence raises questions about the other's motives.
Some people have suggested that because denial of the Holocaust is well known, advocates who use the term "denialist" in other areas of debate may intentionally or unintentionally imply that their opponents are little better than holocaust deniers. For example, in an essay discussing the general importance of skepticism, Clive James objected to the use of the word denialist to describe climate change skeptics, stating that it "calls up the spectacle of a fanatic denying the Holocaust"; [18] and Celia Farber has objected to the term AIDS denialists , arguing that it is unjustifiable to place this belief on the same moral level with the Nazi crimes against humanity.
Truth, Don’t Deny Me
Edward Skidelsky, a lecturer in philosophy at Exeter University , has suggested that this is a new use for the word denial and it may have its origins in an old sense of "deny", akin to "disown" as in the Apostle Peter denying Jesus , but that its more immediate antecedence is from the Freudian sense of deny as a refusal to accept a painful or humiliating truth. He writes that "An accusation of 'denial' is serious, suggesting either deliberate dishonesty or self-deception. The thing being denied is, by implication, so obviously true that the denier must be driven by perversity, malice or wilful blindness.
The superseded belief that the Earth is flat , and denial of all of the overwhelming evidence that supports an approximately spheroid globe that rotates around its axis and revolves around the Sun , persists into the 21st century. Modern proponents of flat-Earth cosmology or flat-earthers refuse to accept any kind of contrary evidence, dismissing all spaceflights and images from space as hoaxes and accusing all organizations and even private citizens of conspiring to "hide the truth".
They also claim that no actual satellites are orbiting the Earth, that the International Space Station is fake, and that these are lies from all governments involved in this grand cover-up. Adherents of the modern flat-Earth model propose that a dome-shaped firmament encloses a disk-shaped Earth.
- ;
- Truth, Don't Deny Me by Krishna Guilbeau · theranchhands.com?
- .
- How I Learned to Smoke: An American Girl in Iran!
- .
- PANE IN PASTA, PASTELLE, BURRO COMPOSTO della cucina siciliana (IL MIO LIBRO DI CUCINA liberamente tratto dalle ricette di mia nonna Vol. 2) (Italian Edition).
- .
They commonly claim that the Sun is only 3, miles above the Earth and that the Moon and the Sun orbit above, but not around, a flat Earth. Modern flat-earthers believe that Antarctica is not a continent but a massive ice flow , with a wall feet or higher, which circles the perimeter of the Earth and keeps everything including all the oceans' water from falling off the edge. Flat-earthers also assert that no one is allowed to fly over or explore Antarctica , despite contrary evidence.
According to them, all photos and videos of ships sinking under the horizon and of the bottoms of city skylines and clouds below the horizon, revealing the curvature of the Earth , have been manipulated , CGI , or somehow faked. Therefore, regardless of any scientific or empirical evidence provided, flat-earthers will stubbornly conclude it is fabricated or altered in some way. When linked to other observed phenomena such as gravity, sunsets, tides, eclipses, distances and other measurements that challenge the flat earth model, claimants replace commonly-accepted explanations with piecemeal models that distort how perspective, mass, boyancy, light or other physical systems work.
Don’t Deny the Facts, It’s Bad for your Health
These piecemeal replacements rarely conform with each other, finally leaving many flat-Earth claimants to agree that such phenomena remain "mysteries" and more investigation is to be done. In this conclusion, adherents remain open to all explanations except the commonly accepted globular Earth model, shifting the debate from ignorance to denialism. Insofar as denialists acknowledge AIDS as a real disease, they attribute it to some combination of recreational drug use , malnutrition, poor sanitation, and side effects of antiretroviral medication , rather than infection with HIV.
However, the evidence that HIV causes AIDS is scientifically conclusive [25] [26] and the scientific community rejects and ignores AIDS-denialist claims as based on faulty reasoning, cherry picking , and misrepresentation of mainly outdated scientific data. About , people died from AIDS during his presidency; it is estimated that around , premature deaths could have been prevented if proper treatment had been available.
Don't Deny the Facts, It's Bad for your Health
Some international corporations, such as ExxonMobil , have contributed to "fake citizens' groups and bogus scientific bodies" that claim that the science of global warming is inconclusive, according to a criticism by George Monbiot. In the context of consumer protection , denialism has been defined as "the use of rhetorical techniques and predictable tactics to erect barriers to debate and consideration of any type of reform, regardless of the facts.
Religious beliefs may prompt an individual to deny the validity of the scientific theory of evolution. Evolution is still considered an undisputed fact within the scientific community and in academia , where the level of support for evolution is essentially universal, yet this view is often met with opposition by biblical literalists.
Many fundamentalist Christians teach creationism as if it were fact under the banners of creation science and intelligent design. Beliefs that typically coincide with creationism include the belief in the global flood myth , geocentrism , and the belief that the Earth is only 6,, years old. There is a scientific consensus [43] [44] [45] [46] that currently available food derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food, [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] but that each GM food needs to be tested on a case-by-case basis before introduction. However, opponents have objected to GM foods on grounds including safety.
Despite wide scientific consensus that some animals can experience pain and suffering, [64] this is often denied when it is convenient for people to do so. Such denial occurs for animals on farms, in laboratories, and those used for entertainment, [65] [66] [67] where animals may come to be viewed as commodities. A study in reported that male undergraduates in the US denied animal suffering to justify eating meat.
The denial of animal pain and suffering is often inconsistent between related species. Such beliefs have led to the publication of books such as Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows written by social psychologist Melanie Joy in which she popularised the term carnism. Denial of animal pain and suffering can also lead to denial of broader concepts, such as denial of moral status [70] or the existence of "mind" [71] [72] in non-human animals. Among those who eat meat, it can lead to their experiencing the meat paradox.
The term has been used with " Holocaust denialism " as "the refusal to accept an empirically verifiable reality. It is an essentially irrational action that withholds validation of a historical experience or event. Such debate, even if positive and part of the natural process of review by the scientific community, has frequently been distorted by the media and often used politically and inappropriately in anti-GE crops campaigns. In spite of this, the number of studies specifically focused on safety assessment of GM plants is still limited.
However, it is important to remark that for the first time, a certain equilibrium in the number of research groups suggesting, on the basis of their studies, that a number of varieties of GM products mainly maize and soybeans are as safe and nutritious as the respective conventional non-GM plant, and those raising still serious concerns, was observed. Moreover, it is worth mentioning that most of the studies demonstrating that GM foods are as nutritional and safe as those obtained by conventional breeding, have been performed by biotechnology companies or associates, which are also responsible of commercializing these GM plants.
Anyhow, this represents a notable advance in comparison with the lack of studies published in recent years in scientific journals by those companies. I began this article with the testimonials from respected scientists that there is literally no scientific controversy over the health effects of GMOs. My investigation into the scientific literature tells another story. Critical Reviews in Biotechnology. Here, we show that a number of articles some of which have strongly and negatively influenced the public opinion on GM crops and even provoked political actions, such as GMO embargo, share common flaws in the statistical evaluation of the data.
Having accounted for these flaws, we conclude that the data presented in these articles does not provide any substantial evidence of GMO harm. The presented articles suggesting possible harm of GMOs received high public attention. However, despite their claims, they actually weaken the evidence for the harm and lack of substantial equivalency of studied GMOs. We emphasize that with over published articles on GMOs over the last 10 years it is expected that some of them should have reported undesired differences between GMOs and conventional crops even if no such differences exist in reality.
Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture. It is therefore not surprising that efforts to require labeling and to ban GMOs have been a growing political issue in the USA citing Domingo and Bordonaba, Overall, a broad scientific consensus holds that currently marketed GM food poses no greater risk than conventional food Major national and international science and medical associations have stated that no adverse human health effects related to GMO food have been reported or substantiated in peer-reviewed literature to date.
Despite various concerns, today, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the World Health Organization, and many independent international science organizations agree that GMOs are just as safe as other foods. Compared with conventional breeding techniques, genetic engineering is far more precise and, in most cases, less likely to create an unexpected outcome.
Pinholster, Ginger October 25, American Association for the Advancement of Science. Retrieved February 8, Archived from the original on September 7, Retrieved March 19, GM foods currently available on the international market have passed safety assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health.
In addition, no effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved. Continuous application of safety assessments based on the Codex Alimentarius principles and, where appropriate, adequate post market monitoring, should form the basis for ensuring the safety of GM foods. Retrieved March 21, In our view, the potential for GM foods to cause harmful health effects is very small and many of the concerns expressed apply with equal vigour to conventionally derived foods.
However, safety concerns cannot, as yet, be dismissed completely on the basis of information currently available. When seeking to optimise the balance between benefits and risks, it is prudent to err on the side of caution and, above all, learn from accumulating knowledge and experience. Any new technology such as genetic modification must be examined for possible benefits and risks to human health and the environment. As with all novel foods, safety assessments in relation to GM foods must be made on a case-by-case basis.
Members of the GM jury project were briefed on various aspects of genetic modification by a diverse group of acknowledged experts in the relevant subjects. The GM jury reached the conclusion that the sale of GM foods currently available should be halted and the moratorium on commercial growth of GM crops should be continued.
These conclusions were based on the precautionary principle and lack of evidence of any benefit. The Jury expressed concern over the impact of GM crops on farming, the environment, food safety and other potential health effects. The Royal Society review concluded that the risks to human health associated with the use of specific viral DNA sequences in GM plants are negligible, and while calling for caution in the introduction of potential allergens into food crops, stressed the absence of evidence that commercially available GM foods cause clinical allergic manifestations.
The BMA shares the view that there is no robust evidence to prove that GM foods are unsafe but we endorse the call for further research and surveillance to provide convincing evidence of safety and benefit. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. For denialism of historical events, see Historical negationism. Flat Earth and Modern flat Earth societies. Genetically modified food controversies. Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness The absence of a neocortex does not appear to preclude an organism from experiencing affective states.
Navigation menu
Convergent evidence indicates that non-human animals have the neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and neurophysiological substrates of conscious states along with the capacity to exhibit intentional behaviors. Consequently, the weight of evidence indicates that humans are not unique in possessing the neurological substrates that generate consciousness. Non-human animals, including all mammals and birds, and many other creatures, including octopuses, also possess these neurological substrates.