La interculturalidad y la diversidad cultural

pany, genetically engineered foods are safe for the environment. They are the experts who know all about these products.

Sarah (2): They stand to profit from producing these new foods. Can we

trust them to give an unbiased view? I doubt it. This is the company that produced Agent Orange and DDT.

Mark (3): No harmful effects of people eating genetically modified foods

have been verified, as far as we know. Since there is no evidence that they are harmful, it is best to operate on the presumption that they are not harmful.

Sarah (3): That’s just arguing from ignorance, isn’t it? Can you argue from

lack of evidence? Isn’t it better to argue from the positive knowledge we have?

Mark (4): What we do know is that farmers now use many tons of chemical

pesticides every year in the crops they produce. Food treated with pesti- cides is a health hazard. Thus, the crops produced by farmers right now are a health hazard. Also, agricultural wastes from pesticides and fertilizers are poisoning the water supply. Thus, current agricultural practices are pro- ducing serious harm to the environment and to human health. Growing genetically modified crops requires fewer pesticides and fertilizers. It is less hazardous than what we are doing right now.

Sarah (4): I doubt it, because there are also environmental hazards of genet-

ically modified foods that are occurring as a result of what we are doing right now. Scientists have shown that the high mortality rates currently suffered by monarch butterflies are caused by pollen from genetically modified corn. Pollen from the corn blows onto neighboring fields, the monarch caterpil- lars ingest it, and they die in huge numbers.

Mark (5): Well, that’s only an appeal to authority. Can you trust it? Sarah (5): The findings were published in the scientific journal Nature. Mark (6): Even granting your point, there are always two sides to the use

of pesticides. Right now, we know that crop losses from insect pests can be enormous. As the world population grows, resulting in more and more shortages of land suitable for food production, we will need to grow plants in areas where it would be impossible without genetically modified foods.

Sarah (6): What if the genetically modified plants currently being engi-

neered transfer their genes into weeds that become impervious to herbicides? Superweeds could be created. And as I said above, the future consequences could be the creation of new genetically modified species that could destroy all the crops. Herbicides could become ineffective against these superweeds. Their pollination around the world would create much more widespread starvation than we have now. I think this poses a problem for your argument.

Mark (7): A solution is to create buffer zones around fields of genetically

modified crops. This would prevent gene transfer to weeds or other crops.

Sarah (7): How feasible is this plan? What if it doesn’t work? Many children

have developed life-threatening allergies to peanuts and other foods. The introduction of genetically modified foods will create new allergens, causing allergic reactions that could make these health problems much worse.

Mark (8): Increases in allergies could be caused to a significant extent by the

herbicides that are currently used in crop cultivation. The new genetically modified plants are more resistant to pests even when herbicides are not needed to protect them. Thus the advent of genetically modified foods may not have the effect of increasing allergies in children. As I mentioned, no harmful effects of eating genetically modified food have been proven so far. I think we have to move ahead unless we have a definite problem.

Sarah (8): As I said before, I think we need to argue from knowledge and

what has been proven, not just move ahead on the basis of ignorance. For all we know, all kinds of horrible things could happen if we continue this process of introducing more and more genetically modified foods into the human food supply. Now we are incorporating more and more genetically modified foods into our diet. These foods are gradually becoming more and more accepted by consumers and food regulatory agencies. But it’s a huge experiment. Biotech engineers are tinkering with the fundamental building of life. For example, they have produced Frankenfish that grow four times faster than normal fish. What’s this kind of experiment going to lead to? We don’t know, do we? The marketing of such products moves relentlessly ahead, because corporations are driven by short-term gains, the so-called bottom line. If we keep moving ahead, won’t we reach a point where we won’t be able to turn back? We don’t know what the ultimate outcome of all this might be. Couldn’t it be a wholesale destruction of plant and animal life, in effect a devastation of all life on the planet?

At his first move in the dialogue on genetically modified foods, Mark presented an argument. The word ‘hence’ indicates that the statement following this word is a conclusion. Marks said, “Hence the problem of people dying from starvation will be much more serious in future years.” The two statements just before this conclusion appear to be the premises of Mark’s argument. One is the statement that there are starving people in many countries of the world today. The other is the statement that the world population is predicted to double in the next fifty years. When you put these two statements together they give a reason to support Mark’s conclusion that the problem of people dying from starvation will be much more serious in future years. The one premise says that there are starving

8. Criticizing an Argument by Asking Questions 33

people in many countries today. The other premise extrapolates forward from the present situation to the prediction that in the next fifty years the population will double. These two premises work together to support Mark’s conclusion because they indicate that the present problem is likely to grow much worse. Finally, there is an additional statement added to Mark’s argument. This is the statement that genetically modified foods can help to solve this problem. This statement provides a bridge between the conclusion of Mark’s argument and his ultimate conclusion to be proved in the dialogue, the thesis that we ought to continue the process of intro- ducing genetically modified foods into the human food supply. Thus it is easy to see the link between Mark’s thesis and the conclusion of his argument in move 1 that genetically modified foods can help to solve the problem of starvation. Obviously, if genetically modified foods can help to solve the problem of starvation, that would be a reason for continuing the process of introducing such foods into the human food supply.

In answer to Mark’s argument, Sarah, at her first move, presents a rebuttal, an argument that moves toward a conclusion that is opposed to Mark’s. The conclusion of her argument, indicated by the word ‘thus’, is that it is doubtful whether introducing genetically modified foods into the human food supply is safe. She gives two reasons to support this conclusion. The first is that the long-term effects of genetic modification have not yet been tested. The second is that reliance on such crops could destroy the environment, including all plant life, making the problem of starvation even worse. So, according to her argument, introducing genet- ically modified crops could, for all we know, make the problem of star- vation even worse. This claim is opposed to Mark’s previous argument that genetically modified foods could help to solve the problem of starva- tion. Sarah’s argument at move 1 is thus a rebuttal to Mark’s argument at move 1.

At move 2, Mark brings forward a different kind of argument, based on appeal to expert opinion. He argues that a leading biotechnology com- pany, Monsanto, has said that genetically engineered foods are safe for the environment. Why should we think that this statement is true just because Monsanto says it is true? Mark gives the following reason: “They are the experts who know all about these products.” At move 2, Sarah offers a rebuttal to Mark’s argument, saying that Monsanto stands to profit from producing these new foods. Based on this observation she asks a question, “Can we trust them to give an unbiased view?” By asking this critical question she has suggested that Monsanto could be biased. In other words they could have a reason for making this claim other than

the truth of the claim. That reason is that they would stand to profit from making such a claim. Sarah backs up this argument with still another one that appears strongly to condemn Monsanto as a reliable source. She says that this is the company that produced Agent Orange and DDT. These products turned out to be destructive to human life. They turned out to be highly unsafe. Thus Sarah’s argument suggests that Monsanto does not have a good track record concerning their statements that their products are safe. Once again, this suggests that this company is biased and not a reliable source to make claims about which foods are safe for the environ- ment.

At move 3, Mark introduces an interesting type of argument. He argues that there are no harmful effects on people eating genetically modified foods that have been verified so far. After this sentence, he draws an inference: Since there is no evidence that these foods are harmful, it is best to operate on the presumption that they are not harmful. The con- clusion of this inference is that we should accept the statement that eat- ing these foods is not harmful. But as Sarah points out, this is an argu- ment on the basis of ignorance or lack of knowledge. She asks whether it may not be better to argue from positive evidence rather than from a lack of evidence. Her remark is puzzling. Somehow it seems wrong that we should argue from a lack of evidence. But very often we do lack evi- dence, because we have to move forward and make a decision under conditions of uncertainty. In such cases, then, we are arguing from igno- rance. Is that inherently wrong? Mark and Sarah seem to have a differ- ence of opinion on this issue. Mark uses the argument from lack of evi- dence to support his conclusion that eating genetically modified foods can be presumed to be safe. But Sarah questions this argument, arguing that because it is simply based on ignorance, it must therefore somehow be faulty.

At move 4, Mark puts forward a lengthy argument based on a number of premises he asserts as factual. His conclusion is stated at the very end of his move. This conclusion is the statement that growing genetically modified crops is less hazardous than what we’re doing right now. His reason is that what we’re doing right now is using all kinds of fertiliz- ers and pesticides, and, as he argues, these pesticides and fertilizers are health hazards. Sarah replies at move 4 that she is doubtful about Mark’s argument. The reason she gives is that genetically modified foods are also being used right now, and their use is also contributing to environmental hazards. She cites the example of high mortality rates currently suffered by monarch butterflies. As Mark observed at move 5 in his response to

8. Criticizing an Argument by Asking Questions 35

this argument, it is based on appeal to expert opinion. That was a form of argument that Mark had just used at move 2 above. Sarah criticized it there by arguing that Monsanto cannot be trusted to give an unbiased opin- ion. Now Mark uses a similar form of attack when he questions Sarah’s use of the appeal to expert opinion. He says, at move 5, that this form of argument is only an appeal to authority, suggesting that such a form of argument could be illegitimate. But, one might think, appeals to expert opinion are very common, for example in legal argumentation. Legal evi- dence, for example, ballistics evidence and DNA evidence, is often based on the authority of expert witnesses. Such cases suggest that appeal to expert opinion could be a reasonable form of argument in collecting evi- dence. Also, Sarah has a good reply to Mark’s question. Sarah’s reply at move 5 backs up the legitimacy of the appeal to expert opinion as a form of argument by citing an authoritative source. She states that the find- ings about monarch butterflies were published in the scientific journal

Nature. This journal is a good source, and therefore Sarah’s appeal to

expert opinion seems like quite a strong argument. It is possible for Mark to question her, asking who the authors of the article were, and what were their qualifications. But despite this lack of detailed support, her appeal to expert opinion is not without worth. It may not be conclusive, but it does provide a reason supporting her claim. Thus Sarah’s counter- argument, based on appeal to expert opinion, is a rebuttal to Mark’s prior argument.

EXERCISE 1.8

1.Express Mark’s point of view and Sarah’s point of view in the dia-