RationalLunacy
Meeeoooowwww!! Pffffft!!!
Organic.
PLEASE READ: To register, turn off your VPN (iPhone users- disable iCloud); you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.
^ Oh, yeah, we oughta get back to the topic.
To those who think organic is hype: to some extent, it probably is.
But in many cases, there's a distinct, profound difference in taste. The two examples that come to mind are organic tomatoes and apples—and whole chickens—which seem to bear little or no resemblance to their plastic supermarket counterparts.
JohannBessler said:No, no, no. I have personally picked tomatoes off the vine. They are soft, succulent, rich.
The thing is, these fully-ripe tomatoes are much too soft to be shipped. Hell! They're too delicate to be sliced with a knife!
Ditto apples. I have had them picked right off the tree. They're so crisp they "shout" when you bite into them, and so juicy that they splatter on your face. With the possible exception of Granny Smith apples, you can't get these in a supermarket. Red Delicious apples at their height are crispy and juicy, but have an inedible taste.
What you're telling me directly conflicts with my life experience, and you might as well try to tell me the sun is blue, when I can open my eyes and see that it's yellow.
Fail. Big time.
Now, do you want to talk about raw milk, and cultured butter made from it? I've had direct experience with that, too. Cultured butter has an aggressively different taste.
regardless of organic versus normal farming, anything picked right from the vine is going to taste better than something shipped across the entire country... but for the vast majority of us, our only option is what we can find in our local grocery stores.
Metta. Thank you. You said it better than I could have.
The entire skeptical movement sees what they want to see.
The thing is, there's a double-standard in place.
The skeptical community swallows hook, line, and sinker, everything Penn & Teller & Co. says, while at the same time, picking apart with a fine tooth comb, the statements of the other side.
Illgetbi, human beings seem to want to classify people as either one thing (skeptics in this case) or another (believers).
I am neither. In fact, I think much of the hippy stuff is a crock of shit.
I refuse to let the hippy crowd tell me how to think, but I certainly don't let a man in a lab coat (or an avowed skeptic) tell me what to think, either. In fact, out of the two categories, I'd be hard pressed to tell you which group of people lies more.
At any rate, if you took the time to read the article, you'll see that people who self-identify as "skeptics" have lower-than-normal levels of dopamine in their brains, missed patterns that were present, so it can safely be assumed that their judgment is impaired to a certain extent.
What has always rankled me, however, is that while people rightly question the statements of one crowd (the believers), they swallow hook, line, and sinker, the statements of the other (the skeptics). In fact, I find that oftentimes this attitude reflects a kind of willful blindness, and begins to take on the tone of a religion. It all reminds me of the blind faith of Islamics.
You must remember that skeptics, including Penn & Teller, make a whole lot of money with their exploits, and nothing corrupts the human consciousness more than the pursuit of money.

@Fetaby:
Your analogy doesn't make sense, in regards to my position.
I'll try to spell it out for you again.
Everybody knows the hippy crowd's full of fakes, but no one wants to admit that the skeptical community, driven by greed, is just as full of fraudsters.
Gawd, I feel like I'm talking to a child. Get a clue, boy!

