StructuredDream

What follows Tyson’s wildly mistaken opening are several calmly presented claims regarding population statistics, growth, and the impacts of climate change on the food debate. An agitated female voice then shouts: “This is all about companies controlling our future!” The use of "all about" is a red flag scientifically. However, the shout doesn't sound like an assertion intended for a scientific context, and it could address a valid point, even if overstated. Tyson then asks: “Amongst all this conflict and confusion... How do we make the most informed decisions about how we feed ourselves?” What is especially good about Tyson's question here is that it states a relatively specific, plausibly valuable goal of “most informed decisions”. It also links our decisions on this topic to a pragmatic concern to "feed ourselves". The question is a good start and offers opportunities for improvement. In asking how to accomplish a goal, we usual

Neil Degrasse Tyson opens the film "Food Evolution" with the assertion that “The survival of our species has always depended on advances in food and agriculture.” A surprising red flag here is "always". Good analysis and good science are conservative and careful. They tends to avoid absolutist terms like "always" and "never" unless it is believed a claim must be true in all possible worlds. Significantly higher standards are required to justify "always/never" claims. These can be hard standard to meet, and therefore should be deployed cautiously. On the other hand, we can stipulate definitions of our terms simply. For example, we may assert "a bachelor is always unmarried" as part of our meaning. That can be taken as true in all possible worlds in our discussion. Modern Humans seem much more likely to have survived ups and downs regarding food, while agriculture seems to have emerged within the last 15,000 years.