The diversity of food ethics is vast and ranges from socioeconomic issues down to questions about the way in which information is processed. Personally, I try to approach any issue, even subjective ones, as objectively as I cant Science utilizes methods that have been perfected over time to become bastions of credibility and verifiability But to call science truth is dangerous and considered by scientists to be a fallacy as well In most scientific literature, the usage of absolute terms such as truth and false is frowned upon and instead scientists prefer to use terms such as “beyond a reasonable doubt” to express the certainty of their results However, some people consider this to be two ways of saying the same thing, This represents a distinct dichotomy between the reason necessitating non» absolute terminology and people‘s interpretation of it, Is it valid to assume that scientific statements of certainty can be taken as truth? Are these statements of certainty as credible as people assume them to be? People rely on scientific evidence to support their claims regarding any moral or ethical debate but is it valid to do so if the science is being misinterpreted.
This brings us to the crux of the ethical issue that I want to explore: is it ethical to even have conversations about ethical or moral issues if the science and logic used to support the arguments is being misconstrued or misunderstood? This is a daunting task solely because it relies on examining the credibility of both the scientist and the debater and how each of their interpretations changes the data and observations.
Synthesis is a word thrown around a lot that I’m slowly coming to understand better and better A synthesis of sources hopes to act as a metanalysis of an issue and show how multiple sources interact and ebb and flow in a conversation. To synthesize is to reveal evaluate the biases and influences that each speaker in the conversation holds and imbues into their word A synthesis at its core wants to find the prevailing modes of thought that underlie any discussion of issues, In this manner should be an exploration and evaluation of the sources surrounding a discussion in food ethics. Any future readers of this synthesis rely entirely on us to be impartial yet highly critical voices that can understand the perspectives of the issue while not interjecting with our own subjective feelings.