next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
as a methodology is that it This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_00B4_01CC4CAF.800DD640 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable What you say is exactly why the whole of the scientific community = suffers a credibility problem. You can't have it both ways. You can't = argue the objectivity of science, and then say some scientists aren't = objective and therefore will eventually be outed. The fact is the = decisions they are being allowed to make in the name of science are = going unchallenged because people such as lobstermen and others don't = have the budgets to do the studies that should be done. They claim = science proves no harm is being done...and then harm is done. It's not = an academic discussion. It's real life, and we have to live with the = consequences. I certainly haven't thrown out any babies with any bathwater...but I'd = certainly recommend that the babies grow up. Andy ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Christopher Majka=20 To: naturens@chebucto.ns.ca=20 Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 10:27 PM Subject: Re: [NatureNS] Cougars and Ivory-billed woodpeckers Hi Andy, Science is both a body of knowledge and a methodology. It's = practitioners are as varied as any other group of people - they are all = humans. Some are good, others bad, some middle of the road, others = mediocre. Others are unjustifiably beaten into submission by political = masters who tell them what to do and say in the name of political = objectives. As a human activity, it is liable to human mistakes and = foibles. The strength of science as a methodology is that it relies on = empirical evidence, is open to scrutiny by all, and is self-correcting. = So if someone from DFO (scientist or bureaucrat) makes a claim, and it = is demonstrably a pile of crap, science as a discipline will eventually = bear this out and send it packing. A bad apple doesn't destroy the whole barrel. The "scientific = community" doesn't need to clean up its act if some bureaucrat = (scientist or not) becomes a yes man for a political agenda. David = Sibley and John Fitzpatrick (the ornithologists referred to below) are = no more responsible for what someone in Shelburne said than you or the = lobstermen of NB are responsible for the irresponsible conduct of = Russian factory ships, Japanese whalers, or the plundering of North = Atlantic cod stocks by Spanish and Portuguese fishing fleets. It's not = even apples and oranges - its golf balls and dirigibles. ;-> It's science that created the knowledge to build the computers that = allow us to exchange these views on the Internet; and geographers and = hydrographers who mapped the Bay of Fundy, and elucidated the biology of = lobsters and cod and ivory-billed woodpeckers, and cougars - amongst = many other things. Throwing the baby out with the bath-water doesn't get = anyone very far. Cheers! Chris On 27-Jul-11, at 9:42 PM, Andy Moir/Christine Callaghan wrote: I am afraid I don't hold the scientific community in the same high = esteem that Richard does. In fact, I believe segments of the scientific = community have a growing credibility problem.=20 In our efforts on some environmental issues here on the Neck and = Islands, we have come up against all sorts of scientists who interpret = "facts" to suit the wishes of their political or business masters.=20 A recent example came from DFO scientists who told a crowd in = Shelburne that there is no scientific evidence to show that open net = salmon farms do damage to the local lobster population. They made it = sound as if they had actually studied the issue. But of course, they = haven't...they have quite intentionally not studied it, presumably for = fear of what they might find. When government scientists make this sort = of claim, I ask myself, where is the test of a "high degree of proof" = that Richard refers to in his note.=20 The people who have studied it, the lobstermen of NB, who have 20 = years or more experience of seeing their livelihood destroyed by open = net fish farms, don't have PhD after their names, so their observations = are dismissed, often by scientists. In many cases, I'll take local = knowledge over the political/scientific agenda of those who are paid to = provide advice that the politicians want to hear. All too often, the = science has been tainted to reflect a reality that has more to do with = creating jobs and making money than accurately or fairly assessing the = environmental impact of some of these projects. So I think the scientific community has a long way to go to clean up = its act before it can rightly claim any holier than thou attitude about = who is right, and who is wrong on these issues, or, if fact, what the = criteria should be for determining what is the truth.=20 Andy in Freeport ----- Original Message ----- From: Richard Stern To: NatureNS Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 7:48 PM Subject: [NatureNS] Cougars and Ivory-billed woodpeckers Hi, I'll weigh in on the interesting thread about E.cougars, elephants = etc., mainly because I enjoy this kind of debate. Wild cougars (or = Eskimo curlews, or Coelocanths etc.) may or may not be present in NS, = and people can believe whatever they want. But I agree with Ulli etc. = that convincing the naturalist and scientific community would require a = pretty high degree of proof - preferably independently analysed and = corroborated photos, videos, DNA etc., and then proof beyond a = reasonable doubt that any photos aren't faked in some way, and that the = creature wasn't a zoo or collection escape, like Paul's elephant.=20 I would urge interested parties, and for that matter all birders = and naturalists interested in reporting sightings, to read David = Sibley's refutation of the "proof" that the Ivory-billed woodpecker = still lives in Arkansas, for a great example of what to look for and how = to go about it , and the sort of analysis that should convince skeptics = on rare bird committees etc.! = (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/311/5767/1555.1.full), followed by = John Fitzpatrick's response = (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/311/5767/1555.2.full). These are 2 = highly respected well-known birders with multiple books and publications = to their name, who give apparently convincing evidence to prove opposite = "facts", neither of which has subsequently been corroborated, although = apparently Fitzpatrick has backed down somewhat and the Cornell team = have stopped searching till more definitive evidence is found. Keep debating and looking! Richard