[NatureNS] Cougars and Ivory-billed woodpeckers

From: Christopher Majka <c.majka@ns.sympatico.ca>
To: naturens@chebucto.ns.ca
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 01:13:03 -0300
References: <CAAwXBYecEjGrrN0MrnDcWWE2v+1v6iCQBQgeKLOEJN3aKzA0Aw@mail.gmail.com> <381F7962F89A4356BC651E6EF81FD653@amd3400sempron> <22486882-ECCB-4BC4-BE35-94C14B38DD34@ns.sympatico.ca> <3FE939F3E30F49E684541F470FEEDBD8@amd3400sempron>
Precedence: bulk
Return-Path: <naturens-mml-owner@chebucto.ns.ca>
Original-Recipient: rfc822;"| (cd /csuite/info/Environment/FNSN/MList; /csuite/lib/arch2html)"

next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects

Index of Subjects

--Apple-Mail-4-659218552
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=US-ASCII;
	format=flowed;
	delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi Andy,

On 27-Jul-11, at 10:49 PM, Andy Moir/Christine Callaghan wrote:

> What you say is exactly why the whole of the scientific community  
> suffers a credibility problem.

I'm afraid I disagree. The credibility problem is with the political  
masters who decide what studies are funded (and what are not) and how  
this information is used (or misused). In far too many instances these  
days in Canada, scientific studies are spun to support foregone  
conclusions, or if inconvenient are simply scuttled; or simply are not  
done and the data is not gathered (too expensive; don't see the direct  
economic utility; could produce inconvenient results, etc.)

> 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.

That's not the argument I'm making. Whether any human endeavor is  
"objective" or not is a whole other discussion.

> The fact is the decisions they are being allowed to make in the name  
> of science

There isn't such a thing as "in the name of science".

> are going unchallenged

It take it you are challenging them, yes?

> because people such as lobstermen and others don't have the budgets  
> to do the studies that should be done.

That may be so, but if it is, then not supplying funding to do studies  
that others think need to be done, is a political decision. It is not  
something to be laid at the feet of "science" or "the whole scientific  
community." DFO is a government department; decisions are made by  
civil servants and bureaucrats, at the behest of politicians. Our  
current political leadership pays scant attention to science,  
statistics, reason, or facts. There may well be reason to be critical  
of the process or the outcome - but know who to hold responsible.

In any event, if there were "the budgets to do the studies that should  
be done" then how would they be done? Using scientific methodology.   
Scientific methodology is better that guesswork, hunches, myths, and  
anecdote because it produces more useful and more reproducible results.

It is slow, difficult, imperfect, and not always right - but it is  
hands down better than all the alternatives. It doesn't mean that what  
science yields is the only thing which is useful, and that everything  
else should be ignored. For example, traditional native knowledge  
sometimes has great value; knowledge of fishers or of other people  
with years of hands-on experience can be priceless. Such knowledge may  
not have the empirical data to scientifically demonstrate its truth -  
but that doesn't make it wrong. What it should mean (if the public  
process were a good one) is just what you suggest: that other studies  
should be done to determine the validity of such knowledge.

>   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.

No one should dispute that, but good decisions need to be based on  
good information. Information that everyone can have confidence in  
because it is a) based on empirical evidence; b) conducted with valid  
and impartial methodology; c) testable; d) reproducible; and e)  
subject to rigorous scrutiny. That's what science is and that's what  
science does.

You may well have reason to be critical - but know where to direct  
that criticism.

Cheers!

Chris


Christopher Majka
6252 Jubilee Rd., Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada B3H 2G5
c.majka@ns.sympatico.ca

It's true we're on the wrong track, but we're compensating for this  
short-coming by accelerating. - Stanislav Lec




--Apple-Mail-4-659218552
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html><body style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; =
-webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Hi Andy,<div><br><div><div>On =
27-Jul-11, at 10:49 PM, Andy Moir/Christine Callaghan wrote:</div><br =
class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type=3D"cite"><span =
class=3D"Apple-style-span" style=3D"border-collapse: separate; color: =
rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-style: normal; =
font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; =
line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: auto; text-indent: 0px; =
text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; =
-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: =
0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: =
auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; "><div =
bgcolor=3D"#ffffff" style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: =
space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><font size=3D"2" =
face=3D"Arial">What you say is exactly why the whole of the scientific =
community suffers a credibility problem.&nbsp; =
</font></div></div></span></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I'm afraid I =
disagree. The credibility problem is with the political masters who =
decide what studies are funded (and what are not) and how this =
information is used (or misused). In far too many instances these days =
in Canada, scientific studies are spun to support foregone conclusions, =
or if inconvenient are simply scuttled; or simply are not done and the =
data is not gathered (too expensive; don't see the direct economic =
utility; could produce inconvenient results, =
etc.)&nbsp;</div><br><blockquote type=3D"cite"><span =
class=3D"Apple-style-span" style=3D"border-collapse: separate; color: =
rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-style: normal; =
font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; =
line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: auto; text-indent: 0px; =
text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; =
-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: =
0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: =
auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; "><div =
bgcolor=3D"#ffffff" style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: =
space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><font size=3D"2" =
face=3D"Arial">You can't have it both ways.&nbsp; You can't