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. = </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.) </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. You can't