next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
Index of Subjects This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0114_01CC4D22.3E716F30 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I have said all I want to say on this subject, because we are spending = our energies preparing for our court case against M. Belliveau and the = province. I would add, however, that I find the term NIMBY particularly = derogatory. It is now used in the same way as the N word was used in = the deep south when I was there in the 60s working on civil rights = issues. Calling someone a NIMBY is used by proponents to dismiss any = argument made by those objecting to their project. Calling somebody a = meaningless and ugly name is a whole lot easier, and lazier, than = dealing with the merits of their case. Protecting what goes on in my = back yard is not only acceptable, it is often laudable. =20 Andy =20 ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Frederick W. Schueler=20 To: naturens@chebucto.ns.ca=20 Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2011 10:39 AM Subject: Re: [NatureNS] Cougars and Ivory-billed woodpeckers On 7/28/2011 12:13 AM, Christopher Majka wrote: > 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). * the whole interface between the scientific and nonscientific ways of = thinking is the root of the problem here. Compared to the ways=20 politicians think, real science - faith in doubt - is so inside-out = that=20 politicians, commercialites, lawyers, and other representatives of the = advocacy-based world views just don't have any idea what they're = dealing=20 with when they have to interface with scientific data and conclusions. Science is so much about the falsifiable hypothesis that's always=20 inviting everyone to prove it wrong, and about always knowing that = one's=20 ideas are tentative, and about being *terrified* that one's personal=20 point of view, or influences put on one by others, may distort one's=20 concept of the best explanation for something, and about peer-review = by=20 the entire concerned community before coming to a conclusion, and also = about acting on the basis of the best available ideas, while being=20 prepared to change them, that it's just incomprehensible to the=20 advocacy-based community at large. It's also true that the scientific=20 method is so effective that it can produce useful results for those = who=20 don't understand it, resulting in biostitution and "military science"=20 and other heretical deviations from the ideal of a community of=20 disinterested lovers of understanding. So in the case of marine aquaculture, this was an hypothesis (that it=20 could be done successfully), with a lot of auxiliary hypotheses about=20 how it might be done, and where and how the farm-nets should be=20 positioned. As someone interested in benthic invertebrates, I'd have=20 thought the main problem would have been how to position the farms in=20 relation to currents in order to use the wastes and waste food to=20 maximize the production of clams and crabs and Lobsters on the=20 surrounding seabed, but I don't know anything about the details of the = decision-making processes that were used. The important thing, from a scientific point of view, would be to = regard=20 the whole thing as an experiment, for the government to have financial = safeguards in place to compensate the experimenters if the experiment=20 was an ecological failure, and for the experimenters themselves to be=20 constantly vigilant for evidence that their experiment was having=20 unacceptable consequences. In fact, it seems that both = aquaculturalists=20 and governments, on both coasts, are actively committed to these=20 enterprises and are prepared to distort and conceal data about them=20 which they feel may falisfy the idea that the "farms" are not=20 appropriate to situations in which they've been emplaced. We've helped NIMBY's in a number of struggles against habitat=20 destruction, and it seems that a big part of their problem is stating=20 their concerns in scientific terms, since they seem just as unaware of = the inside-out character of scientific reasoning as government=20 bureaucrats and "biologists." One flag of this is that when anyone on=20 any side of a discussion uses the term "scientific proof" they have=20 tipped their hand that they don't know what science is about, because=20 all scientific conclusions are tentative by nature - see the quote = from=20 Bunge at http://pinicola.ca/kitchen.htm#four I suggest that it's only by stating their case in falsificationalist=20 (scientific) terms that unfunded groups have any chance of arguing=20 against industrial- or government-supported damage to the environment, = since advocate-funded studies related to these projects tend to be=20 irrelevant to the larger hypotheses about the projects, and it's only = by=20 challenging the proponents to falsify plausible hypotheses about the=20 possible consequences of the project that there's any chance of = getting=20 them to understand what they're doing. Such reasoning may be ignored,=20 but it's less likely to be mocked than if the same ideas are presented = as "feelings" or inchoate folk knowledge, and it may be useful, at=20 least, to reveal the unscientific reasoning of the proponents. While it's possible to write about properly scientific projects in = terms=20 that aren't explicitly scientific, and data can be gathered in an=20 advocacy way (i.e. by competitively-motivated listing or atlassing) = and=20 then be used in scientific reasoning, directly scientific reasoning is = so effective that's it's hard to not wish it was more widely and=20 directly used among those interested in nature and their environment.=20 I've written about some of this at http://pinicola.ca/AdoptX.htm fred. = =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=