next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
<DIV><FONT face=3 --Apple-Mail-2-649273055 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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. > 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. > 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. > 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. > 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. > > 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 > -- > ################# > Richard Stern, > 317 Middle Dyke Rd. > Port Williams, NS, Canada > B0P 1T0 > > sternrichard@gmail.com > ################### --Apple-Mail-2-649273055 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>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.</div><div><br></div><div>The strength of science = as a methodology is that it