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