next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
face=3D"Arial">You can't have it both ways.  You can't
This is a multipart message in MIME format.
--Boundary_(ID_9FTa63K1gKa4q8Fj5rchRA)
Content-type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
To: Chris, Andy, et al.
From: John Sollows
Date: July 28/11
This is a good discussion. I agree, Andy, that "No evidence" has no meaning
as an argument.
I wish I could find a couple clippings my father kept from the April, 1988
Globe and Mail. In the first one, a few inshore Newfoundland fishers were
expressing concern that dragging operations on spawning grounds during
spawning season would have adverse effects on groundfish stocks. A few days
later, the word came out (cannot remember whether it was from industry of
government) that there was "no evidence" that these operations would have
adverse effects on the stocks.
None of us will know for sure why the stocks collapsed a few years later,
but uncontrolled, undisciplined fishing activities are pretty strongly
implicated as a cause, eh?
"No evidence" of a phenomenon or effect is too often used to pervert common
sense and attack the precautionary principle. It can mean "No proof," "no
meaningful research done," "We don't know," or a lot of other things, but it
does nothing to disprove the phenomenon or effect. When I hear the term, I
think "smoke screen." When "No evidence" of a concern gets raised as a
challenge, the best response may be to challenge the other side to disprove
said concern. If they cannot, then the concern is still valid.
It's very worrisome that those raising the concerns tend to be individuals
or community groups who usually don't have the resources nor the time that
proponents do. Therefore, their concerns too often get ignored by
decision-makers. "We told you so," five or twenty years later, doesn't
really cut it, when the costs get borne by one group and the benefits
enjoyed by another.
. A wise proponent will consult with a community BEFORE proposing!
From: naturens-owner@chebucto.ns.ca [mailto:naturens-owner@chebucto.ns.ca]
On Behalf Of Christopher Majka
Sent: July-28-11 1:13 AM
To: naturens@chebucto.ns.ca
Subject: Re: [NatureNS] Cougars and Ivory-billed woodpeckers
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
--Boundary_(ID_9FTa63K1gKa4q8Fj5rchRA)
Content-type: text/html; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
<html xmlns:v=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" =
xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" =
xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" =
xmlns:m=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" =
xmlns=3D"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dus-ascii"><meta name=3DGenerator content=3D"Microsoft Word 14 =
(filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-d