next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
text-d
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_00DD_01CC4CF8.F75BF120
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Chris, good arguments are not made by being patronizing. You are =
patronizing me (and many others) by suggesting I don't know the =
difference between science and politics. Like many others, I live with =
the consequences of bad science, turned into political advice and =
action. The fact, not opinion, is, that we are seeing lots of =
intentionally bad science, done by scientists, used for political =
goals. If you look at how Fisheries and Environment Minister Sterling =
Belliveau is justifying the St. Mary's Bay salmon feed lots, he points =
to scientific information provided by DFO and Dept. of Environment. =
That's justifying this development in the name of science.
Your other arguments about the fact that we're challenging it are just =
silly. We don't have the funds or expertise to go up against these =
government departments. =20
You can play around with words (we call is spinning) however you want. I =
find your approach evasive of the core argument and totally =
unconvincing in the face of the evidence.
I sometimes think there was something to be said for some aspects of the =
cultural revolution, where politicians and academics actually had to =
live with the consequences of their work and decisions.
Andy----- Original Message -----=20
From: Christopher Majka=20
To: naturens@chebucto.ns.ca=20
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2011 1:13 AM
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. =20
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.)=20
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. =20
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=20
There isn't such a thing as "in the name of science".=20
are going unchallenged=20
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.=20
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. =20
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.=20
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
------=_NextPart_000_00DD_01CC4CF8.F75BF120
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META name=3DGENERATOR content=3D"MSHTML 8.00.6001.19088">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY=20
style=3D"WORD-WRAP: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; =
-webkit-line-break: after-white-space"=20
bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV>Chris, good arguments are not made by being patronizing. You =
are=20
patronizing me (and many others) by suggesting I don't know the =
difference=20
between science and politics. Like many others, I live with the=20
consequences of bad science, turned into political advice and =
action. =20
The fact, not opinion, is, that we are seeing lots of =
intentionally bad=20
science, done by scientists, used for political goals. If =
you look=20
at how Fisheri