next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
Index of Subjects --_acf7730b-50d4-456c-8a89-ead750fd9b64_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Very true Andy. Act local think global. From: slickdog1@gmail.com To: naturens@chebucto.ns.ca Subject: Re: [NatureNS] Cougars and Ivory-billed woodpeckers Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 12:31:15 -0300 I have said all I want to say on this subject,=20 because we are spending our energies preparing for our court case against M= .=20 Belliveau and the province. I would add, however, that I find the=20 term NIMBY particularly derogatory. It is now used in the same way as the= =20 N word was used in the deep south when I was there in the 60s working on ci= vil=20 rights issues. Calling someone a NIMBY is used by proponents to=20 dismiss any argument made by those objecting to their project.=20=20 Calling somebody a meaningless and ugly name is a whole lot easier, and=20 lazier, than dealing with the merits of their case. Protecting what goes= =20 on in my back yard is not only acceptable, it is often laudable.=20=20 Andy =20 ----- Original Message -----=20 From:=20 Frederick W.=20 Schueler=20 To: naturens@chebucto.ns.ca=20 Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2011 10:39=20 AM Subject: Re: [NatureNS] Cougars and=20 Ivory-billed woodpeckers =20=20 On 7/28/2011 12:13 AM, Christopher Majka wrote: > On=20 27-Jul-11, at 10:49 PM, Andy Moir/Christine Callaghan=20 wrote: > >> What you say is exactly why the whole of the=20 scientific community >> suffers a credibility=20 problem. > > I'm afraid I disagree. The credibility problem is=20 with the political > masters who decide what studies are funded (and=20 what are not) and how > this information is used (or misused). *=20 the whole interface between the scientific and nonscientific ways of=20 =20=20 thinking is the root of the problem here. Compared to the ways=20 =20=20 politicians think, real science - faith in doubt - is so inside-out that=20 =20=20 politicians, commercialites, lawyers, and other representatives of the=20 =20=20 advocacy-based world views just don't have any idea what they're dealing=20 =20=20 with when they have to interface with scientific data and=20 conclusions. Science is so much about the falsifiable hypothesis that's=20 always=20 inviting everyone to prove it wrong, and about always knowing that=20 one's=20 ideas are tentative, and about being *terrified* that one's personal=20 =20=20 point of view, or influences put on one by others, may distort one's=20 =20=20 concept of the best explanation for something, and about peer-review by=20 =20=20 the entire concerned community before coming to a conclusion, and also=20 =20=20 about acting on the basis of the best available ideas, while being=20 =20=20 prepared to change them, that it's just incomprehensible to the=20 =20=20 advocacy-based community at large. It's also true that the scientific=20 =20=20 method is so effective that it can produce useful results for those who=20 =20=20 don't understand it, resulting in biostitution and "military science"=20 =20=20 and other heretical deviations from the ideal of a community of=20 =20=20 disinterested lovers of understanding. So in the case of marine=20 aquaculture, this was an hypothesis (that it=20 could be done successfully),=20 with a lot of auxiliary hypotheses about=20 how it might be done, and where=20 and how the farm-nets should be=20 positioned. As someone interested in=20 benthic invertebrates, I'd have=20 thought the main problem would have been=20 how to position the farms in=20 relation to currents in order to use the=20 wastes and waste food to=20 maximize the production of clams and crabs and=20 Lobsters on the=20 surrounding seabed, but I don't know anything about the=20 details of the=20 decision-making processes that were used. The=20 important thing, from a scientific point of view, would be to regard=20 the=20 whole thing as an experiment, for the government to have financial=20 =20=20 safeguards in place to compensate the experimenters if the experiment=20 =20=20 was an ecological failure, and for the experimenters themselves to be=20 =20=20 constantly vigilant for evidence that their experiment was having=20 =20=20 unacceptable consequences. In fact, it seems that both aquaculturalists=20 =20=20 and governments, on both coasts, are actively committed to these=20 =20=20 enterprises and are prepared to distort and conceal data about them=20 =20=20 which they feel may falisfy the idea that the "farms" are not=20 =20=20 appropriate to situations in which they've been emplaced. We've=20 helped NIMBY's in a number of struggles against habitat=20 destruction, and=20 it seems that a big part of their problem is stating=20 their concerns in=20 scientific terms, since they seem just as unaware of=20 the inside-out=20 character of scientific reasoning as government=20 bureaucrats and=20 "biologists." One flag of this is that when anyone on=20 any side of a=20 discussion uses the term "scientific proof" they have=20 tipped their hand=20 that they don't know what science is about, because=20 all scientific=20 conclusions are tentative by nature - see the quote from=20 Bunge at http://pinicola.ca/kitchen.htm#four I=20 suggest that it's only by stating their case in falsificationalist=20 =20=20 (scientific) terms that unfunded groups have any chance of arguing=20 =20=20 against industrial- or government-supported damage to the environment,=20 =20=20 since advocate-funded studies related to these projects tend to be=20 =20=20 irrelevant to the larger hypotheses about the projects, and it's only by=20 =20=20 challenging the proponents to falsify plausible hypotheses about the=20 =20=20 possible consequences of the project that there's any chance of getting=20 =20=20 them to understand what they're doing. Such reasoning may be ignored,=20 =20=20 but it's less likely to be mocked than if the same ideas are presented=20 =20=20 as "feelings" or inchoate folk knowledge, and it may be useful, at=20 =20=20 least, to reveal the unscientific reasoning of the=20 proponents. While it's possible to write about properly scientific=20 projects in terms=20 that aren't explicitly scientific, and data can be=20 gathered in an=20 advocacy way (i.e. by competitively-motivated listing or=20 atlassing) and=20 then be used in scientific reasoning, directly scientific=20 reasoning is=20 so effective that's it's hard to not wish it was more widely=20 and=20 directly used among those interested in nature and their environment.=20 =20=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=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=3D *=20 see some collected definitions at http://pinicola.ca/kitchen.htm#scidef Science:=20 the discipline of creating secure a