Posted on 07/24/2002 9:56:37 AM PDT by cogitator
Science is probably better left to the scientists. The problem with ecosystem/ecology/conservation biology studies these days is that no matter what the conclusion is, it's bound to conflict with somebody's vested interest.
You haven't read Carry_Okie's book have you?
No, I haven't. First I've heard of it or that Carry_Okie (in real life) is the author. What does the author say about leaving science to the scientists? (Feel free to chime in, Carry_Okie, provided you can carry the tune ;-)
LOL! Too much for this thread. Really. There is one reviewer of the book (Dr. Nielsen) who intends to use it as a source text in her next philosophy of science course because of the way I explain how markets organize research and chunk information into usable output variables.
The most obvious problem with "scientists" is that there is almost no science that is independent, much less accountable for its objectivity. Most of it requires expensive equipment, data collection, and number crunching. That requires grant money. Most grant money comes from government or "charitable" foundations. The latter has become a form of tax-exempt political advocacy. Thus the only accountability becomes the need to please the funding source. Go against that and the peer reviewers will have a fit. I have read way too many papers whose data disagreed with their executive summaries. It's sad.
The essence of the intellectual problem is that pre-college and undergraduate education is so bad and so ideologically socialist that there is a serious lack of what we used to call an education among the professorate (history, philosophy, the Constitution... you know, education). The very nature of post graduate study is also destructive to interdisciplinary knowledge. Thus most of our "experts" are both very narrow and very gullible. The invasion of technical departments by sociologists has made that situation far worse. "Subjective science" has become not only an approved philosophy, but chic. See "deep ecology."
I do a fair amount of research on my own. One of my more interestging recent observations is about the role of light in managing downcut erosion in steep canyons. Such research is practically verboten because of rules governing riparian access. Unfortunately, I could show you how the vegetation management rules advocated by conservation biologists will be enormously destructive to my forest, causing enormous landslides in the name of controlling erosion.
You see, there is no accountability among the professorate for a Type II error. Because of their isolated approaches they have little respect for the risks they take due to errors of inaction...
Should I go on, or should you buy a book? ;-)
I'm not a scientist, but I almost was. I was a chemistry undergrad and I tried grad school (UC Berkeley), but I failed out of my P-chem comps. I'm not too good at that kind of math. (I.e., differential equations, which are big in thermodynamics). I took a few geochemistry courses while trying to determine if I could survive in that realm, but ended up down the road (literally) into Silicon Valley to get enough IT training to switch careers and make a living. So I've seen and talked, and worked with (slightly) with some interesting (and skilled) scientists.
I can see what you mean about grant-driven science. In the "hot" climate field, what do you say about scientists that get funding from corporations and corporation associations? It's the same problem doctors face when they get (or got) money to research the health effects of tobacco from tobacco companies.
So it would seem to come down to peer-review, a process that is changing due to the insidious power of the Internet and WWW. Peer-review is supposed to weed out the bad and keep the good, in terms of research publications that end up in journals. So when you say "peer-review" above, is that what you mean, or do you mean review of grant renewals by whoever supplied the money? If the latter, then you have to differentiate between a juried grant process such as that used by the National Science Foundation, or the more insular process that might be practiced by foundations. I can see that the foundations might be unlikely to continue funding someone whose results might be antithetical to their "vision".
The essence of the intellectual problem is that pre-college and undergraduate education is so bad and so ideologically socialist that there is a serious lack of what we used to call an education among the professorate (history, philosophy, the Constitution... you know, education). The very nature of post graduate study is also destructive to interdisciplinary knowledge. Thus most of our "experts" are both very narrow and very gullible. The invasion of technical departments by sociologists has made that situation far worse. "Subjective science" has become not only an approved philosophy, but chic. See "deep ecology."
It would appear that depends on the field. I didn't see this in the hard[er] sciences. I think I understand that if a field such as population biology is invaded by someone interpreting the results in terms of their impact on Gaia, then this type of contamination could occur. At the same time, the UC Berkeley chemistry profs seemed primarily to know lots about chemistry and much less about other subjects.
I do a fair amount of research on my own. One of my more interestging recent observations is about the role of light in managing downcut erosion in steep canyons. Such research is practically verboten because of rules governing riparian access. Unfortunately, I could show you how the vegetation management rules advocated by conservation biologists will be enormously destructive to my forest, causing enormous landslides in the name of controlling erosion.
I believe you could, but I don't understand what you mean by light to manage downcut erosion -- my guess is that you need enough light penetration to allow the ground cover to grow and stabilize the land surface. Close?
You see, there is no accountability among the professorate for a Type II error. Because of their isolated approaches they have little respect for the risks they take due to errors of inaction...
You didn't define what you mean(t) by Type I and Type II errors.
I unfortunately don't think I'd have time to read your book and do it justice. I have three toddlers at home (timing is everything). I'm lucky if I finish the Sunday paper by Tuesday. But I'd be willing to continue the conversation if you're willing to educate me. If not, I can understand demands on your time as well.
So when you say "peer-review" above, is that what you mean, or do you mean review of grant renewals by whoever supplied the money?
Neither. I mean that the peers understand who gives the money and what they want. They end up with selective vision as a group, believing what they study in isolation, forgetting the bigger picture. They become resistant to whomever might disturb the applecart. It's because of the funding source and the adulation they get for the "correct" conclusions.
I think I understand that if a field such as population biology is invaded by someone interpreting the results in terms of their impact on Gaia, then this type of contamination could occur.
Think about who has the big impacts in species listings. More of a problem are the recommended prescriptive means which almost always rely upon preservation as a solution. It often doesn't work for reasons I detail in the book.
You didn't define what you mean(t) by Type I and Type II errors.
LOL! That was a test (to see if you were really a scientist). Given your comment, I see that it was unnecessary. Sorry, but I hate fakes enough that sometimes I think it necessary.
A Type I error is the false acceptance of the alternative hypothesis, in this case, that nature requires active management by people. The view of most environmental preservationists is that this is not true.
The Type II error is the false acceptance of the null hypothesis that nature will function best if left alone. This is demonstrably false in the presence of introduced exotic species. It is also ignorant of the fact that an interface with humans will always be there and will always require management. Of course, those in the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement would argue that there is a simple fix to that one...
Among statisticians, the Type II error is the more egregious. With a Type I error you eventually find out your mistake. Fail to test a hypothesis further because of a Type II error and you may never learn your mistake.
What about maintaining the territories they have now. I'll bet you won't care if that keeps dwindling.
And you seem to have this strange obsession with them.
ANIMAL ABUSE/HUMAN VIOLENCE
Russell Weston Jr., tortured and killed 12 cats: burned and cut off their tails, paws, ears; poured toxic chemicals in their eyes to blind them; forced them to ingest poison, hung them from trees (the noose loose enough to create a slow and painful death.) Later killed 2 officers at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, DC.
Jeffery Dahmer staked cats to trees and decapitated dogs. Later he dissected boys and kept their body parts in the refrigerator. Murdered 17 men.
Kip Kinkle shot 25 classmates (killing several) in Springfield, Oregon. He killed his father and mother. He said he blew up a cow once, set a live cat on fire and dragged the innocent creature through the main street of town. Classmates rated him as "Most Likely to Start WWIII."
As a boy, Albert De Salvo, the "Boston Strangler," placed a dog and cat in a crate with a partition between them. After starving the animals for days, he removed the partition to watch them kill each other. He raped and killed 13 women by strangulation. He often posed bodies in a shocking manner after their murders.
Richard Allen Davis set numerous cats on fire. He killed all of Polly Klaus' animals before abducting and murdering Polly Klaus, aged 12, from her bedroom.
11-year-old Andrew Golden and 13-year-old Mitchell Johnson tortured and killed dogs. On March 24, 1998, in Jonesboro, Arkansas, Golden and Johnson shot and killed 4 students and 1 teacher during a fire drill at their school.
After 16-year-old Luke Woodham mortally stabbed his mother, killed 2 classmates and shot 7 others, he confessed to bludgeoning his dog Sparkle with baseball bats and pouring liquid fuel down her throat and to set fire to her neck. "I made my first kill today," he wrote in his court-subpoenaed journal. "It was a loved one...I'll never forget the howl she made. It sounded almost human." In June 1998, Woodham was found guilty of 3 murders and 7 counts of aggravated assault. He was sentenced to 3 life sentences and an additional 20 years for each assault.
Theodore Robert Bundy, executed in 1989 for at least 50 murders, was forced to witness a grandfather who tortured animals. Bundy later heaped graves with animal bones.
At 4-years-old, Michael Cartier dislocated the legs of rabbits and hurled a kitten through a closed window. He later shot Kristin Lardner 3 times in the head, before shooting himself.
Henry Lee Lucas killed numerous animals and had sex with their corpses. He killed his mother, common law wife, and an unknown number of people.
Edward Kemperer cut up 2 cats. He later killed his grandparents, mother, and 7 other women.
Richard Speck threw a bird into a ventilator fan. He later killed 8 women.
Randy Roth taped a cat to a car's engine and used an industrial sander on a frog. He killed 2 of his wives and attempted to kill a third.
David Richard Davis shot and killed 2 healthy ponies, threw a wine bottle at a pair of kittens, and hunted with illegal methods. He murdered his wife, Shannon Mohr Davis, for insurance money.
Peter Kurten, the Dusseldorf Monster, tortured dogs, and practiced bestiality while killing animals. He murdered or attempted to murder over 50 men, women and children.
Richard Trenton Chase, "The Vampire Killer of Sacramento," bit the heads off birds, drained animals for their blood, killed animals for their organs, and later killed 6 people in random attacks. One police officer present at the scene of the first murder, confessed to having nightmares about the crime for months afterwards.
Richard William Leonard's grandmother forced him to kill and mutilate cats and kittens when he was a child. He later killed Stephen Dempsey with a bow and arrow. He also killed Ezzedine Bahmad by slashing his throat.
Tom Dillion murdered people's pets. He shot and killed Jamie Paxton, aged 21; Claude Hawkins, aged 49; Donald Welling, aged 35; Kevin Loring, aged 30; and Gary Bradely, aged 44.
At 9-years-old, Eric Smith strangled a neighbor's cat. At 13, he bludgeoned 4-year-old Derrick Robie to death. Smith lured the little boy into the woods, choked him, sodomized him with a stick, then beat him to death with a rock.
David Berkowitz, "Son of Sam," poisoned his mother's parakeet out of jealousy. He later shot 13 young men and women. 6 people died and at least 2 suffered permanent disabilities.
Arthur Shawcross repeatedly threw a kitten into a lake until the kitten drowned from exhaustion. Killed a young girl. After serving 15-1/2 years in prison, he killed 11 more women.
Michael Perry decapitated a neighbor's dog. He killed his parents, infant nephew and 2 neighbors.
Jason Massey¹s killing resume began with cats and dogs; at 20 he decapitated and disemboweled a 13-year-old girl and fatally shot a 14-year old boy. He claims to have killed 37 cats, 29 dogs and 6 cows.
Patrick Sherrill stole neighborhood pets, tethered them with baling wire and encouraged his dog to mutilate them. He killed 14 co-workers and himself in 1986.
Keith Hunter Jesperson, "Happy Face Killer," bashed gopher heads and beat, strangled and shot stray cats and dogs. He is known to have strangled 8 women. He said: "You're actually squeezing the life out of these animals...Choking a human being or a cat--it's the same feeling...I'm the very end result of what happens when somebody kills an animal at an early age."
Carroll Edward Cole, executed in 1985 for an alleged 35 murders and reputed to be one of the most prolific serial killers in U.S. history, confessed that his first act of violence was to strangle a puppy under the porch of his house.
Robert Alton Harris murdered two 16-year-old boys, doused a neighbor with lighter fluid and tossed matches at him. His initial run-in with police was for killing neighborhood cats.
It would be a good thing to protect their current territories, educate people who move in so they understand what works and hear those behaviors that place both Grizzlys and people in danger. What doesn't make sense is attempting to expand Grizzly territories. Does this satisfy you?
Serious...I do have a selfish attitude toward animals. I want them to stay out of my habitat if they are unfriendly....And moreover, I don't want a bunch of animal rights whackos taking my property without buying it and giving it to a bunch of worthless animals.
We have the golden cheeked warbler(a worthless bird) here in Texas. They supposedly live in cedar trees sooo...the Texas whackos have taken over a bunch of land on which grows ceader trees from a woman who lives near Austin....now her land is worthless, just like the bird that allegedly lives on her land. I drove down that way a couple of years ago and everywhere I went I saw fields that had great piles of bulldozed cedar trees. The owners, I can only guess, were performing a pre-emptive strike on the golden cheeked warbler(worthless bird).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.