Re: Stop It!!


Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On 14 Nov 2005 17:22:36 -0800, pbowles@xxxxxxx wrote:
>
> .
> .pbowles@xxxxxxx wrote:
> .> Mike Vandeman wrote:
> .> > On 13 Nov 2005 08:35:13 -0800, "Josh Campbell" <jcampbell.joshua@xxxxxxxxx>
> .> > wrote:
> .> >
> .> > .I joined this group thinking it was a professional list-serve.
> .> >
> .> > Very funny. How can that be true, for a newsgroup open to the entire world? Why
> .> > not offer something more constructive?
> .>
> .> The problem is that "sci.bio" is something of a misnomer - another
> .> group I frequent in this heirarchy is a talking shop for professionals
> .> in the field; yes, amateurs are welcome and questions are answered (I
> .> myself am an amateur in that field), and based on that experience when
> .> I first discovered this group I expected something equivalent for
> .> ecologists.
> .
> .To elaborate on this, there are other groups where the discussion of
> .such things as your proposed no-human gazetting policy are appropriate
> .topics for discussion, such as the animals.nature group I last
> .encountered you on. Never mind that it's a policy conservationists
> .rejected as out of date three decades ago, it is a *policy* rather than
> .a scientific issue, and your case isn't based on science. Therefore it
> .has no place in a sci.* group.
>
> Nonsense. It is a scientific issue that has never been tested, because
> scientists and other humans are too selfish to exclude themselves from anywhere.
> ANYWHERE. ESPECIALLY biologists.

"A scientific issue that has never been tested". So, in other words,
you spend all your time raving here and elsewhere simply presenting a
hypothesis? Yet you seem adamant in your support for it, without having
tested it. Calling that science rings somewhat hollow. What are your
predictions, even? That, in the absence of humans, wildlife would ...
sit there being wild? Anything more specific? Anything *testable*?
Believe me, if you come up with something scientific in this regard
I'll be interested in listening, since looking into the effects of
disturbance on communities is my current area. How are you approaching
this? Scientifically you would of course have to compare areas with
differing levels of disturbance with equivalent natural habitats to
confirm that, indeed, all forms of disturbance are inevitably malign.
Have the necessary community studies in pre- and post-mountain bike
areas been conducted?

> Now, if you want to discuss Culotta's
> .1995 finding that amphibian species richness doubled in habitat
> .remnants following habitat fragmentation,
>
> Irrelevant. You can double species richness in your home by adopting a pet. That
> in no way benefits native wildlife.

*sigh* I had hoped throwing something like this in might bring the
thread somewhere approaching the subject of the group. I suppose it was
a vain hope that you might counter this with the suggestion that
fragmentation results in species-packing, for instance, or something
else with a grounding in science rather than blind ideology. It's true
that this might not be representative or beneficial to the ecosystem in
question, but supporting that hypothesis requires intelligent argument.

Yet does your proposed system benefit wildlife, simply by cutting it
off from human interference? It may not do it any harm, at least in the
short term, but it doesn't actually do anything to improve its
situation, does it? So surely what you need to ask is not whether
disturbance benefits wildlife, but whether it necessarily harms it,
which is a very different question. Is possible species-packing
detrimental to amphibians in these Brazilian fragments? Possibly,
though the ten-year study failed to find any evidence that that was the
case.

> or argue that Gillespie et
> .al. were wrong to conclude that moderate disturbance has no effect on
> .amphibian and reptile community structure in Sulawesi, that would be an
> .appropriate angle to take in an ecology group.
> .
> .I have to confess to having been disillusioned that this group more
> .often appears to be "alt.politics.environment" than "sci.bio.ecology" -
> .please move the politics elsewhere,
>
> Very funny. Science is FULL of politics. That's one of the main reasons that new
> ideas get rejected, such as by someone saying "it's not science".

Your idea for one isn't new - quite the reverse, it's regarded as an
outdated irrelevance in modern conservation planning.

You simply
> pretend not to be political by using dry language. I can show you LOTS of
> political statements (or silence) in so-called "science" writing.

Though perhaps not of the blatant "Bush Out!", "The World Bank supports
deforestation!" sort of sloganeering that becomes so tiresome here,
where it does not belong however justified the sentiments.

> and maybe practising scientists
> .would be encouraged to develop this group into an ecology discussion
> .forum.
>
> (Some) scientists' unwillingness to relate to real people is part of their
> problem. How to "get the word out" is a common topic at their conferences,
> especially conservation biologists.

Here's an idea for getting the word out: follow the lead of the other
sci.bio groups, such as sci.bio.paleontology - turn this group into an
open discussion forum among ecologists that interested laypeople can
visit and observe, where they can ask questions of these professionals
and contribute themselves. As I mentioned in my other post, Usenet is
already chock-full of groups dedicated to natural history lovers and
amateur political agitators; having this group clone these adds nothing
and benefits no one.

Philip Bowles
philip.bowles@xxxxxxxxxx

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Little green idiots cause global warming
    ... >> This was an exercise in the realm of politics, not science. ... >> Climate model output is not evidence. ... If such scientists say that there is no problem, ...
    (sci.chem)
  • Is there global warming truth?
    ... Gore has been on a roll since the Academy Awards ... In science "truth" is meant to ... In politics "truth" is often a claim made on the basis of some ... scientists in the making of public policy. ...
    (alt.politics.bush)
  • Re: Opinions on Carvin basses?
    ... actually "creation science" is a step further than "intelligent ... But "evolution is fact" is a straw man. ... science didn't get caught up in politics until the Biblical literalists ... by one of the evolution scientists in the Stein movie. ...
    (alt.guitar.bass)
  • Re: Expelled - Ben Steins Brilliant And Subversive Documentary
    ... "...the National Center For Science ... Science subordinating itself to politics? ... But isn't intelligent design merely a code phrase for creationism? ... scientists who have first-hand knowledge of this phenomenon refused to ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Science lies foully murder. The Environmental Faith is the New Fascism.
    ... That was the old, well-proven way of doing science, as formalized inter ... It no longer applies to the environment. ... removed from the spheres of both science and politics. ... It has repeatedly rewritten, or forced scientists to rewrite, ...
    (rec.audio.tubes)
Loading