Re: Stop It!!
- From: Mike Vandeman <mjvande@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 00:33:52 GMT
On 29 Nov 2005 03:18:42 -0800, pbowles@xxxxxxx wrote:
..
..Mike Vandeman wrote:
..> On 27 Nov 2005 00:01:01 -0800, pbowles@xxxxxxx wrote:
..>
..> .
..> .Mike Vandeman wrote:
..> .> On 21 Nov 2005 15:48:56 -0800, pbowles@xxxxxxx wrote:
..> .>
..> .> .> .> .> .> > On 13 Nov 2005 08:35:13 -0800, "Josh Campbell" <jcampbell.joshua@xxxxxxxxx>
..> .> .> .> A hypothesis as well as supporting evidence and arguments.
..> .> .> .
..> .> .> .Where does this evidence come from if the hypothesis hasn't been
..> .> .> .tested?
..> .> .>
..> .> .> From earlier research. Are you playing dumb?
..> .> .
..> .> .Let me make this simple for you: Supporting evidence for a hypothesis
..> .> .comes from tests of *that hypothesis*.
..> .>
..> .> Nonsense. Other research often has implications that support a hypothesis (make
..> .> it seem more probable).
..> .
..> .This is true. But again this evidence is drawn on after the hypothesis
..> .is formulated - if you draw on the same evidence you use to formulate
..> .the hypothesis, you're doing nothing to test the predictive power of
..> .that hypothesis.
..>
..> Who cares? I only care if it's true. I'n not trying to get tenure.
..
..Ifyou care if it's true, surely you have an interest in finding out
..whether it's true?
That's why I wrote the paper. But you mistook what the hypothesis is.
..> .In this case the hypothesis
..> .> came after the evidence. The evidence (in this case, _Wildlife and
..> .> Recreationists_) can still support the hypothesis.
..> .
..> .Or any number of alternate hypotheses one dreams up to be consistent
..> .with them. You really don't seem to grasp what the scientific method
..> .entails.
..>
..> I'm not playing your game. All I care about is what's true. It's up to you to
..> disprove it or disbelieve it, if you are so inclined.
..
..I see. Explain to me, if you would, why exactly you've spent (by
..accounts on other threads) several years pushing your position on the
..internet, writing papers, arguing and the rest? I presume it's in an
..effort to persuade people that your position is correct.
Sure, but that doesn't require proving everything myself. I can defer to
existing research for that.
I also wonder
..how well you're succeeding - it seems that some of the people you've
..been arguing with are individuals you've been arguing with for years,
..and who remain unconvinced? Have you, in fact, won many converts? If
..not, have you wondered why that is? I'll give you a clue: it's not
..because there's a powerful mountain bike lobby out there indoctrinating
..people.
Most people don't like to confront, even they know that mountain biking is
harmful. A lot of people know I'm right, and say so. Mountain bikers are mostly
afraid to say so.
..> .Which are the very ones I'm complaining about. Your flames.
..>
..> "Flame" is subjective. You are just as disparaging as I am, hypocrite.
..
..Okay, use a more objective term. "Ad hominem attack", as in attacks on
..the person making an argument in lieu of addressing the argument. Such
..as by referring to the other side as "hypocrite" rather than addressing
..the point. Nowhere have I made any personal insult or said anything
..about you beyond the scope of this discussion; I've criticised your
..approach and your apparent grasp of the subject at hand, both in the
..context of the discussion. In fact, I've endeavoured to enlighten you
..as to the points you seem unclear on.
That's an attack on me. Even the word "enlighten" is insulting, as though you
know more than I do. That's called "ad hominem". It isn't educational.
You, on the other hand,
..continually attempt to goad me into a flame war - "hypocrite",
.."dishonest", "LYING", "you haven't learned to think"
Only where it seems relevant.
etc. etc., often
..as your sole response to a point while ignoring the point itself -
..which serve no purpose beyond abuse and do nothing to aid your
..argument. Straightforward ad hominem attacks. Flames. I am guilty of
..neither.
Nonsense. You implied that I am not being honest.
..> .> .> I only noticed one comment of yours, in a thread
..> .> .> .of 70+ messahes in which you were the major contributor, referring to a
..> .> .> .scientific study - and that was one you criticised for concluding that
..> .> .> .there was no significant difference between the effects on soil
..> .> .> .compaction of hiking and those of mountain biking. That, and your
..> .> .> ."paper", which consists largely of unreferenced assertions (including
..> .> .> .such key points as "Is mountain biking harmful? Of course it is),
..> .> .> .arguments based on flawed logic and a noticeable dearth of scientific
..> .> .> .information. What's more, all the scientific references you do cite
..> .> .> .conclude that there is no impact
..> .> .>
..> .> .> Not true. You didn't read the references, I guess.
..> .> .
..> .> .No, I read your citations - which is enough to justify the statement
..> .> ."all the scientific references *you do cite* conclude that there is no
..> .> .impact",
..> .>
..> .> Not true. Since you didn't actually READ any of them, it is outrageous that you
..> .> would make any statement about what they concluded!
..> .
..> .Your own paper outlined, and in some cases cited, the conclusions they
..> .reached.
..>
..> Then how did you miss the conclusions of Wisdom et al, which agreed with me?????
..
..Wisdom et al concluded merely that animals ran away from mountain
..bikes.
BS. They concluded that elk ran away from mountain BIKERS more than hikers. They
didn't test any effect of bikes.
They also hypothesised that this might affect their survival if
..it prevented them from building up fat reserves, and stated that this
..required further investigation. It's a very twisted interpretation of
..that to claim unqualified support for your assertion that mountain
..biking harms wildlife.
It's very twisted and dishonest of you to claim that thay's my assertion. That's
how you put words in my mouth. Both I am Wisdom et al simply concluded that
mountain bikers have more impact than hikers.
..> .> That is pure speculation. You have absolutely no idea what I know! It is the
..> .> height of irresponsibility to make assertions about something you know nothing
..> .> about.
..> .
..> .Based on your contributions to this thread, your biological knowledge,
..> .including that of fairly elementary principles, is extremely sketchy.
..>
..> BS. You have absolutely no idea what I know, and your claim that it is "sketchy"
..> is therefore dishonest. If you said it was your OPINION, that might be a true
..> statement, but as an assertion of fact, it is a LIE.
..
..You really do struggle with qualifiers, don't you? "Based on your
..contributions to this thread..." I know what you've contributed to this
..thread.
It's a rather big jump from my "contributions to this thread" to my "biological
knowledge"! You don't have enough information to conclude that my biological
knowledge is "sketchy". As a matter of fact, form what I've seen here, I know
more about the scientific method than you do. Or maybe I'm just more honest. You
seem to be here simply to prove me wrong, regardless of what the facts are.
..> .> The problem is
..> .> .that your reasoning is (at least purportedly) logical reasoning, not
..> .> .scientific reasoning.
..> .>
..> .> BS. That is pure fantasy. Apparently, you think I am incapable of "scientific"
..> .> reasoning, even though I have a Ph.D. Where did you get that idea????
..> .
..> .Whether or not you're capable of it, you haven't employed it in that
..> .paper - and it is from the paper itself that I get that idea.
..> .Scientific reasoning is a process of deduction from the results of
..> .analyses, not logical formulations of the "If...then..." variety that
..> .characterise your arguments. Such as your claim below that "if energy
..> .is used to move, then survival must be at stake".
..>
..> That's true, from simple physics. An animal needs a certain amount of energy to
..> survive, and without it, will die.
..
..Physics can reveal that animal uses energy, and that if that energy is
..used more rapidly than it can be replenished, the animal will
..eventually die when its stores run out. It tells us nothing about
..whether a particular expenditure of energy is likely to be critical, or
..whether the animal has the ability to replace the energy lost in time
..to avoid death. That requires investigation to determine.
But that's irrelevant! Energy loss is a surrogate for harm, used to demonstrate
that mountain bikers are more harmful than hikers, NOT that either one causes
"significant harm", as you would say. If you weren't so bigoted and pigheaded,
you would have figured that out. But it's more important to you to prove me
wrong, tahn to be honest.
..> .> .Actually, I was referring to the Lathrop literature review. The Wisdom
..> .> .study is ecologically unimportant in itself, since it merely relates to
..> .> .the actions of a few individual animals that happen to be close to the
..> .> .paths. As the authors themselves point out, further research is needed
..> .> .to identity whether this has any relevance to elk survival.
..> .>
..> .> BS. That is already known: forcing the animals to move reduces their energy
..> .> stores, so it is automatically significant to their survival.
..> .
..> .When was the last time you read the papers you insist others do, or
..> .even the parts of your paper referring to them? Wisdom et al: "The
..> .energetic costs associated with these treatments deserve further
..> .analysis to assess potential effects on elk survival." Hardly the sort
..> .of comment they'd make if they'd conducted the study on the presumption
..> .that those energetic costs are significant for elk survival, is it?
..>
..> They are simply trying to assess the EXTENT of harm. That there is harm is
..> undeniable.
..
..In fact, they go onto say that if there is found to be a certain
..reduction in body fat accumulation, that will be likely to affect elk
..survival over the winter. The operative word being "if". Note also that
..they describe the need to "assess the *potential* effects on elk
..survival". Not to quantify a known effect, but to confirm whether a
..suspected effect is, in fact, real.
They are talking about future research on a different topic, which has no
bearing whatsoever on their demonstration that mountain biking is more harmful
than hiking. It's simply an assessment of the EXTENT of harm.
..> .> .And again, no I didn't read it because - and hopefully if I say it
..> .> .slowly and loudly you will retain it - I'm. Not. Here. To. Argue.
..> .> .About. Mountain. Biking. I appreciate that you seem to find it
..> .> .difficult to keep focussed on anything else, but all I'm doing is
..> .> .responding to your request to comment scientifically on what you've
..> .> .presented. Not to engage in your debate, which I have no reason to care
..> .> .about unless you can provide strong scientific grounds for your
..> .> .position.
..> .>
..> .> Which I did, as did Wisdon et al.
..> .
..> .As I've pointed out repeatedly (and for that matter as Wisdom et al
..> .point out about their own study), the evidence you've drawn from your
..> .sources doesn't justify your conclusions, and that's the case even if
..> .you're right about the flaws in your sources' conclusions.
..>
..> You are operating from hidden assumptions, which only started to be revealed
..> below, e.g. that if there isn't a reduction of population, there isn't any harm.
..> That is pure hogwash.
..
..You have yet to explain why this is the case.
I have, several times. Destruction of genetic diversity is just one example of
an obvious harm that isn't necessarily expressed in a reduction of population.
So by YOUR definition of "harm", it doesn't count. Loss of energy is another.
..> .For example, it is
..> .> obvious that getting run over by a car is harmful. We don't need a scientific
..> .> study to prove it!!!!!!
..> .
..> .No one's asking for a study to tell whether running over a beetle or a
..> .plant on a bike is harmful to that beetle or plant. Studies are needed
..> .to determine whether that in itself has any significance.
..>
..> BS. That is pure ecology jargon. What does it really mean??????? Obviously, the
..> death of an organism IS significant, to that organism as well as others.
..
..Okay, so let's start by defining harm. This will be helpful since you
..have yet to do so yourself. Harm, as you've noted, I define as evidence
..of population decline or otherwise increased extinction risk, such as
..by loss of sufficient habitat to sustain the population at its current
..size (which is a slightly delayed form of population decline). The
..important element of this conception is extinction risk - a population
..or species is harmed if its risk of extinction is increased. It follows
..from this that, if a form of disturbance increases the extinction risk,
..it harms that population. If it doesn't, it is de facto not
..significant.
Yes, but only by YOUR definition, which you claim is the ONLY way to define
harm. As a matter of fact, Webster has a much more widely accepted definition of
harm, which I and the rest of the world use ("physical or mental damage"). You
are in your own world, and insisting that your way is the only way is simply
arrogant -- a word that defines you.
..> .> You make it plain that the purpose
..> .> .of your paper is to prove mountain bikers' claims untrue and
..> .> .irrelevant. How can you possibly claim not to have a preconceived
..> .> .conclusion, indeed an agenda? It's there in your own words.
..> .>
..> .> Everybody has an agenda. Whether they state it is irrelevant, and doesn't make
..> .> their paper any less scientific, except in your mind.
..> .
..> .What arrant nonsense. I'll grant you that most researchers have an
..> .agenda, in the sense that they aim to prove something specific by
..> .conducting their studies, but the crucially important thing is that
..> .they don't presume that agenda is correct
..>
..> Oh, yeah? You PRESUME that harm isn't demonstrated till population decline is
..> proven. That is pure IDEOLOGY. You are reasoning in circular fashion, because
..> you DEFINE harm as "population decline".
..
..How is defining something in any way circular? Yes, I do presume that
..harm isn't demonstrated until it has been proven - that is, in fact, a
..tautology, and I do tend to assume that tautologies are true rather by
..definition.
Are you PRETENDING not to be able to read? I say something, and then you proceed
to misquote it. Let me say it again: You PRESUME that harm isn't demonstrated
till population decline is proven. That is pure IDEOLOGY. You are reasoning in
circular fashion, because you DEFINE harm as "population decline". You can't say
that population decline = harm, and then claim that population decline PROVES
harm! That is circular reasoning. Surely you can understand logic?????
..> .> .and if there are too
..> .> .> many of us too close, they LEAVE THE AREA.
..> .> .
..> .> .They may do, but how many is too many?
..> .>
..> .> It doesn't matter. It's still a fact.
..> .
..> .Of course it matters. If you have any objective to minimise disturbance
..> .you need to know how much disturbance can be borne and how much is
..> .damaging.
..>
..> Of course it's damaging. If you are in a traffic jam on the way to work, you get
..> there late. That's a harm. You certainly can't claim it as a BENEFIT!
..
..I see, you're using the term "harm" for its emotive connotations, not
..because it has any relevance to the way the word is conventionally
..used. A harm is not simply something that happens that isn't a benefit,
..and disturbance isn't necessarily non-beneficial in any case. I'm not
..wholly sure where the traffic jam analogy is going; most deer don't
..work to tight schedules and don't worry unduly about getting paid a bit
..less than normal.
See Webster for the definition that I and the rest of the world use. You are
like Lewis Carroll, redefining words for your convenience.
..> .> It comes back to the need for
..> .> .evidence again - is there any evidence that mountain biking causes
..> .> .animal populations to leave a disturbed area?
..> .>
..> .> Yes, in the papers I referenced. They all moved, except the mule deer.
..> .
..> .Unless you haven't cited the relevant passages, they all refer to
..> .individual animals moving away from the path. I'll ask again,
..> .emphasising the important points: is there any evidence that mountain
..> .biking causes animal *populations* to leave a disturbed *area*?
..>
..> Do you mean "permanently"? Because you aren't clear. The papers demonstrate that
..> the animals do leave the area, and for even longer than the period of
..> disturbance.
..
..I mean, leave the area in the sense of becoming locally extinct, that
..they emigrate because the habitat is no longer suitable for their
..survival. So, yes, essentially permanently. A group of animals leaving
..a foraging site temporarily isn't a population leaving an area - the
..population encompasses all the animals in that species throughout that
..habitat patch.
So causing them to move temporarily, even a whole day, you don't consider
harmful, even though everybody else in the world can see that it's harmful....
You are in yoru own world....
..> .> and if as you claim your
..> .> .references represent the sum total of the research into the topic then
..> .> .it must be concluded that that evidence doesn't exist, for given your
..> .> .objectives you would surely have highlighted any that did.
..> .>
..> .> The evidence is there. You are ignoring it, for some reason.
..> .
..> .It's not in your paper, to be sure. Here's another hint on scientific
..> .writing: if you argue for a particular position, it is up to you to
..> .present the evidence supporting it in that argument, not to rely on
..> .others to look it up.
..>
..> I'm not trying to prove YOUR hypothesis, only mine.
..
..It's yours you have yet to prove, and that you attempt to reinforce
..with appeals to others to read your source material.
You don't even know what my hypothesis IS, much less understand whether it's
been proved. Interestingly, after presenting my paper at SIX scientific
conferences, NOT ONE PERSON made the claim you are making, that I hadn't proven
my hypothesis, or that my paper isn't scientific. You need to go back to your
textbooks, and re-read them.
..> but you've done me a
..> .favour by bringing the same thing up in a more recent post:
..> .
..> ."But what I do think it means is that we should act with restraint --
..> .with the manners of a guest! What does this mean in practice? I think
..> .it means,
..> .first of all, to "listen" to other species, and what they are trying to
..> .tell us!
..> .For example, what is the first thing that every child learns about
..> .wildlife?
..> .That they don't want us around: that they run away whenever we try to
..> .approach
..> .them!"
..> .
..> .The implication is clear: animals don't like humans
..>
..> BS. The article is about humans, which is why I talk about humans. You wouldn't
..> know an "implication" if it hit you in the face..
..
..Articles about human disturbance refer to specifically human forms of
..disturbance - logging, agriculture and so forth, for instance. If you
..read a paper on selective logging you don't take it to imply that
..logging by beavers has the same effect as logging by humans. Similarly,
..when you make the point of raising this issue in a paper about human
..disturbance (and, what's more, emphasise it with exclamation marks) you
..are suggesting that there is something uniquely human about this
..disturbance.
BS. That's only in YOUR mind. You miss the point that beavers are doing what
they are meant to do, but humans are under a system of ethics that has
implications for our logging practices.
This is reinforced by your anthropomorphising wildlife as
..an aggregate entity that objects to our being guests in its realm,
You are really full of it! It isn't "anthropomorphising" to claim that animals
don't want us around! They vote with their feet! That clearly shows their
preference not to be around us. Now you are denying the evidence of your eyes! I
also NEVER claimed that "wildlife [is] an aggregate entity". On the contrary, I
think that they are a set of INDIVIDUALS!
..clearly implying a difference between their approach to humans and
..their approach to other animals.
Hogwash! I have never said a single word about how they respond to other
animals! To imply that there is something between the lines is just pure
dishonesty. I am really SICK of talking with such a dishonest person. I think
this is going to be my last reply to you. You don't listen. That's deliberate
intention to distort.
If you were writing a paper on the
..Serengeti, would you say that gazelles object to having lions as guests
..in their realm and keep away from them for that reason?
Of course. They indicate their feelings by their behavior.
..> It is, if they deserve that treatment, which these papers all do.
..>
..> Certainly it might
..> .highlight possible weaknesses in approaches taken to date and so
..> .suggest future avenues for research, but that isn't what yours does. A
..> .scientific literature review of your references would conclude that the
..> .research carried out to date suggests mountain biking has little or no
..> .greater impact than hikers on wildlife (if you set out to answer this
..> .question)
..>
..> No, it doesn't. That's only what it CLAIMS to show. The claims aren't justified.
..
..It's what a reading of the literature suggests,
Only if you accept BS claims at face value, which is not honest. You didn't do
that with MY paper!
which is all I
..mentioned you should say. And then, reading on, you'll find that I
..addressed this point - that you're entitled to point to flaws which
..might call into question their results, along the lines of "although at
..first glance the data suggest that mountain biking has no greater
..effect on soil erosion than hiking,
That's not true. MY first glance told me that the research was BS. But you
either don't read carefully, or are not being honest because yu don't like the
conclusions.
a reanalysis of these results
..accounting for differences in the distance travelled by hikers and by
..mountain bikers implies that an individual mountain biker is
..responsible for greater soil erosion than an individual hiker."
That's what I said.
..> but that certain issues that might be relevant, such as the
..> .length of trail used by different types of land user, were ommitted
..> .from consideration and deserve further investigation, and possible
..> .weaknesses in the experimental approaches taken suggest a need for more
..> .rigorous studies.
..>
..> That's not what I did.
..
..Exactly the problem.
That aren't "possible" weaknesses, but ACTUAL weaknesses. I guess you don't like
the fact that I tell the truth.
.. I accepted their data, and showed that their own data
..> prove my hypothesis. That's perfectly valid.
..
..That isn't at all what you showed. You would be justified in pointing
..out that, based on the difference in the distance travelled by bikers
..and hikers, that the results imply mountain bikers have a greater
..effect on soil erosion as individuals than hikers. You would be
..justified in pointing out that animals have been shown to run from
..wildlife. None of which in itself supports your hypothesis that
..wildlife is harmed by mountain biking.
There you go again, mischaracterizing my hypothesis & conclusions.
The data simply don't address
..that question.
Of course, since that wasn't my hypothesis.
..> It could also point out that some evidence indicates
..> .that wild mammals flee from an oncoming mountain bike, though
..> .qualifying this by pointing out that no studies have been carried out
..> .to determine whether they react the same way towards hikers.
..>
..> That wouldn't be true. The studies ALL compared hikere with mountain bikers.
..> Hello!!!!!
..
..Oops, you're right, I checked the Wisdom quote again and they did
..indeed contrast their results with hikers and horse-riders. So you
..wouldn't include that qualifier, and would indeed be justified in
..pointing out that animals have been shown to flee more readily from
..mountain bikes than hikers. This is still the limit of what you can
..extrapolate from the evidence you have.
Right, which is what I did. DUH!
..> .What was that you were saying earlier about not needing evidence for
..> .the "obvious"? The comment you're replying to here was simply a matter
..> .of logic - the fact that there's evidence that human activities harm
..> .wildlife is not evidence that X form of disturbance harms wildlife or
..> .that it harms it at the population or community level.
..>
..> Who cares about "the population or community level"??????????????? It's
..> irrelevant. If you get killed by a hit-&-run driver, I doubt that your wife
..> would say "but there's no harm at the population or community level". Idiot.
..
..Guess what? That beetle that's just been squashed by a mountain bike
..doesn't live in a traditional family. It doesn't have relatives or a
..spouse that mourn its passing. No one but a human is likely to walk
..past it and think "oh, that's sad, a poor dead beetle".
You missed the point. Getting killed is a HARM, regardless of whether you "live
in a traditional family"!
..What I think we have here is a case where you haven't thought through
..*why* life has any value.
Irrelevant. It is a given. It is one of our highest values. Are you going to
throw out all human values, and replace them with YOUR values? Good luck!
Value is something that's apportioned, not
..something inherent. Human lives have value because we value them - we
..value our own, we value those of people we care about. Animal lives
..have value too because we care about them - because there are humans
..who do walk past the beetle and think "that's sad, a poor dead beetle",
..because we enjoy wildlife as something to view, to photograph, and
..habitats as nice scenery.
So animals only have value because HUMANS value them? There's your arrogance
again! And I guess that if YOU don't value a particular species, then it has no
value? If life has value (most of the world thinks it does), then ALL life has
value. You can't make distinctions.
The animals don't think that way. They don't
..value their lives
You are really off the charts. That is the most absurd statement I have ever
heard, bar none. Their behavior shows that they value their lives: they try to
preserve their life.
or those of other animals. They just exist. Many
..appear to have rudimentary forms of consciousness, but none but the
..highest of the higher primates exhibit self-consciousness,
You really have no way of knowing that. It is nothing but arrogance to make such
a claim.
and that
..extremely limited. None have the ability to see something dead and
..relate it to something that will happen to them 'personally' in the
..future.
You really have no way of knowing that. It is nothing but arrogance to make such
a claim.
..> indeed I pointed one out
..> .in your last post, when you argued that the fact that people use
..> .mountain bike paths necessarily increases disturbance, with the clear
..> .implication that the effect on wildlife must be negative.
..>
..> Yes, when it drives the animals away from their food! That is an obvious harm.
..
..It's only obvious if it's clear they have no other suitable sources of
..food, or that they're driven off so persistently that their foraging
..success is significantly jeopardised, which hasn't been shown.
You COMPLETELY miss the point! Chasing animals away is a surrogate for harm. It
is irrelevant whether these particular animals has somewhere else to get food in
this particular case. Science uses surrogate measures to do research. Animal
movement is a surrogate for harm -- something measurable that relates to harm in
a predictable and valid way. Actual harm is too complex to measure, which is why
we use a surrogate.
..> .> .> If you want to make a specific case you
..> .> .> .need specific evidence to support it, not "humans have been known to
..> .> .> .harm wildlife therefore keeping humans out must be good".
..> .> .>
..> .> .> I already gave it. You continue to ignore it. And you claimed to want a real
..> .> .> debate?
..> .> .
..> .> .Where did I claim that? All I recall saying on the specific question of
..> .> .mountain bikes and disturbance is that I'd be interested in seeing any
..> .> .evidence that such an effect exists, particularly at the community
..> .> .level. All you've presented so far is, at best, evidence that mountain
..> .> .bikes cause soil erosion and that individual animals run away from
..> .> .them, neither of which is ecologically relevant in the absence of
..> .> .information on the effects of these factors on wildlife populations and
..> .> .communities.
..> .>
..> .> BS. They are obviously harmful, regardless of whether anyone can measure impacts
..> .> "on wildlife populations and communities". Do you need a "study" to convince you
..> .> that getting run over by a car is harmful?
..> .
..> .No, but I need a study to convince me it's having an effect on
..> .populations of people (or animals) being run over by cars.
..>
..> Who, other than you, is interested in "populations"? That is not the subject of
..> my paper.
..
..In your paper you make no effort to define your concept of "harm" at
..all.
So what? It's well defined by Webster.
And if you aren't interested in populations, why bring this to an
..ecology group? What sort of scientists did you expect to find here -
..astronomers? Geologists? Botanists? Do you even know what ecology is?
As far as I can tell, only IGNORANT ecologists come here. A population isn't
something real, only a human concept. I'm interested in real organisms.
..> Cane toads
..> .get run over by cars all the time here; it's not having any adverse
..> .effect on their population that anyone can see.
..>
..> So what? It's still harmful to them. Or are you arguing that it's beneficial????
..
..Actually I think cane toads are treated very unfairly around here, and
..not just by the people who insist on whacking them with golf clubs and
..probably would regard it as beneficial. Of course it doesn't do the
..toad much good, but you have yet to explain why it's a particular
..tragedy for it to happen.
I don't care if you want to know if it's a "tragedy". That's just your way of
rationalizing doing harm to wildlife: calling it "not a tragedy". If I ever have
to go to court to protect wildlife, I sure won't call on YOU for help!
..> .> .and don't listen to either evidence
..> .> .
..> .> .I've looked at all the evidence you laid out in your paper - there were
..> .> .no ecological studies, nothing at all on the effects of biking on
..> .> .wildlife populations, just a few papers on soil erosion without linking
..> .> .that to wildlife impacts, and a fair bit of speculation and suggestions
..> .> .for further study which appear not to have been taken up.
..> .>
..> .> I see You think that a measurable impact on wildlife populations
..> .
..> .or communities
..> .
..> . is the ONLY
..> .> evidence of harm.
..> .
..> .Well, at any ecologically significant level, yes.
..>
..> That's circular reasoning. You have simply redefined "harm". That is not the
..> definition that I or 99% of the world uses! You just said that it's not
..> significant if it's not significant.
..
..It isn't circular reasoning, it's a definition. I'm not *arguing* that
..harm represents an effect on the population, simply stating it as the
..definition of harm. The argument is that you have provided no evidence
..for any such harm.
I never claimed that mountain biking causes a significant polulation decline.
..> Populations are the
..> .things that are prone to going extinct under threat, and whose presence
..> .or absence determines whether a species is to be found in one place or
..> .another.
..>
..> So the death of organisms isn't important? What about your own death? Isn't that
..> important?
..
..To my circle of friends and family, but not to anyone else, not to the
..population and certainly not in any ecological sense.
That is just your ignorance. You have absolutely no way of knowing if your death
is important to the human population or ecology. We don't have that degree of
predictive power.
Stop
..anthropomorphising animals: very few animals exhibit awareness of death
..among members of their species (chimpanzees, hippos, whales and
..elephants - none commonly found in North American deserts)
When did I ever say they did? Putting words in my mouth again? That is really
getting tiresome. You are arguing with yourself, not me.
and none
..exhibit the self-awareness necessary to be aware of themselves as
..finite beings that will one day die, or fear that death. As a
..psychologist I'm sure you're aware that full self-awareness doesn't
..develop in humans until perhaps as late as the age of 4, certainly not
..before the age of 2. Animals have no concept of their own death, no
..fear of it, no aspirations they aim to achieve before it occurs or
..regrets for being unable to do so. They have no friends or family who
..will mourn them save in the very few instances I mentioned, and in
..those rarely for long. Animals live on a day-to-day basis - on one of
..those days they happen to die for one reason or another. Life goes on.
So you are saying again that individuals don't matter? If so, you are really
full of it. Even in the "ecological" sense, individuals and their death are
important!
.. I would suspect that you behave differently, and try to preserve
..> yourself.
..
..Plenty of animals aim to preserve themselves; most, in fact. It's a
..hard-wired response, sometimes simply in response to movement. Humans
..flee instinctively, not out of an imminent fear of death, but simply
..out of fear - even of things as innocuous as mice in some cases, which
..can't possibly harm them. The fear of death is something that only
..comes with thought and foresight - thinking that you are afraid because
..of something you foresee happening in the future to yourself.
Relevance?
..> . No wonder you seem so obtuse. That is totally absurd,
..> .
..> .In what way?
..>
..> Reread "Alice in Wonderland". It talks about arbitrary definitions of words.
..
..Another nonanswer. What is arbitrary about a definition based on
..observation of population trends
Because the rest of the world uses a different definition.
and the fairly self-evident fact that
..if losses are replenished, there is no significant effect on those
..populations?
That is absolutely false, as I proved before. Maintaining a given population
isn't the only measure of success.
..> .> .> .Studying erosion won't tell you more than that there's been a change to
..> .> .> .the environment - whether wildlife is affected by that change will
..> .> .> .require further study.
..> .> .>
..> .> .> BS. Erosion involves killing the animals and plants that were there.
..> .> .
..> .> .Hold on - are you saying that what you're concerned about isn't
..> .> .ecological disturbance, but simply whether the odd animal or plant dies
..> .> .here and there? That's not my concern and it isn't of ecological
..> .> .interest - if you want to make any serious claim for an impact on
..> .> .wildlife you need to be able to show an effect at the population level,
..> .>
..> .> That is PURE BS. So nothing is significant unless it changes a population
..> .> level?!!!!!
..> .
..> .The concern is, ultimately, whether a population is driven to
..> .extinction, correct?
..>
..> NO! That's not the only concern! Genetic diversity, & many other factors can be
..> harmed.
..
..Two things. First, why is genetic diversity in a population important?
..Because it relates to a species' fitness, its ability to survive and
..hence stave off extinction.
So avoiding extinction is the only value? I don't think so. Genetic diversity is
valued also for its own sake. Humans like diversity. We get bored easily when
there is lack of diversity, as on a golf course. And I am sure that other
species feel the same. Humans didn't invent those feelings.
Bringing us back to the need to study the
..population-level effects of disturbance on extinction risk. Second,
..what are the "many other factors"? At a guess they'll also boil down to
..affecting the chance of extinction if they are genuinely significant.
Only in your mind. As I just said, diversity is valued for its own sake.
..> That's a population level effect and only occurs
..> .following drastic or long-term declines at the population level.
..> .
..> .What about the loss of genetic diversity WITHIN the population?!!!!!
..> .> That's not significant????????
..> .
..> .See my previous response to this. You're misusing the concept by
..> .applying it at inappropriate scales.
..>
..> Hogwash. Are you saying that loss of diversity can only happen when X
..> individuals are killed, but not when Y (< X) are killed? That is ABSURD. It is
..> also FALSE.
..
..No. I'm saying it's biologically trivial. Exactly the same loss occurs
..when a particular individual is eaten by something, starves, is killed
..by a freak weather event or disease, or simply dies without
..reproducing. In fact it's a requirement for natural selection to take
..place. It's a misuse of the concept of genetic diversity loss to apply
..it at this scale.
That's just your ideology. What animals are killed naturally is not a human
issue. Humans are guided by ethics, which only depend on whether an animals is
killed BY A HUMAN. That is quite different. Not only is it ethically different,
but QUALITATIVELY different: humans hunt, for example, the fittest deer, not the
weakest. Mountain lions, on the other hand, go after the weakest.
..> .> .not just that an animal might die here and there that may have lived a
..> .> .few more days in the absence of bikers. Unless we're talking about
..> .> .something very rare in that habitat, specific individuals aren't of any
..> .> .ecological importance - they come and go all the time.
..> .>
..> .> I see. If you don't think life is significant, WHY ARE YOU STUDYING BIOLOGY?????
..> .
..> .Where did I say anything of the sort?
..>
..> Search for the word "odd": "whether the odd animal or plant dies here and there?
..> That's not my concern and it isn't of ecological interest".
..
..Where is any claim about life's significance here? I made a point about
..the *ecological* importance of particular individual organisms, no
..comment at all about life per se.
We are talking about death, and you are saying it's not of "*ecological*
importance".
.. By the way, are you
..> British? I haven't seen that expression ("the odd") much.
..
..I hadn't realised it was an uncommon expression. I am British as it
..happens; does it matter?
It does, when you are trying to communicate with someone who speaks a different
dialect. I have only a vague idea of what "the odd" really means.
..> Species are important. Locally,
..> .populations are important. These are entities that persist for
..> .centuries, millennia, even millions of years, about which there's a
..> .great deal to learn, which may perform significant ecological
..> .functions, and which are simply enjoyable to look at and study. But
..> .individuals are ephemeral,
..>
..> And that means "unimportant"?
..
..It means they're not suitable targets for conservation, which is
..concerned with ensuring persistance. if you ban bikes from a trail to
..save a beetle, and the beetle dies the next day anyway, what precisely
..is the accomplishment?
We never know if it will die the next day. All we can do is protect it from a
given threat. The fact that it dies later doesn't detract from the protection we
gave it today.
Where is the purpose? Why is that particular
..beetle valuable anyway? Especially if you devote resources to it, as
..you'd have to if you succeeded in achieving a ban which would require
..enforcement, it's a highly inefficient use of resources with no obvious
..valuable objective.
The obvious valueble benefit is protecting wildlife from being killed --
something that doesn't seem to interest you much.
..> .> But it is more LIKELY that they are in a favorable area, than not. After all,
..> .> they aren't stupid.
..> .
..> .They don't have a map of the area either, and in any case might not be
..> .spending all their time foraging - they might be looking for a more
..> .suitable spot. They just go to the closest area where they have an
..> .expectation of finding food - that reduces the energy involved in
..> .travel and the risk of exposure to predators while looking for a new
..> .foraging site.
..>
..> I don't think you have the foggiest idea what they are doing. But when you claim
..> that displacing them isn't harmful, you are just LYING.
..
..You have difficulty with subtle distinctions, don't you (and seemingly
..also the concept of lying)? What I (echoed by Wisdom et al) said is
..that displacing them isn't *necessarily* harmful, that it is an issue
..which requires investigation to resolve.
Not harmful ON THAT DAY? What do you mean? It is by definition harmful. Why do
you think everyone studies displacement????????? Because it represents (is a
surrogate for) harm!
Are the animals left
..critically short of energy by their flight?
Who cares? We have no way of knowing! But we DO know that causing flight is
generally harmful. We know that in our own lives.
Wisdom et al point out that
..we don't know.
BS. They said we don't know TO WHAT EXTENT!
Are they able to recover the energy lost in sufficient
..time to avoid incurring costs to their survival? We don't know. If you
..go for a run when you don't need to, it isn't normally fatal, and
..runners don't endanger their future survival prospects compared with
..couch potatoes.
..
..> .> .> If particular
..> .> .> .species permanently move elsewhere as a consequence, certainly that's
..> .> .> .relevant, but noting whether a deer runs out of the way of something
..> .> .> .that might run it over reveals nothing.
..> .> .>
..> .> .> You are amazingly ignorant, for a so-called "biologist". Running away takes
..> .> .> energy.
..> .> .
..> .> .For an individual animal. So what?
..> .>
..> .> Groups are made up of individuals. DUH!
..> .
..> .Yes. And?
..>
..> So the processes you CLAIM to be operating at a "higher" level are really
..> operating at the individual level.
..
..Incorrect. See my comments about emergent properties. Fundamentally,
..communities and populations "behave" differently from individuals, and
..it is the interactions at these levels that affect the ecosystem. It is
..the behaviour of that population or community that is therefore
..relevant to ecosystem function, and so long as the behaviour of a
..population is not changed by the deaths of individuals, those
..individuals are not important to the system.
That is only your subjective judgment, NOT science.
..> .> You said that killing wildlife is "not significant". It would be hard to find a
..> .> clearer taking of sides.
..> .
..> .Killing individual animals and plants is "not ecologically significant"
..> .was the phrase I used.
..>
..> Exactly. That means that whatever humans do, short of wiping out large numbers
..> of individuals, is okay.
..
..You really ought to try for greater accuracy in your paraphrases. It
..means that human activities that don't result in population declines
..can be sustained; they can be borne by the system.
Not true. Destroying genetic diversity doesn't necessarily reduce population,
but harmful in the short & long run.
This is a simple
..observation from ecology. There's no value judgment involved as to
..whether or not that makes it "okay". It's really up to the individual
..to decide whether they're comfortable with recreational activities or
..whatever that might result in them squashing beetles whose squashing
..would otherwise be avoidable.
But you are not honest to claim that such killing "isn't significant". That's an
artifact of your ideosyncratic DEFINITION of harm.
..> . This doesn't seem to qualify as taking sides -
..>
..> Sure it is. Ordinary people (who aren't "ecologists") don't distinguish between
..> various types of killing, as you do. From the point of view of an animal killed,
..> it doesn't matter at which "level" it was killed; it is just as dead, either
..> way.
..
..Huh? An organism can only be killed at one level, the level of the
..individual. I've already made the point that it's irrelevant to that
..individual whether it was killed by a bike, a hiker or another animal.
Not true. An animal killed by another aniimal isn't an ethical issue. An amimal
killed by a HUMAN is.
..> .Philip Bowles
..>
..> I am still waiting for you to cite the source for your claim that the killing of
..> "the odd individual" isn't significant....
..
..There isn't a single source,
Your refusal to support your claim by reference is duly noted. And sad!
it's a basic point in ecology and I really
..don't have time to give you a crash course.
I didn't ask you to, liar. I asked you to give me a reference, SO I CAN SEE IF
YOU HAVE MISINTERPRETED IT. It is incredible that you REPEATEDLY refused to cite
a single source for your (mistaken) belief.
Smply, in ecological
..textbooks and discussions there isn't a need to say "this predator
..eating that animal is a significant effect", and the study simply gets
..down to the business of quantifying deaths - ecology isn't a study of
..individual organisms. For a start it's logically consequent from the
..points I make above that individuals have no ecological significance,
..but to give you some pointers I'll point you to, for instance, what are
..known as compartment models. These model populations at different life
..stages, and the conclusions reached from the results of these models
..include the conclusion that it isn't necessarily critical to a
..population if all its adult members die at once so long as there are
..sufficient new recruits to ensure persistence.
..
..Perhaps you misunderstood it (I am
..> giving it the benefit of the doubt), or maybe the author is just mistaken. I
..> cited a couple of such idiots in http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/india3.
..
..You cited a couple of old amateur natural history books and made no
..counterpoint to their claims, simply scoffed at them in indignation.
There is no counterpoint to absurd statements of value. That is just their
subjective judgment -- but promoted as being "scientific". Just as you do.
..Philip Bowles
Goodbye. Talking with such a dishonest person is a BIG waste of time.
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Stop It!!
- From: pbowles
- Re: Stop It!!
- Prev by Date: Old mills being converted to condos and apartments. An outrage!
- Next by Date: Re: Stop It!!
- Previous by thread: Re: Stop It!!
- Next by thread: Re: Stop It!!
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
