Ready for SS's 1st Great Debate?

[lengel]

Take into account some practical considerations that are immediate concerns. Landfills have been a problem for some time. Why throw out your plastic when you can recycle it? Our local recycling program also has a system for dropping off all kinds of metal and glass. They also take broken appliances. There are people out there who know how to recycle these parts. Why not just take a minute to figure out whether or not to throw out or recycle?

 

[me&thegals]

I notice a couple comments that point to the simplicity of the issue, even though science can make it seem complicated.

Is it not just basic human decency to share, not waste, not pollute? Don't we teach even our tiny children these values? It seems to me to be a matter of maturity rather than having an attitude of "I CAN have/use/buy/waste it all, so I'm going to!"

Yes, as India and China "grow up", I'm nervous to see what impacts they will have on the environment. And, unfortunately, we've not done such a hot job of controlling our consumption. So, as Nifty says, how can we ask them to?

If you don't mind taking the time, here's an article I really enjoyed about science versus our gut instincts. My background is in science but I also have a healthy respect for our gut feelings that lead us to make choices that we don't even need science to back us up on...

http://fooddemocracy.wordpress.com/2007/11/23/sound-science-is-killing-us/

 

[mirime]

http://fooddemocracy.wordpress.com/2007/11/23/sound-science-is-killing-us/

oh cool Joel Salatin!

 

[patandchickens]

http://fooddemocracy.wordpress.com/2007/11/23/sound-science-is-killing-us/

I generally like what Joel Salatin does, ok?, and feel he is a very useful force for constructive change.

However in this essay he just continues (and thus continues to promote) the total confounding of science, the process, with opinions-and-policies-that-cite-science-as-a-reason, that has ALREADY messed things up so much.

When he says 'science is not objective' what he means (if you read his examples) is that the decision of what to study, and how to study it, and how to interpret the results and use them to argue policy objectives, are not objective.

Well, as he says, "duh".

OTOH, an individual scientific study, reasonably well done (i.e. you *do* have to read that pesky Methods section, as they do not all fall into this category), IS as objective as humans are ever going to get. And a good sight more objective than personal opinion and anecdote. Likewise, the process of actually testing your hypotheses and then modifying them as needed depending on your results (or chucking them altogether for a substantially different hypothesis) is among the more objective things that humans are capable of, and again, a good sight more objective than personal opinion and anecdote and suchlike.

Baby. Bathwater. Good to keep the two separate in one's mind.

If I could uncork a genie from a bottle to grant me just ONE wish in the field of science education, it would be to get people to realize that the things that have been (and realistically can be) studied in good scientific studies are like a grain of sand on the beach. There are just WAY too damn many things in life, and science is too slow and expensive, and anyhow there are just too many things we'd like to know about but there just isn't (at least at present) any way to DO it.

It is utterly absolutely unreasonable to expect a Sound Scientific Basis for every friggin' personal or policy-level decision (and both dumb and unwise to argue that lack of good studies entitles you to do whatever is most convenient for you, rather than thinking seriously about the OTHER factors that should go into the decision, including but not limited to common sense and risk-management).

At the same time, IGNORING well-designed studies with highly suggestive results, for the particular things on whch they DO happen to exist, is just about equally dumb.

Baby.

Bathwater.

Seriously.


Sittin' down and shuttin' up now,

Pat

 

[reinbeau]

http://fooddemocracy.wordpress.com/2007/11/23/sound-science-is-killing-us/

I generally like what Joel Salatin does, ok?, and feel he is a very useful force for constructive change.

However in this essay he just continues (and thus continues to promote) the total confounding of science, the process, with opinions-and-policies-that-cite-science-as-a-reason, that has ALREADY messed things up so much.


Pat

No, he's not for throwing the baby out with the bathwater (or confounding science), he's for not poisoning the bathwater before you put the baby in it. A quote from Joe:

While I appreciate some of the scientific discoveries of our day, I also appreciate their limitations. I kind of like electric lights, four-wheel-drive tractors with front-end loaders and the low-impedence electric fence, to name just a few improvements. But when scientific discovery is used to destroy heritage wisdom contained in the DNA and the innate pigness of a pig or chickenness of a chicken, then it ceases to be an instrument of good and becomes instead an instrument of evil.

He's 100% correct, what he's talking about here is the fundamental problem with the industrial agribusiness model that has taken over our food production process.

Another thought (mine, not Joe's) about what drives all this 'good science'. I couldn't get raw milk legally in this commonwealth I live in until just recently because sometimes somewhere raw milk has made someone sick. Therefore the lawyers get hold of it and make money out of lawsuits. The legislation isn't to protect me from raw milk, it's to protect some business from losing a legal battle and having to pay damages. It's not just 'good science' that's ruining our food supply, it's lawyers Shakespeare was absolutely correct.

 

[patandchickens]

when scientific discovery is used to destroy heritage wisdom contained in the DNA and the innate pigness of a pig or chickenness of a chicken, then it ceases to be an instrument of good and becomes instead an instrument of evil.

He's 100% correct, what he's talking about here is the fundamental problem with the industrial agribusiness model that has taken over our food production process.

Right, Reinbeau, I agree with your characterization of 'the fundamental problem with...'

BUT, that is not in any way an attribute of science-the-process-and-product. It is something being DONE with science (and, frankly, to it also). It is a policy-level issue (and I include under that umbrella the sometimes strong corporate-driven bias in what studies are done and in what ways). And anything policy-level is by definition not science.

Virtually everything he says about 'science' in that article is not about actual SCIENCE, it is about policymakers (in the broad sense) who are USING scientific or quasi-scientific findings as part of their attempts to get things done the way they prefer.

A rock is a rock. If someone decides to lob the rock through your window, that is not a defect in rocks - it is a problem with the person who pitched it.

I stand by my previous comment about babies and bathwater.


Pat

 

[reinbeau]

Not being a scientist, I have no defensive attitude towards science. I understood exactly what he was saying and didn't take it as a slam against science, but as a slam against making policy by using science to further a certain agenda. I stand by my position, too, I don't think our positions are in opposition. The baby in the bathwater is safe as long as the bathwater is truly warm, sudsy water.

 

[me&thegals]

http://fooddemocracy.wordpress.com/2007/11/23/sound-science-is-killing-us/

It is utterly absolutely unreasonable to expect a Sound Scientific Basis for every friggin' personal or policy-level decision (and both dumb and unwise to argue that lack of good studies entitles you to do whatever is most convenient for you, rather than thinking seriously about the OTHER factors that should go into the decision, including but not limited to common sense and risk-management).

Glad we agree I think that is exactly what Salatin is stating. He does not need a scientific study to tell him that raw milk is not equivalent to a toxin. He's got common sense, personal experience and obvious examples of those around him.

I think science helps us understand things in an objective way (if done well) that we may not be able to get a handle on otherwise. I just don't think we need scientific studies to get a sense that oil spills and dumping garbage in the ocean is not a great idea, spraying chemicals on all our crops may have consequences, guzzling nonrenewable resources may not be wise...

 

[yotetrapper]

reinbeau said: No disrespect intended, but you've touched on what my problem is with 'global warming'.

Why do the two have to be tied together (global warming and pollution)? I don't believe in GW. Anyone who has really paid attention knows the earth has cycles it goes through. Humans have just started to really pay attention to it. Why is Greenland so named? Because thousands of years ago it was green! And it will be again, and somewhere else will be encased in year-round snow. We really can't do anything about it! That stupid movie of Al Bore's proves nothing, and the 'science' has been mostly refuted, but no one wants to admit it, because they've all been seduced by the popular opinion and the GW religion. The legislation that's being passed (or is trying to be passed) based on this 'religion') is very costly, and controlling, to the normal person. It won't hurt people with money, like Gore and the Hollywood LaLa land dwellers, and it makes for great TV, but it really won't help stop the world from warming, if that's what the earth is going to do.

What we can do something about is our polluting ways. Stop pollution for the sake of not poisoning the only home we have. >>>>>>>>>>



That's how I feel there. She summed up my feelings nicely. I do not believe in global warming, but obviously certain things we do do hurt the earth if in no other ways than making it dirty and raping it of it's wilderness. I agree wholeheartedly that "global warming" and "pollution" should NOT be tied together.

 

[yotetrapper]

My 2 cents:

What I worry about with "global warming" or "polluting the environment" is this: Even if all the 1st world countries do their darnedest to keep things clean, the 2nd and 3rd world countries will be burning and destroying their locale in an attempt to play catch up.

In a sense it is only fair... all the 1st world countries made their mess during the industrial revolution and this is what helped them spring ahead to being 1st world. To tell the 3rd world countries "do as we say, not as we did" in regards to how to treat the environment seems kinda unfair.

So, where are we left? We've got these countries that "deserve" to become what we've become... should we be allowed to stop them from building a new coal mine every week and from chopping down forests in an effort to get where we are?

That post, made this whole thread I started worthwhile for me, as it is something that had never even occurred to me before.

I am not, nor pretend to be a scientist. My opinions are based on articles I have read in journals, but moreso, my gut feelings.

Do I think pollution is bad? Yes.

Do I think it causes global warming? No.\

For every scientist out there like Pat, who expresses his/her theories on why/how pollution DOES cause global warming, there is another with just as sound theories for why it does NOT cause global warming.

My concern is how congress is taking steps that in my opinion are detrimental towards our countries future and economy, based on the unsubstanial data that is available on global warming.

At least the high price of gas woke them up long enough for them to allow the drilling of ANWR. Now obviously the oil there would eventually run out but at our current consumption rate, ANWR oil can support all US oil needs for 20+ years, which should be ample time to find a renewable form of energy for running engines.

If an individual believes that humans cause global warming, by all means they should go that extra step to prevent it. But when congress tells me I need to alter what I consider to be a neccisity of my daily life, based on unstable data, well, that rather ticks me off.