Fishnhunt New Zealands main hunting and Fishing Forum. millions of posts on fishing and hunting, dogs, 4x4 vehicles, outdoors and much more Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 18 19 [20] 21 22 ... 25 Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 100 Replies) Birds Bludgeoned to Death? (Read 12805 times)
davflaws
Donor Member
*****
Offline


NOT Training for SAS Selection

Posts: 3117
Location: Whangarei
Joined: Nov 10th, 2006
Gender: Male
Re: Birds Bludgeoned to Death?
Reply #285 - Oct 13th, 2018 at 9:27pm
Print Post  
Alan wrote on Oct 12th, 2018 at 10:33pm:
McIIroy 1981a in Eason ……….
Conclusion: The products of de-fluorination could be initially in the upper layers of the soil or in the litter layers on the soil surface, imbibed by bacteria onto plant cellulose, and then in the plants or algae in streams and rivers.  This needs to be researched further.


Certainly interesting, but not relevant to the safety of 1080 in relation to drinking water.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
davflaws
Donor Member
*****
Offline


NOT Training for SAS Selection

Posts: 3117
Location: Whangarei
Joined: Nov 10th, 2006
Gender: Male
Re: Birds Bludgeoned to Death?
Reply #286 - Oct 13th, 2018 at 10:14pm
Print Post  
sidney wrote on Oct 12th, 2018 at 7:41pm:
davflaws wrote on Oct 12th, 2018 at 2:42pm:
huntnfish wrote on Oct 11th, 2018 at 8:24am:


I am sure that you agree with Ms Edgington and Ms Edgington agrees with you about 1080. And speech is free.

But I have a problem with her rant because she is using irrelevant educational qualifications to give  spurious authority to  pseudoscientific nonsense.

Her PhD is in education, and she admits she posted on her Linkedin profile in sheer desperation. That is almost certainly because no peer reviewed journal would touch anything as badly constructed, fallaciously reasoned and flimsily supported as her argument. The subject clearly upsets her to the point that her emotional response impairs her ability to think clear

I am fine about her (and you) having very strong beliefs about the dangers posed by aerial 1080 to drinking water supplies. But it ain't science, and I don't think Ms Edgington should pretend that it is.


Dave... your response is disturbing for someone who should know better..

Firstly she clearly disclosed the nature of her qualifications, and she clearly identified that her competence did not lie in toxicology.  She made no claims to authority, neither does she need any to critique any argument.  Your implication that her arguments are worthless because she was so desperate that she posted on LinkedIn, is not only misapplied but bordering on the vindictive.

Any PHD qualification has elements of statistical training, research experience and the understanding of the scientific method and is perfectly entitled to critique shonky and inconsistent argument.  She is not doing it at a technical level so your petty dismissal is entirely ad hominem.

She made no claim that her analysis was scientifically conclusive, she simply points out the the other side can not do that either.  She further illustrates inconsistency with their position given the global perspective and her concerns seem to be well laid out.

She also provided reference to the detail that she outlined.

She made no hypothesis or proposal and last time I checked Linkedin is neither a scientific journal, and the formulation of personal opinion does not require peer review.

Now lets look at your response...  you attack her, you fail to address any of her argument or issues raised you simply dismiss her concerns without even considering them... 

Whose biased Dave? 





Kia ora Sydney

To answer your last question first, Dr Edgington is clearly biased, and an objective observer can see that in the emotive language she used, from the ott title of the paper, from the cherry picked "science" she quotes, and from the unsupported personal attacks she makes on the authors of peer reviewed papers by real scientists.

Perhaps you are right insofar as a polemic on Linked in isn't science and shouldn't be expected to meet the same standards, Dr Edgington has her PhD upfront in large letters and does claim to be able to understand and critique the work of real scientists.

You claim any PhD qualification has elements of statistical training, research experience and the understanding of the scientific method. I am not sure whether that is true in the field of education, but Dr Edgington's polemic provides very little evidence of statistical understanding or research experience and no evidence of an understanding of the scientific method.

She has a PHD, so she is not stupid, but her posting is. That is why I claimed that her strong feelings have clouded her ability to think clearly.  Perhaps I shouldn't have put that so strongly.

I think you have misunderstood my point about Linkedin.  I didn't imply that her arguments are worthless because she posted them on Linkedin. Rather, that she posted them on Linked in because they are worthless and no journal editor would even send her work out for review.

I haven't addressed her work because there are no coherent arguments to address. There have been some thoroughly researched, balanced, well formulated, well argued, and well referenced papers linked on this thread. This wasn't among them.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Alan
Administrator
Donor Member
Staff
*****
Offline


I Love The FishNhunt Forum

Posts: 4892
Location: Turangi
Joined: Nov 5th, 2006
Re: Birds Bludgeoned to Death?
Reply #287 - Oct 13th, 2018 at 11:39pm
Print Post  
Im going hunting...!!!!
  

Co-leader NZ Outdoors Party http://www.outdoorsparty.co.nz
Book. Born to The Outdoors http://www.alan-simmons.com/book
Back to top
IP Logged
 
davflaws
Donor Member
*****
Offline


NOT Training for SAS Selection

Posts: 3117
Location: Whangarei
Joined: Nov 10th, 2006
Gender: Male
Re: Birds Bludgeoned to Death?
Reply #288 - Oct 14th, 2018 at 8:42am
Print Post  
I'm going fishing!
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
sidney
Forum Font
*****
Offline



Posts: 1886
Location: Christchurch
Joined: Oct 18th, 2008
Gender: Male
Re: Birds Bludgeoned to Death?
Reply #289 - Oct 14th, 2018 at 10:01am
Print Post  
Quote:
Kia ora Sydney

To answer your last question first, Dr Edgington is clearly biased, and an objective observer can see that in the emotive language she used, from the ott title of the paper, from the cherry picked "science" she quotes, and from the unsupported personal attacks she makes on the authors of peer reviewed papers by real scientists.

Perhaps you are right insofar as a polemic on Linked in isn't science and shouldn't be expected to meet the same standards, Dr Edgington has her PhD upfront in large letters and does claim to be able to understand and critique the work of real scientists.

You claim any PhD qualification has elements of statistical training, research experience and the understanding of the scientific method. I am not sure whether that is true in the field of education, but Dr Edgington's polemic provides very little evidence of statistical understanding or research experience and no evidence of an understanding of the scientific method.

She has a PHD, so she is not stupid, but her posting is. That is why I claimed that her strong feelings have clouded her ability to think clearly.  Perhaps I shouldn't have put that so strongly.

I think you have misunderstood my point about Linkedin.  I didn't imply that her arguments are worthless because she posted them on Linkedin. Rather, that she posted them on Linked in because they are worthless and no journal editor would even send her work out for review.

I haven't addressed her work because there are no coherent arguments to address. There have been some thoroughly researched, balanced, well formulated, well argued, and well referenced papers linked on this thread. This wasn't among them.


And clearly you are too Dave...

Again her opinion is not a paper submitted for scientific review.  Nor does it need to be to have merit.

It is a critique of how 'scientists' make arbitary assumptive statements when plenty of evidence exists to the contrary. Anybody can do that and the legitimacy of that is weighed on the argument and not as you have done, on either bias or emotion or by personal attack.  Scientists are not protected from critique because the critic is not a scientist.  That is entirely ignorant and arrogant.

Anybodies opinion to be treated fairly, has to be considered for its content and argument, and not dismissed out of hand for its emotion or bias just because it doesn't suit you.  Rationality can exist alongside emotion, passion and bias and you don't get to dismiss the consideration of the issues just because it may be present.

Your response to her article meets even less of the criteria that you hold her to account for, so what value should we attach to your opinion again Dave?  I mean you haven't even 'cherry picked' any authoritative references to warrant your own contribution?

Perhaps we need to dismiss your opinion in exactly the same way... that would at least be consistent?  When exactly were you intending to submit your response for peer review again Dave?

Of course my opinion is exactly the same too??   Grin

I know, we should all just worship everything that a scientist says... they are clearly above critique by anyone not a scientist who hasn't submitted a peer reviewed scientific paper...   Grin


  

"But thus I counsel you, my friends: Mistrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful. They are people of a low sort and stock; the hangmen and the bloodhound look out of their faces. Mistrust all who talk much of their justice!"  Nietzsche
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
sidney
Forum Font
*****
Offline



Posts: 1886
Location: Christchurch
Joined: Oct 18th, 2008
Gender: Male
Re: Birds Bludgeoned to Death?
Reply #290 - Oct 14th, 2018 at 10:40am
Print Post  
Quote:
You claim any PhD qualification has elements of statistical training, research experience and the understanding of the scientific method. I am not sure whether that is true in the field of education, but Dr Edgington's polemic provides very little evidence of statistical understanding or research experience and no evidence of an understanding of the scientific method.


You are drawing a pretty long bow here Dave.  There are very few genuine areas in education where this is not the case...

Well maybe in Lesbian Dance theory, Gender studies and Woman's Studies.  There is a avoidance of the patriarchal notion of statistical integrity in these areas...   Grin
  

"But thus I counsel you, my friends: Mistrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful. They are people of a low sort and stock; the hangmen and the bloodhound look out of their faces. Mistrust all who talk much of their justice!"  Nietzsche
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Richard Prosser
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love The FishNhunt Forum

Posts: 139
Location: Rangiora
Joined: Aug 26th, 2013
Gender: Male
Re: Birds Bludgeoned to Death?
Reply #291 - Oct 14th, 2018 at 3:34pm
Print Post  
For what it may be worth, I happen to be personally acquainted with Dr Edgington.

She is no fool, and neither is she remotely disingenuous.

Many people, on both sides of this debate, are clearly biased. That includes a number of scientifically qualified persons.

And the blunt reality is that the publication, or not, of scientific papers, is in no way immune from the influence of politics.

Just saying.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Micky Duck
Donor Member
*****
Offline


You shot it..You pluck
it

Posts: 7213
Location: Geraldine South Canterbury
Joined: Dec 5th, 2013
Gender: Male
Re: Birds Bludgeoned to Death?
Reply #292 - Oct 14th, 2018 at 4:20pm
Print Post  
well said that man...well said indeed

Ive been hunting so better go and process some venison. Grin
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
davflaws
Donor Member
*****
Offline


NOT Training for SAS Selection

Posts: 3117
Location: Whangarei
Joined: Nov 10th, 2006
Gender: Male
Re: Birds Bludgeoned to Death?
Reply #293 - Oct 14th, 2018 at 5:34pm
Print Post  
Richard Prosser wrote on Oct 14th, 2018 at 3:34pm:
Many people, on both sides of this debate, are clearly biased. That includes a number of scientifically qualified persons.

And the blunt reality is that the publication, or not, of scientific papers, is in no way immune from the influence of politics.

Just saying.


You are absolutely right. Personal bias of all sorts is the bane of scientific enquiry. And you are also right that the political interests as well as the internal politics of NGOs, academic institutions, and even Government Departments and Crown entities has an influence on what is or isn't funded and published.

But that is different from a claim that a piece of peer reviewed science is shonky because politics influences what does or doesn't get funded, studied and published. Or in the case of the Linkedin article claiming that the publication of a peer reviewed paper is an "Abuse of Academic Freedom" because it comes to some conclusions someone doesn't agree with.

If someone doesn't agree with the science, it is their absolute right to say so, but if they want to have their argument taken seriously, they have to make it logically and clearly, and and support each step.

If they actually want to increase the sum of human knowledge, the best way to do that is to have their argument taken seriously by the scientific community, and to engage with what they see as "shonky" science in scientific terms.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
huntnfish
Forum Senior
****
Online


I Love The FishNhunt Forum

Posts: 956
Location: Waikato, near Taupo
Joined: Sep 10th, 2007
Gender: Male
Re: Birds Bludgeoned to Death?
Reply #294 - Oct 14th, 2018 at 5:52pm
Print Post  
I think there will be plenty who take her coments seriously and in fact she is not the first to have made such observstions; including several NZ based scientists.
  

If you don't know it all, then you don't know what you don't know.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
davflaws
Donor Member
*****
Offline


NOT Training for SAS Selection

Posts: 3117
Location: Whangarei
Joined: Nov 10th, 2006
Gender: Male
Re: Birds Bludgeoned to Death?
Reply #295 - Oct 14th, 2018 at 7:41pm
Print Post  
sidney wrote on Oct 14th, 2018 at 10:01am:
Quote:
I haven't addressed her work because there are no coherent arguments to address. There have been some thoroughly researched, balanced, well formulated, well argued, and well referenced papers linked on this thread. This wasn't among them.


And clearly you are too Dave...

Again her opinion is not a paper submitted for scientific review.  Nor does it need to be to have merit.

It is a critique of how 'scientists' make arbitary assumptive statements when plenty of evidence exists to the contrary. Anybody can do that and the legitimacy of that is weighed on the argument and not as you have done, on either bias or emotion or by personal attack.  Scientists are not protected from critique because the critic is not a scientist.  That is entirely ignorant and arrogant.

Anybodies opinion to be treated fairly, has to be considered for its content and argument, and not dismissed out of hand for its emotion or bias just because it doesn't suit you.  Rationality can exist alongside emotion, passion and bias and you don't get to dismiss the consideration of the issues just because it may be present.

Your response to her article meets even less of the criteria that you hold her to account for, so what value should we attach to your opinion again Dave?  I mean you haven't even 'cherry picked' any authoritative references to warrant your own contribution?





I didn't address her argument because there wasn't one, and if she wants to discredit the science she needs to make and support a coherent argument.

If you want to try and tease out  an argument from her rantings and support it with some relevant science, I will be very happy to engage with you. And just as I have done previously on this thread, I will attempt to address the issues and quote relevant research.

You might look back over my recent postings. I correct misconceptions and point out non sequiturs, but I don't generally put people down. I wouldn't have commented on Dr Edgington's Linkedin post if it had not featured her PhD so prominently, mastheading a broad and scathing (but utterly illogical and unsupported) personal attack on the author of some peer reviewed work.

I would again remind everyone that I will be very happy to receive and drink any number of bottles of good wine containing 1080 at 2ppb.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Micky Duck
Donor Member
*****
Offline


You shot it..You pluck
it

Posts: 7213
Location: Geraldine South Canterbury
Joined: Dec 5th, 2013
Gender: Male
Re: Birds Bludgeoned to Death?
Reply #296 - Oct 14th, 2018 at 8:28pm
Print Post  
2 pellets per bottle!!!!!!! you are a brave man indeed Shocked Shocked Shocked
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
sidney
Forum Font
*****
Offline



Posts: 1886
Location: Christchurch
Joined: Oct 18th, 2008
Gender: Male
Re: Birds Bludgeoned to Death?
Reply #297 - Oct 14th, 2018 at 8:43pm
Print Post  
Have another wee look Dave..  It was an opinion piece in a media article that is being criticised, not a scientific paper.

And I notice her claims that the WHO has indicated no safe level for 1080, and  that even the warnings from the manufacturer add support to her position, seem to contradict the opinion expressed, and have yet to be disputed.

But seeing as scientists don't appear to understand the words "making an argument" or what that means, take it from me she is making an argument.

You can argue cogency or merit if you will, but trust me it's an argument.

And you still don't get to dismiss or reach conclusion without addressing the reasons why you should.  You don't get to decide what is non sequitur on behalf of the rest of us...

You can only make an argument, and you haven't done that.







  

"But thus I counsel you, my friends: Mistrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful. They are people of a low sort and stock; the hangmen and the bloodhound look out of their faces. Mistrust all who talk much of their justice!"  Nietzsche
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
headcase
Global Forum Guide
Donor Member
*****
Offline


Former Youngest Person
in the World

Posts: 25292
Location: Ponsenby
Joined: Jul 9th, 2007
Gender: Male
Re: Birds Bludgeoned to Death?
Reply #298 - Oct 14th, 2018 at 9:42pm
Print Post  
Micky Duck wrote on Oct 14th, 2018 at 8:28pm:
2 pellets per bottle!!!!!!! you are a brave man indeed Shocked Shocked Shocked


2 ppb parts per billion.

To be honest I'd probably  share a bottle or two  at that  dilution.
  

“We either make ourselves miserable, or we make ourselves strong. The amount of work is the same.”
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
EC
Forum Font
*****
Online



Posts: 2209
Location: West Coast - Reefton.
Joined: Nov 9th, 2006
Gender: Male
Re: Birds Bludgeoned to Death?
Reply #299 - Oct 15th, 2018 at 12:41pm
Print Post  
The 1080 drinkers club seems ti be growing...and the pros call the antis loonies?  Roll Eyes ,guess they've had too much ti drink  Grin
  

Wrinkles are the map of your soulful journey,,,you'd be lost without them,,
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 18 19 [20] 21 22 ... 25
Send TopicPrint
 

FishnHunt - New Zealands Famous Hunting and Fishing Forum Since 1995 » Powered by YaBB 2.6.11!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2018. All Rights Reserved.
Site Design By Alan Simmons - PRism and all rights are reserved from 1995 and onwards