WA. Fish Commission want to put a stop to sturgeon C&R...

troutmasta

Well-known member
Lots of good points but just one question:

Is there a difference between politics and science anymore?
Politics: Someone telling someone what they think the world is like.
Science: What the world is actually like.

While predators stress sturgeon, I would argue the impact of humans is the cherry on top. Plus, we can stop C&R, natural predation is a whole nother' ball game.
 

hobster

Well-known member
Might be time to thin the furbag herd a bit.
That would be great but i just don't see it happening. I guess the enviornmentalists which make the decisions would rather see more fish die than fur bags.

I have never fished for sturgeon, although i'd love to try it out. Maybe not gonna happen now.
 

jamisonace

Well-known member
Science: What the world is actually like.
I would change this to: What is observed after testing a theory.

I've never heard of science being described as fact until recently. I learned that the scientific method concludes with theories but never undisputable fact.
 

troutmasta

Well-known member
Its not fact, its a forever evolving series of observations.

Observations of things that can be suggested with evidence.

Evidence that is factual.

Therefore, its an observation of factual evidence, a.k.a, what the world is actual like.
 

rogerdodger

Well-known member
Moderator
Most Featured
I would change this to: What is observed after testing a theory.

I've never heard of science being described as fact until recently. I learned that the scientific method concludes with theories but never undisputable fact.
troutmasta is spot on with his comments. a question for you is who are you hearing describe science as fact? I doubt very much it is scientists, more likely politicians, theologians, or just plain paid pundits/talking heads...

all scientific 'stuff' must be subject to change or modification if new information/evidence is found that requires such a change; it is a key part of what differentiates science from dogma.
 
Last edited:

pinstriper

Well-known member
troutmasta is spot on with his comments. a question for you is who are you hearing describe science as fact? I doubt very much it is scientists, more likely politicians, theologians, or just plain paid pundits/talking heads...

all scientific 'stuff' must be subject to change or modification if new information/evidence is found that requires such a change; it is a key part of what differentiates science from dogma.
People like to throw "science" around as a way of saying they have closed their minds to the idea that their political idea is wrong. It is confirmation bias at its strongest. It quickly devolves into dogma.
 

jamisonace

Well-known member
Exactly my point about science and politics being the same thing these days. Which was nothing more than a cynical comment which was disputed by TM.

TM can interpret his comment however he likes. He's the one that made it. Its funny that his explanation sounds a lot more like my definition but now I'm getting crap from both of you?

I did misspeak in my last post suggesting that it concludes at all. We all agree that it is a continual process.

There was a quote I remember seeing that used to make my head explode because it suggested that science is truth....what was that quote? I'll have to try to remember it.

troutmasta is spot on with his comments. a question for you is who are you hearing describe science as fact? I doubt very much it is scientists, more likely politicians, theologians, or just plain paid pundits/talking heads...

all scientific 'stuff' must be subject to change or modification if new information/evidence is found that requires such a change; it is a key part of what differentiates science from dogma.
 

troutmasta

Well-known member
TM can interpret his comment however he likes. He's the one that made it. Its funny that his explanation sounds a lot more like my definition but now I'm getting crap from both of you?
I can only speak for myself, but I'm pretty sure I always give you crap. ;)


If we all agree, we all agree. I'll drink to that.
 

wils

Active member
I learned that the scientific method concludes with theories but never undisputable fact.

Todays "scientists" are holding to "undisputable fact". see specifically: man-made global warming :popcorn:

That said.....I was taught the same as you - science is an ever-changing field with ever-changing "facts".
Whatever happened to the term "working theory"?

but back to the C&R and seals - seals are pretty intelligent. they have discovered that easy-pickin's come from sport and rec fishing boats. just-released fish are dazed & confused...and an easy meal for a seal
 

rogerdodger

Well-known member
Moderator
Most Featured
Todays "scientists" are holding to "undisputable fact". see specifically: man-made global warming :popcorn:
assuming this is a serious statement and not a joke, can you support it? who are you quoting? do you have a reference or specific example?

I will add that the term "scientific consensus", which is used a lot now, does not mean something is a fact but rather that the vast majority of scientists with credentials in that area of science agree that it is true or correct. To say there is "scientific consensus" about something is not saying it is an "Undisputable fact".
 
Last edited:

rogerdodger

Well-known member
Moderator
Most Featured
There was a quote I remember seeing that used to make my head explode because it suggested that science is truth....what was that quote? I'll have to try to remember it.
how about this one "The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it." Neil deGrasse Tyson

a great quote that is entirely correct. here is a great analogy: the science related to flight is well understood: aerodynamics- objects of certain shapes passing through the air will cause predictable lift and drag, that sort of stuff. this science is true, the mathematics are solid but there is plenty still being learned which does not change the underlying science, just expands and improves it, hyper-sonic aerodynamics would be an area of exploration and study now. but back to the quote, if you are sitting on a airplane with hundreds of other people, the airplane will take off, at very close to the predicted rotation velocity, because the science is true, not because everyone on the plane believes in it. In fact, there can be people on the plane that believe the hand of god reaches down and lifts the plane, holding it in the air for the entire flight. Their lack of belief in aerodynamics has no effect on the science, it is still true.

science is truth. religion is faith. politics is crap.
 
Last edited:

jamisonace

Well-known member
And there we go....science is truth. Science to Roger, like to so many these days including the global warming alarmists is dogma....faith based.

I watched a thread by nasa engineers tear that quote to threads. I'm not smart enough to understand all they were saying but they made it clear it is an ignorant statement in their opinion.
 
Last edited:

rogerdodger

Well-known member
Moderator
Most Featured
And there we go....science is truth. Science to Roger, like to so many these days including the global warming wackos is dogma....faith based.

I watched a thread by nasa engineers tear that quote to threads. I'm not smart enough to understand all they were saying but they made it clear it is an ignorant statement in their opinion.
nope, you are wrong and have drawn a conclusion about what I said that is in direct opposition to what I said, perhaps because you equate 'truth' with 'faith'?

science is true because it is supported by, as troutmasta put it: "Evidence that is factual....an observation of factual evidence, a.k.a, what the world is actual like." what is true in science is based on facts, not faith. and what is true in science can change, and in the case of scientific truths, it must be possible for them to change.

dogma is belief of something based on faith and often that belief is maintained despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. for example, what people consider truth in religion is based on faith.

Websters: dogma: a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted.

many times I have stated that science must be questioned and the findings (truth of it) changed if necessary. what you said above, in bold, I find very offensive.
 
Last edited:
You guys are awesome! Who could have thought fisherfolk could be so smart??
Whenever these philosophical discussions get started I can't help but be reminded of Plato's Allegory of the Cave and the copious amounts of acid I dropped in my youth.
 

pinstriper

Well-known member
And there we go....science is truth. Science to Roger, like to so many these days including the global warming alarmists is dogma....faith based.

I watched a thread by nasa engineers tear that quote to threads. I'm not smart enough to understand all they were saying but they made it clear it is an ignorant statement in their opinion.
I remember the early statements around scientific consensus by the UCS, and so many of the "scientists" were from soft science fields - sociologists, etc.

I also see the "solutions" prescribed for climate change is always for one group of people to put their hands in someone else's pocket. It is, to me, simply the latest justification for something that has been attempted for decades on a political/ideology basis.

So when you hold a summit of 150 nations to forge an "agreement" that involves 149 of them getting paid by the one, I think "science" is out the window, regardless of statements to the contrary.

Follow the money, and you will see a clear pattern of support for climate change tied to a financial stake, at macro and micro-economic levels. In both directions, I suppose.

Case in point: corn ethanol takes more PETROLEUM BASED energy to produce than the GREEN energy it yields. On a scientific basis, we should put an immediate stop to it. On an economic basis, we should put an immediate stop to it. Yet we fund the hell out of it, and because someone figured out how to spend public money and buy votes. The counter argument that says funding it will lead to technical advances in the long run would only justify university research levels of funding.
 

rogerdodger

Well-known member
Moderator
Most Featured
So when you hold a summit of 150 nations to forge an "agreement" that involves 149 of them getting paid by the one, I think "science" is out the window, regardless of statements to the contrary.
just curious what you have read about the agreement (between 195 countries) that leads you to the conclusion that the US is paying for something?

2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference - Wikipedia

are you aware of how the US Department of Defense views Climate Change?

"WASHINGTON, July 29, 2015 — Global climate change will aggravate problems such as poverty, social tensions, environmental degradation, ineffectual leadership and weak political institutions that threaten stability in a number of countries, according to a report the Defense Department sent to Congress yesterday....climate change is a security risk, Pentagon officials said, because it degrades living conditions, human security and the ability of governments to meet the basic needs of their populations."

wow, all those crazy scientists, 97% of them including NASA, sure pulled one over on the DoD, they suckered the US Military into fearing effects of some goofy climate change hoax...

Global Surface Temperature | NASA Global Climate Change
 

troutmasta

Well-known member
I remember the early statements around scientific consensus by the UCS, and so many of the "scientists" were from soft science fields - sociologists, etc.

I also see the "solutions" prescribed for climate change is always for one group of people to put their hands in someone else's pocket. It is, to me, simply the latest justification for something that has been attempted for decades on a political/ideology basis.

So when you hold a summit of 150 nations to forge an "agreement" that involves 149 of them getting paid by the one, I think "science" is out the window, regardless of statements to the contrary.

Follow the money, and you will see a clear pattern of support for climate change tied to a financial stake, at macro and micro-economic levels. In both directions, I suppose.

Case in point: corn ethanol takes more PETROLEUM BASED energy to produce than the GREEN energy it yields. On a scientific basis, we should put an immediate stop to it. On an economic basis, we should put an immediate stop to it. Yet we fund the hell out of it, and because someone figured out how to spend public money and buy votes. The counter argument that says funding it will lead to technical advances in the long run would only justify university research levels of funding.
Even the pope thinks man made climate change is real, and I dont think the catholic church is shelling out cash to make people agree.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-summit-vatican-idUSKCN0PV18A20150721

Its science, observation of factual evidence. Anyone can draw whatever conclusion they want form the facts. I'll agree with the 97 out of 100 who say we're doing it, and not because they paid me.

Jamie, in my opinion, calling us wackos is an insult- If the conversation has to go that low then I would argue people do much more extreme things based on their faith than a global preponderance of evidence, we know as science.

I'm done-
 
Last edited:

wils

Active member
assuming this is a serious statement and not a joke, can you support it? who are you quoting? do you have a reference or specific example?

I will add that the term "scientific consensus", which is used a lot now, does not mean something is a fact but rather that the vast majority of scientists with credentials in that area of science agree that it is true or correct. To say there is "scientific consensus" about something is not saying it is an "Undisputable fact".
I was quoting me..... I guess. And I was not referring to each and every scientist of the Worlds' entire scientific community in my "Todays scientists". sheeeesh

Who are you quoting for everything that you are presenting here, RodgerDodger? Or is what we are having more commonly known as a laymans discussion?

Thank you for pointing out that "scientific consensus" is not "undisputable fact".....which translates into "disputable fact". :)

"science is truth" - but what is true today to scientists often times get modfied tommorow.... if not flat-out rebutted.... by other scientists. If todays' "truth" is absolute, then we would need no scientists tomorrow...and they would all be out of jobs. ;)
 

jamisonace

Well-known member
I'm not smart, just opinionated.

Great post.

Edit: by the way, I think the allegory is especially relevant today depending on how it's interpreted.


You guys are awesome! Who could have thought fisherfolk could be so smart??
Whenever these philosophical discussions get started I can't help but be reminded of Plato's Allegory of the Cave and the copious amounts of acid I dropped in my youth.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom