Quote:
Originally Posted by MathGeek
I never claimed "proof". "Proof" is a term I almost never use, except when quoting others who have claimed it or speaking of geometry proofs. I've never used the word "proof" in my published papers when discussing data.
Data can support, indicate, show, demonstrate aspects relative to assertions, hypotheses or theories, but not theory in science is every "proven."
I've linked much of the red snapper data before in threads discussing snapper more directly, and I'm not inclined to chase all the links down again in a deer thread. Use the search function.
|
This is a deer thread? Then why did you go into dead zones, snapper, tripletail, and the big lake trout
I was just quoting your earlier point on 'proof'
"2. Scientific proof means sound reasoning based on published data. Global warming, red snapper management, and the Gulf of Mexico's purported "dead zone" are three cases where those arguing for restrictive public policies have changed "scientific proof" to mean "viewpoints of scientists" rather than clear interpretations of published data."
Published data is far far far from proof especially when dealing with ecology or population biology, it is most the time the 'viewpoint of a scientist' or in reality just the best guess with the information at hand.
There was a conference last year at LSU and a professor who studies wild turkeys had placed GPS transmitters on wild turkeys and was showing his data. Someone asked what did the new data show? and his answer was 'it showed that all those papers I have published in the past about turkey movements and home ranges were junk'
Just shows that published data isn't always right, it may have been 'right' at that particular time but it has to hold true for many many years before its taken as fact