Reading "Extended Heredity" and it raises some very interesting questions about how there are inherited factors other than DNA in genes that directly affect inheritance and evolution. It also discusses thought control in science. Anyway, the following quotes seem appropriate to things happening here, too.

"While ideology and politics may seem irrelevant to the outcome of scientific debate, the ideological positions staked out by proponents of competing visions of heredity were regarded at the time as thoroughly grounded in scientific theory and evidence"

"The Soviet political system promoted ruthless careerists who knew how to speak the language of ideological orthodoxy, enabling a scientific illiterate .......to rise to prominence and power.."

"ruthless careerists ............................" speaks right to the point, doesn't it? Great point, great quote, thank you. I sent the Commissioners a very strongly worded letter today, expressing some of my feelings on Puget Sound salmon management and some of my questions. We'll see how that goes.

It seems that there are many in society that view facts and science as conspiracies and plots, and eschew education over indoctrination.

Since when were education, science, and facts things to avoid?

Fish on...

Todd

Since forever. There is always an agenda and logical scientific backed thinking has no agenda.

By providing a definitive answer, you create consequences. Demonstrate that, for example, smoking significantly increases the risk of some cancers. Probably even causes some. So, the science will tell the grower, manufacturer, and consumer that there are these consequences. Rather than admit them, we try to find ways to create doubt.

I see the same thing going on with Climate Change. There should be little doubt that it is changing, sea levels are rising, precipitation patterns are changing, and so on. Dealing with these changes in and of themselves will be expensive and disruptive. But, you can avoid doing anything by arguing about cause. If humans are having a hand in CC, then we should be doing things about that. But, to me, that is another question. By combining the two, you ensure nothing gets done.

Notice that the folks who oppose data-driven analyses, refuse to heed the warnings of science, or use scientifically derived conclusions for their own agenda. . .are usually the same people whose ambition or ego far outweigh their IQ.

And that's a fact!!

fb

The bottom line is the bottom line. They support what makes money today.

Data driven analysis may or not be good. First you must have accurate data, not just lots of it. My example in fisheries is that in the late 80's or early 90's WDF received fish tickets that showed a surprising number of Spring salmon landings from the Hoh River. First analysis would support a strong run. After investigation, we found out that all, or nearly all, of those Chinook came from the Columbia River, which was closed. A fish dealer in Olympia was arrested.

Well, yeah Tug. There were Klamath fish in Puget Sound and Fraser fish in the Columbia.

But, a sharp bio should notice that all is night right with the data and look into it before jumping to conclusions.

Politics can play into it in weird ways. 20+ years ago I was forced to do a bald eagle study to see what the consequences of building on a lot would be. While looking at the maps, it was clear the area was at or near 100% carrying capacity. I asked and was told, well, it likely is, but we do not have the money to do a study. A few years ago they agreed to lower the status to threatened, but still had not found the money to do a census. The biologists don't want the study, as it would likely bring an end to a lot of their money and work. The politicians get very little from recovery, as it could lower their ability to create alarm. The public likes protecting Eagles. And the poor guys like me that is stuck paying for a unnecessary study gets labeled as a greedy developer if they complain. The removal of protection is something the biologists don't want and the public sees as frightening, so in the end it is just easier to pretend like they are necessary.

While I am in strong support of ESA and the recovery/restoration of ecosystems I also believe that the ESA is used to control land use because, lacking some sort of legal force, communities and states will do nothing for the environment.

That is why I fear the loss of Boldt II because that is probably all that is protecting our salmon. It ain't much, but it is all we have.

Is not much of what passes for education, in fact, indoctrination?