M
Mike Vandeman
Guest
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 15:15:30 GMT, "JP" <[email protected]> wrote:
..
.."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
..news:[email protected]...
..> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 04:22:59 GMT, "JP" <[email protected]>
..wrote:
..>
..> .Bad writing Mike.
..> .
..> .Your citations are unclear and in many cases taken out of context.
..> .The Wisdom study which you cite does not draw the conclusions that you
..do.
..>
..> Your point?
..
..
..Simply that your use of references, citations and other sources to prove
..your
..hypothsis is flawed, lacks intellectual rigor, and fails to meet accepted
..criteria
..for scientific review. Science does not allow for the leaps in reasoning
..that you
..make without facts (not opinions) to support them. That transforms your
..quasi-scientific "review" into asimple rant without merit.
Coincidentally, you weren't able to give even ONE example (because then you
could easily be refuted).
..> .Your opinions, inserted at intervals to dispute a studies findings,
..weaken
..> .your
..> .credibility and reveal faulty reasoning.
..>
..> Coincidentally, you can't manage to give a single example. NOT ONE!
..
..What I can or cannot manage is not the point. You claim that I can't
..and then go on to use that unproven claim as additional evidence .
..However here is an instance of your opinion mixed into a citation.
..
..--They "[collected] surface runoff and sediment yield produced by the
..simulated--
..--rainstorms at the downslope end of each plot", which they claim
.."correlates with--
..--erosion". This doesn't seem like a good measure of erosion.--
..
..You didn't like the results so you attack the procedure. Your opinion.
..Not supported, merely an opinion.
You took that out of context. I proved it in the following sentences, which you
conveniently omitted.
..> .You post where your treatise will not be exposed to those with
..> .background to assess and critique your hypothesis and arguments.
..> .Then you respond with name-calling to any who offer a contradiciting
..> .opinion.
..> .Calling someone a liar as refutation generally stops in high school.
..> .
..> .Let's examine this little piece;
..> .
..> .>In Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve (in the San Francisco Bay
..> .>Area), one of the largest Alameda whipsnakes (Masticophis lateralis
..> .euryxanthus,
..> .>a federally Threatened spceies) ever seen was apparently killed by a
..> .mountain
..> .>biker (see Figure 1). In Claremont Canyon Regional Preserve, a ringneck
..> .snake
..> .>(Diadophis punctatus) was apparently killed by a mountain biker riding
..> .where
..> .>bikes are not allowed (see Figure 2). In both cases, the snakes were
..killed
..> .on
..> .>unpaved roads with no visibility problems, showing that bikers are not
..able
..> .to
..> .>avoid killing wildlife. The width of the wounds matched the width of a
..> .mountain
..> .>bike tire.
..> .
..> .You cite two snakes "apparently killed by a mountain biker" with proof
..being
..> .the width of the wounds matched the width of a mountain bike tire.
..> .That is not proof yet you sail on to conclude that bikers are not able to
..> .avoid killing wildlife and that bikes may be more dangerous on wide
..trails
..> .since they can go faster.
..>
..> How do YOU explain a snake being killed by something as wide as a mountain
..bike
..> tire? It was enough to convince the herpetologist who concluded that.
..
..My explaining it or not has no bearing on a scientific review.
..What does have a bearing?
..1) "Apparantly killed by a mountain biker..."
.. My fat tires are about the same width as a dirt bike's tires,
..a MOTORIZED dirt bike.
Motirized bikes aren't allowed on that road.
And about the same width as a waffle-soled
..Nike.
Nonsense. Shoes are wider than any mountain bike tire. And that snake is too
fast for anyone to step on it.
.. Or an easily wieldable dropped tree limb.
Nonsense. There are no tree limbs like that in the area.
..Seems to me like you jumped to a conclusion.
No, the professional herpetologist made that judgment.
..2) "In both cases, the snakes were killed on unpaved roads with no
..visibility problems, showing that bikers are not able to
..avoid killing wildlife."
.. As a kid I remembered older kids at the pond catching tadpoles, big
..ones,
..under the ice and then ice-skating over them, slicing them in half. I never
..saw
..the point but kids kill animals. I cannot conclude from this that
..ice-skating is
..dangerous to wildlife. And a dead animal on the trail is not proof that
..mountain biking is dangerous to wildlife, regardless of the width of an
..injury.
It is if there is no other possible explanation.
..3) Had the herpetologist actually concluded that a mountain bike did
..kill
.. the snake then why would the word "apparantly" be used, denoting a
.. possible rather than a definite conclusion.
Because he's a scientist, and wants to be impeccable.
..> .That may constitute proof in a political compaign ad but not science.
..> .But your argument pretends to be based on science.
..> .Either you just don't understand the requirements of scientific inquiry
..> .(you're ignorant) or you do and choose to ignore them (you're a
..hypocrite).
..>
..> That WAS a scientist's conclusion. He wrote the book. Literally.
..
..No. That is your conclusion, not a scientist's.
Now you are just lying. The scientist wrote on the tag attached to the snake
"apparently killed by a mountain biker".
..May I quote your words again?
..
.."On the other hand, why do we need research to prove what is obvious? We
..don't need any research to know that we shouldn't step in front of a
..speeding
..truck. Or mountain bike."
..
..Ah, the true nature of your philosophy.
..Belief is all, research unnecessary.
True, but I did the research anyway, just in case.
..You may notice that I am not putting forth a position.
..I am merely showing how your position is so based on
..flawed logic and sloppy thinking that your conclusions
..are useless from a scientific perspective.
BS. The paper it was based on was already accepted by TWO international
scientific conferences.
You know this
..of course which is why you choose the forum you do.
..I notice that your cross posts to "rec.backcountry,
..sci.environment,ca.environment" are summarily ignored.
..
..In reality of course hiking, biking, equestrian activities
..will have an insignificant effect on wildlife.
That's not what the researchers say. They know more than you do.
Motorized
..vehicles such as dirt bikes, ATV's and snowmobiles
..have a far greater effect.
No, they don't, because they aren't allowed in these parks.
Logging, drilling, and mining
..have very much larger effects.
No, they don't, because they aren't allowed in these parks.
But the accelerated pace
..of global warming will and is causing major disruptions
..to wildlife and wilderness. The Alaskan pipeline is built
..on permafrost that is beginning to melt. Amphibians
..have been dying off worldwide in large numbers for over a
..decade and the reasons are unclear, but they are considered
..a marker species, a harbinger of things to come.
..
..Your crusade is akin to tweezing an ingrown hair
..from the skin of a terminal cancer patient,
..insignificant, pointless, and having no bearing
..on the real problem.
..
..But I despise your intellectual dishonesty and so we will joust.
BS. You just don't like my CONCLUSIONS.
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
..
.."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
..news:[email protected]...
..> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 04:22:59 GMT, "JP" <[email protected]>
..wrote:
..>
..> .Bad writing Mike.
..> .
..> .Your citations are unclear and in many cases taken out of context.
..> .The Wisdom study which you cite does not draw the conclusions that you
..do.
..>
..> Your point?
..
..
..Simply that your use of references, citations and other sources to prove
..your
..hypothsis is flawed, lacks intellectual rigor, and fails to meet accepted
..criteria
..for scientific review. Science does not allow for the leaps in reasoning
..that you
..make without facts (not opinions) to support them. That transforms your
..quasi-scientific "review" into asimple rant without merit.
Coincidentally, you weren't able to give even ONE example (because then you
could easily be refuted).
..> .Your opinions, inserted at intervals to dispute a studies findings,
..weaken
..> .your
..> .credibility and reveal faulty reasoning.
..>
..> Coincidentally, you can't manage to give a single example. NOT ONE!
..
..What I can or cannot manage is not the point. You claim that I can't
..and then go on to use that unproven claim as additional evidence .
..However here is an instance of your opinion mixed into a citation.
..
..--They "[collected] surface runoff and sediment yield produced by the
..simulated--
..--rainstorms at the downslope end of each plot", which they claim
.."correlates with--
..--erosion". This doesn't seem like a good measure of erosion.--
..
..You didn't like the results so you attack the procedure. Your opinion.
..Not supported, merely an opinion.
You took that out of context. I proved it in the following sentences, which you
conveniently omitted.
..> .You post where your treatise will not be exposed to those with
..> .background to assess and critique your hypothesis and arguments.
..> .Then you respond with name-calling to any who offer a contradiciting
..> .opinion.
..> .Calling someone a liar as refutation generally stops in high school.
..> .
..> .Let's examine this little piece;
..> .
..> .>In Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve (in the San Francisco Bay
..> .>Area), one of the largest Alameda whipsnakes (Masticophis lateralis
..> .euryxanthus,
..> .>a federally Threatened spceies) ever seen was apparently killed by a
..> .mountain
..> .>biker (see Figure 1). In Claremont Canyon Regional Preserve, a ringneck
..> .snake
..> .>(Diadophis punctatus) was apparently killed by a mountain biker riding
..> .where
..> .>bikes are not allowed (see Figure 2). In both cases, the snakes were
..killed
..> .on
..> .>unpaved roads with no visibility problems, showing that bikers are not
..able
..> .to
..> .>avoid killing wildlife. The width of the wounds matched the width of a
..> .mountain
..> .>bike tire.
..> .
..> .You cite two snakes "apparently killed by a mountain biker" with proof
..being
..> .the width of the wounds matched the width of a mountain bike tire.
..> .That is not proof yet you sail on to conclude that bikers are not able to
..> .avoid killing wildlife and that bikes may be more dangerous on wide
..trails
..> .since they can go faster.
..>
..> How do YOU explain a snake being killed by something as wide as a mountain
..bike
..> tire? It was enough to convince the herpetologist who concluded that.
..
..My explaining it or not has no bearing on a scientific review.
..What does have a bearing?
..1) "Apparantly killed by a mountain biker..."
.. My fat tires are about the same width as a dirt bike's tires,
..a MOTORIZED dirt bike.
Motirized bikes aren't allowed on that road.
And about the same width as a waffle-soled
..Nike.
Nonsense. Shoes are wider than any mountain bike tire. And that snake is too
fast for anyone to step on it.
.. Or an easily wieldable dropped tree limb.
Nonsense. There are no tree limbs like that in the area.
..Seems to me like you jumped to a conclusion.
No, the professional herpetologist made that judgment.
..2) "In both cases, the snakes were killed on unpaved roads with no
..visibility problems, showing that bikers are not able to
..avoid killing wildlife."
.. As a kid I remembered older kids at the pond catching tadpoles, big
..ones,
..under the ice and then ice-skating over them, slicing them in half. I never
..saw
..the point but kids kill animals. I cannot conclude from this that
..ice-skating is
..dangerous to wildlife. And a dead animal on the trail is not proof that
..mountain biking is dangerous to wildlife, regardless of the width of an
..injury.
It is if there is no other possible explanation.
..3) Had the herpetologist actually concluded that a mountain bike did
..kill
.. the snake then why would the word "apparantly" be used, denoting a
.. possible rather than a definite conclusion.
Because he's a scientist, and wants to be impeccable.
..> .That may constitute proof in a political compaign ad but not science.
..> .But your argument pretends to be based on science.
..> .Either you just don't understand the requirements of scientific inquiry
..> .(you're ignorant) or you do and choose to ignore them (you're a
..hypocrite).
..>
..> That WAS a scientist's conclusion. He wrote the book. Literally.
..
..No. That is your conclusion, not a scientist's.
Now you are just lying. The scientist wrote on the tag attached to the snake
"apparently killed by a mountain biker".
..May I quote your words again?
..
.."On the other hand, why do we need research to prove what is obvious? We
..don't need any research to know that we shouldn't step in front of a
..speeding
..truck. Or mountain bike."
..
..Ah, the true nature of your philosophy.
..Belief is all, research unnecessary.
True, but I did the research anyway, just in case.
..You may notice that I am not putting forth a position.
..I am merely showing how your position is so based on
..flawed logic and sloppy thinking that your conclusions
..are useless from a scientific perspective.
BS. The paper it was based on was already accepted by TWO international
scientific conferences.
You know this
..of course which is why you choose the forum you do.
..I notice that your cross posts to "rec.backcountry,
..sci.environment,ca.environment" are summarily ignored.
..
..In reality of course hiking, biking, equestrian activities
..will have an insignificant effect on wildlife.
That's not what the researchers say. They know more than you do.
Motorized
..vehicles such as dirt bikes, ATV's and snowmobiles
..have a far greater effect.
No, they don't, because they aren't allowed in these parks.
Logging, drilling, and mining
..have very much larger effects.
No, they don't, because they aren't allowed in these parks.
But the accelerated pace
..of global warming will and is causing major disruptions
..to wildlife and wilderness. The Alaskan pipeline is built
..on permafrost that is beginning to melt. Amphibians
..have been dying off worldwide in large numbers for over a
..decade and the reasons are unclear, but they are considered
..a marker species, a harbinger of things to come.
..
..Your crusade is akin to tweezing an ingrown hair
..from the skin of a terminal cancer patient,
..insignificant, pointless, and having no bearing
..on the real problem.
..
..But I despise your intellectual dishonesty and so we will joust.
BS. You just don't like my CONCLUSIONS.
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande