CA Environmentalists to Kill Trout

*** TOTAL THREAD FAILURE ***

The nonsensical OP and the posts supporting it are based on a profound ignorance about science and how science works.

Common misconceptions about science I: “Scientific proof”
Why there is no such thing as a scientific proof.
PsychologyToday
by Satoshi Kanazawa
November 16, 2008
(excerpts)
One of the most common misconceptions about science concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.” Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof. Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science. Proofs have two features that do not exist in science: They are final, and they are binary. Once a theorem is proven, it will forever be true and there will be nothing in the future that will threaten its status as a proven theorem (unless a flaw is discovered in the proof). Apart from a discovery of an error, a proven theorem will forever and always be a proven theorem. In contrast, all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final. There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science. The currently accepted theory of a phenomenon is simply the best explanation for it among all available alternatives. Its status as the accepted theory is contingent on what other theories are available and might suddenly change tomorrow if there appears a better theory or new evidence that might challenge the accepted theory. No knowledge or theory (which embodies scientific knowledge) is final. That, by the way, is why science is so much fun.

Further, proofs, like pregnancy, are binary; a mathematical proposition is either proven (in which case it becomes a theorem) or not (in which case it remains a conjecture until it is proven). There is nothing in between. A theorem cannot be kind of proven or almost proven. These are the same as unproven. In contrast, there is no such binary evaluation of scientific theories. Scientific theories are neither absolutely false nor absolutely true. They are always somewhere in between. Some theories are better, more credible, and more accepted than others. There is always more, more credible, and better evidence for some theories than others. It is a matter of more or less, not either/or. For example, experimental evidence is better and more credible than correlational evidence, but even the former cannot prove a theory; it only provides very strong evidence for the theory and against its alternatives. The knowledge that there is no such thing as a scientific proof should give you a very easy way to tell real scientists from hacks and wannabes. Real scientists never use the words “scientific proofs,” because they know no such thing exists. Anyone who uses the words “proof,” “prove” and “proven” in their discussion of science is not a real scientist. The creationists and other critics of evolution are absolutely correct when they point out that evolution is “just a theory” and it is not “proven.” What they neglect to mention is that everything in science is just a theory and is never proven. Unlike the Prime Number Theorem, which will absolutely and forever be true, it is still possible, albeit very, very, very, very, very unlikely, that the theory of evolution by natural and sexual selection may one day turn out to be false. But then again, it is also possible, albeit very, very, very, very, very unlikely, that monkeys will fly out of my ass tomorrow. In my judgment, both events are about equally likely.

 

So the abstract regarding the yellow legged frog that has been touted here in this thread and all the research done by environmentalists provide 0 scientific proof that the species is endangered nor that the brook trout is responsible. That's what I've been trying to tell you guys.

 

The frog was considered pretty common until sometime in the 20th century. Also, in 1800, California wasn't even part of the U.S. That didn't happen until the late 1840s. At that time, scientists didn't do much in terms of studying numbers. There were so many unclassified creatures, that they were spending their time simply classifying them. The mountain yellow-legged frog wasn't classified scientifically until 1917.

There are not thousands of small lakes between the altitudes of 1,214 and 7,546 feet in the southern Sierra Nevadas mountains south of the Middle Fork of the Kings river. In addition, they were surveyed before they were endangered, and found in 116 sites. In case you are ignorant of biology, I will explain. Frogs can't live in any environment. They need certain things, and even on a lake, the entire lake is not suitable habitat. There are certainly not millions. Regardless in those 116 sites of suitable habitat, they are now only present in 7 or 8. That indicates a major decline in population, which is part of the definition of endangered species. Please stop criticizing the science, you're embarassing yourself with your ignorance of basic field biology studies. You certainly don't know enough to criticize them.

Nope, just telling you how science works. Science cannot prove things. Not a trick at all. It's called the scientific method. Nothing can be "proved" scientifically. Things can only be disproved. Did your high school science teacher not explain that to you? (I can tell you never had a college science class).

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...sconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof
http://physics.about.com/b/2011/03/26/scienceproof.htm

 

I've never claimed the brook trout is responsible. What I do claim is that evidence shows that in cases where the brook trout are eliminated, the frog population goes up. I actually agree that the trout aren't the cause, but getting rid of the trout has been shown to increase frog population based on an experiment with controls. Its not proven, but the evidence supports the idea. Nothing can be proven by science, but that doesn't mean we can't use scientific observations to guide policies. Also, you can measure via science. There is no doubt that the measured number of mountain yellow-legged frogs has gone down since 1994 (166 sites down to 7 or . not absolute proof, but it is a fact.

My question is why do you want to save the trout so badly? We've asked several times, and you've refused to respond. What's so special about these introduced brook trout? The mountain yellow-legged frogs are special because they only exist in this area.

 

History has shown that environmentalists harm more than they help.

Other than parroting so-called environmental 'studies' you have failed to provide proof that a) the yellow legged frog is actually endangered b) that removing fish will have any affect at all on the frogs or that you can actually remove all the fish from a lake and have that lake stay free of fish for an extended period of time.

They have already caused over 30% of Americas counties to be on the brink of financial failure.

The Endangered Species Act, as practiced today at least, is a fraud. Originally sold as the solution to saving major species from extinction, the wording of the Act and its current implementation have nothing to do with species, extinction, or species restoration.

http://www.defendruralamerica.com/DRA/Enviros.html

Yeah...right.

 

I have provided my reasoning.

 

Contrary to your delusions, there is no such thing as "scientific proof", so your insistence on having 'proof' provided to you just further demonstrates how little you understand about the basics principles of science. That's what everyone has been trying to tell you.

The scientific evidence supporting the Forest Service's actions in removing the trout to protect the frogs is clear and convincing. Your anti-environmentalism is very obvious and and is also very obviously based on the rightwingnut anti-environmental-regulation propaganda being pushed by the polluters.

 

Syntax is not a valid point here.

No it is not 'clear and convincing' as I have already shown you.

BTW your insults (calling me delusional) only make you look small and desperate.

 

You seem incapable of grasping the point. There are no proofs in science.

You don't seem to even know what 'syntax' means, but it has nothing to do with your misunderstanding of the issue of 'proofs' in science.

 

You are exactly right. It's not the objective of science to prove anything.
This is the objective of science in a nutshell.

1. Select a subject
2. Study the subject
3. Write notes about what happened.

 

Yet we are to believe that there is proof that yellow legged frogs are becoming extinct. Apparently our government environmentalists aren't using 'science' yet folks like 'livefree' swallow it hook, line and sinker.

 

The scientific evidence clearly shows that these frogs are "becoming extinct".

This whole kerfluffle about 'proof' is happening only in your own mind and clearly demonstrates how little you know about science.

There ARE no proofs in science and no one on this forum ever asked you to "believe" that there were.

 

It is like arguing about science with 'the Bible is literal' crowd.

 

Basically this whole thread is for the Luddites against Science.

 

The left uses the science of convenience. What they don't understand
is that extinction is a natural process.

 

Such as whom? I know you aren't talking about me because I'm a strong
supporter of science and am quite knowledgeable of the same.

 

Words are cheap and most are just hot air.

Demonstrate your "support and knowledge" of science by accepting well supported science and evidence based conclusions about the world that are affirmed by the world scientific community, like AGW and evolution, not by siding with anti-science reality deniers and Flat-Earthers. Many tragic victims of the Dunning-Kruger Effect imagine that they are "quite knowledgeable" about science when, in fact, they are ignorant misinformed fools.

 

Which you have more than adequately demonstrated here.

Why do you assume that baseless rhetoric will make your point?

 

You would, of course, assume that the truth is "baseless rhetoric", but your inability to see the truth doesn't magically make your delusions real.

 

The only thing you seem to be good at is insulting others and swallowing the eco-fraud agenda. Meanwhile these environmental fools are systematically shutting down your access to public lands and starting to reach into private land as well with their anti-human agenda and all the while fleecing the taxpayers.

Another unintended consequence of stoopid environmental regulations

Endangered mountain yellow legged frog keeps rock climbers off Williamson Rock in Angeles National Forest

“The impact (to the frogs) from the climbers is minimal to none at all,” he said. “Yet I am very environmentally conscious. So closing the areas where the people could run them down is OK. That part of the plan seems pretty good.”

Funny when so-called 'environmentally conscious' get their butts shafted by the government.

http://www.sgvtribune.com/environme...ff-williamson-rock-in-angeles-national-forest

 

Your silly OP and all the rest of your posts on this thread have been debunked by the facts so now you're reduced to this kind of completely pointless nonsense. LOL. Get a grip.

 

You have not debunked anything and you have no facts. You just regurgitate the false narrative of eco-frauds. Apparently you don't have the gravitas to answer my posts directly but fall back on your tried and true habit of insulting anyone who you disagree with.

BTW, please provide the stats of how many yellow legged frogs there are. Have you counted them all? Let's see what you can 'scientifically' come up with. How do you know there are not thousands in places beyond the grossly inadequate 100s of sites investigated?

 

Maybe you should learn something about science. Science doesn't
support or make conclusions. This is a myth started by those, such as
yourself, who don't understand the purpose of science.

agw has been debunked time and time again. Evolution has so many holes
in it that nothing can be substaniated as fact.

Those you described as flat earth types fit your knowledge of science as
well.

In the meantime I'll not allow myself to be indoctrinated by those who
distort science to fit their own agenda.

 

ROTFLMAO......that is just hilarious....you just make it more and more obvious that you know nothing at all about science....

The Scientific Method
The fifth step of the scientific method is to draw a conclusion. Scientists draw conclusions by examining the data from the experiment. There are basically two possible outcomes. Either the experiment supported the hypothesis and can be regarded as true, or the experiment disproved the hypothesis as false.

Drawing Conclusions
Explorables.com
Martyn Shuttleworth
For any research project and any scientific discipline, drawing conclusions is the final, and most important, part of the process. Whichever reasoning processes and research methods were used, the final conclusion is critical, determining success or failure. If an otherwise excellent experiment is summarized by a weak conclusion, the results will not be taken seriously.

The Scientific Method
by Science Made Simple
The Scientific Method is a logical and rational order of steps by which scientists come to conclusions about the world around them. The Scientific Method helps to organize thoughts and procedures so that scientists can be confident in the answers they find. Scientists use observations, hypotheses, and deductions to make these conclusions. The final step in the scientific method is the conclusion.

The Nature of Science
University of California Museum of Paleontology
Characteristics of Science
Conclusions of science are reliable, though tentative. Science is always a work in progress, and its conclusions are always tentative. But just as the word “theory” means something special to the scientist, so too does the word “tentative.” Science’s conclusions are not tentative in the sense that they are temporary until the real answer comes along. Scientific conclusions are well founded in their factual content and thinking and are tentative only in the sense that all ideas are open to scrutiny. In science, the tentativeness of ideas such as the nature of atoms, cells, stars or the history of the Earth refers to the willingness of scientists to modify their ideas as new evidence appears.

Delusional anti-science nonsense and fantasies. You have revealed yourself.

You obviously already have....big time!

 

That's all fine and dandy but the population of data gathered for yellow legged frogs is not adequate enough to draw a reliable conclusion. 116 sites is not nearly enough to come up with a reliable frog-count. Besides, have you ever tried to count frogs in a large pond or small lake? You'd be lucky if you even see just a few. This is nothing more than government environmental bureaucrats coming up with yet another scheme to fill their coffers with taxpayer dollars and another prelude to shutting down public land.