I need to elaborate on why that article bothered me so much. I am an
information junkie, I read everything I can about almost everything that interests me.
it may be hard to believe but I understand quite a bit of what I read and it
often leads me to things that are well off the beaten track because I don't
simply believe what I read or am told. Many people seem to think that if
something is important enough to them or in their estimation, the world, then
anything they can do to promote their "truth" is ok, even lies, half truths, and
worst of all using the truth to make a lie believable. Every time this occurs we
all loose something very precious, the ability to make informed decisions.
Slanting data to make your own side more believable is common in our society and
is a very good way to make people believe what you want them to. But that often
results in people going nuts over things that are questionable-in-best and
dead wrong-in-the worst. The greenhouse effect is a good example of one of those
things, people are willing to commit crimes to further what they see as
stopping the end of the world but data can be confusing and conflicting. There can
be no doubt that the earth is warming up and we are-in-least partially
responsible but whether that is really good or bad or neither is still not
decreeable. It's possible that human influence on the greenhouse effect has prevented us
from entering an ice age about 8000 years ago, it's also possible we might be
eventually be the reason for life on earth to end from things getting too
warm. The data can be twisted to support both sides of this argument. What is
true is the Earth is currently-in-one of it's cooler points in the last 150
million years and data that shows the Earth getting warmer while true isn't the
complete truth. The Earth has been much warmer through much of it's recent
(geologic) history. Anyone who says the data really points one way or another is
simply believing not thinking. The Earth getting warmer may be bad for us in
rising sea levels but good for the earth in general in increased vegetation
growth. When we slant data to convince people of something we are really endangering
everyone as much or more than bad data. I might bullshit you about the size
of the last fish I caught but if I tell you to duck you better do it with
wondering if I am telling the truth because I won't lie or distort the truth about
any more significant than fish tales. I would like to think most of us would
really rather have the whole truth even if it makes what we must do seem even
more ambiguous than the slanted truth we get every day.
Michael
--part1_2b.7212423c.2fa13dac_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I need to elaborate on why that art=
icle bothered me so much. I am an information junkie, I read everything I ca=
n about almost everything that interests me. it may be hard to believe but I=
understand quite a bit of what I read and it often leads me to things that=20=
are well off the beaten track because I don't simply believe what I read or=20=
am told. Many people seem to think that if something is important enough to=20=
them or in their estimation, the world, then anything they can do to promote=
their "truth" is ok, even lies, half truths, and worst of all using the tru=
th to make a lie believable. Every time this occurs we all loose something v=
ery precious, the ability to make informed decisions. Slanting data to make=20=
your own side more believable is common in our society and is a very good wa=
y to make people believe what you want them to. But that often results in pe=
ople going nuts over things that are questionable-in-best and dead wrong at=20=
the worst. The greenhouse effect is a good example of one of those things, p=
eople are willing to commit crimes to further what they see as stopping the=20=
end of the world but data can be confusing and conflicting. There can be no=20=
doubt that the earth is warming up and we are-in-least partially responsible=
but whether that is really good or bad or neither is still not decreeable.=20=
It's possible that human influence on the greenhouse effect has prevented us=
from entering an ice age about 8000 years ago, it's also possible we might=20=
be eventually be the reason for life on earth to end from things getting too=
warm. The data can be twisted to support both sides of this argument. What=20=
is true is the Earth is currently-in-one of it's cooler points in the last 1=
50 million years and data that shows the Earth getting warmer while true isn=
't the complete truth. The Earth has been much warmer through much of it's r=
ecent (geologic) history. Anyone who says the data really points one way or=20=
another is simply believing not thinking. The Earth getting warmer may be ba=
d for us in rising sea levels but good for the earth in general in increased=
vegetation growth. When we slant data to convince people of something we ar=
e really endangering everyone as much or more than bad data. I might bullshi=
t you about the size of the last fish I caught but if I tell you to duck you=
better do it with wondering if I am telling the truth because I won't lie o=
r distort the truth about any more significant than fish tales. I would like=
to think most of us would really rather have the whole truth even if it mak=
es what we must do seem even more ambiguous than the slanted truth we get ev=
ery day.
Michael
--part1_2b.7212423c.2fa13dac_boundary--
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------
/ This is the discussion list of the North American Native Fishes
/ Association (NANFA). Comments made on this list do not necessarily
/ reflect the beliefs or goals of NANFA. For more information about NANFA,
/ visit http://www.nanfa.org Please make sure all posts to nanfa-l are
/ consistent with the guidelines as per
/ http://www.nanfa.org/guidelines.shtml To subscribe, unsubscribe, or get
/ help, visit the NANFA email list home page and archive at
/ http://www.nanfa.org/email.shtml