Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 2 3 
Send Topic Print
PJ's golden triangles (Read 5925 times)
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
PJ's golden triangles
May 9th, 2010 at 8:17pm
 
Are they real, or just a figment of his imagination?

Is (almost) the entire marine science community being bought off by Pew or pressured by lobby groups to lie about the science of marine parks? Is this being done in such a way that prevents scientsts from speaking out about it and prevents any solid evidence coming to light? Can cats really be herded?

Or is it simply that the vast majority of marine scientists support marine parks because the facts support them? Is the BS about all the other scientists being sellouts or cowards in the face of 'pressure' merely a pissweak excuse for denying the obvious? Does the chanting of 'golden triangle' or 'Pew fellow' every time a half baked criticism of a journal appears on a dodgy website without peer review reflect nothing more than desperation to believe that everyone else is wrong, in the face of overwhelming evidence?
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
pjb05
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1402
Gender: male
Re: PJ's golden triangles
Reply #1 - May 9th, 2010 at 8:39pm
 
Are you really that thick - how many times have I got to tell you the term is iron triangle?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
pjb05
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1402
Gender: male
Re: PJ's golden triangles
Reply #2 - May 9th, 2010 at 8:51pm
 
freediver wrote on May 9th, 2010 at 8:17pm:
Is (almost) the entire marine science community being bought off by Pew or pressured by lobby groups to lie about the science of marine parks? Is this being done in such a way that prevents scientsts from speaking out about it and prevents any solid evidence coming to light? Can cats really be herded?

Or is it simply that the vast majority of marine scientists support marine parks because the facts support them? Is the BS about all the other scientists being sellouts or cowards in the face of 'pressure' merely a pissweak excuse for denying the obvious? Does the chanting of 'golden triangle' or 'Pew fellow' every time a half baked criticism of a journal appears on a dodgy website without peer review reflect nothing more than desperation to believe that everyone else is wrong, in the face of overwhelming evidence?


Plenty of our scientists are critical of our rush to marine parks. That they tend to be the most senior or recently retired tells you something about the influences I have discussed (they have the independance to speak out). You make out it's all Walter Starck and aim your vitriol at him. What about Prof Colin Buxton, Dr Ben Diggles, Prof Bob Kearney and Richard Tizley?

If the criticisms are so half baked or BS why don't you give a line by line rebutal of each point? You can't can you. Instead you project all your shortcomings back on to me, bring up one strawman after another, offer pathetic appeals to authority or consensus.

PS: No doubt you will soon spin off another thread along the above lines.

Back to top
« Last Edit: May 11th, 2010 at 3:11pm by pjb05 »  
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: PJ's golden triangles
Reply #3 - May 9th, 2010 at 9:10pm
 
Quote:
If the criticisms are so half backed or BS why don't you give a line by line rebutal of each point?


Because it took me a few pages of discussion to change your mind about the most glaringly obvious point. You have to take these things one step at a time. I could spend days constructing a detailed rebuttal of every single one of his points, and you would reject it in five minutes.

Quote:
Plenty of our scientists are critical of our rush to marine parks.


How many of them believe in golden triangles?

Quote:
That they tend to be the most senior or recently retired


Tell me PJ, which one is the most senior of them all?
Back to top
« Last Edit: May 9th, 2010 at 9:35pm by freediver »  

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: PJ's golden triangles
Reply #4 - May 9th, 2010 at 9:14pm
 
pjb05 wrote on May 9th, 2010 at 8:56pm:
Quote:
Quote:
Why is circumstantial evidence not real?


You don't seem to be getting this PJ. If you conspriacy theories about golden triangles were real, the evidence would be more than circumstantial. 



Fine, then as I asked previously, explain how in a case like this. Use an example if you like.


Suppose you try to pressure 5000 marine scientists into lying about marine parks, either by offering them money, or threatening their jobs. 100 of them cave in to your requests. 4900 of them expose your efforts to mislead the public. That is what happens in reality. In your fantasy, 4995 fall into line with the threats. The remaining five start ranting like loonies about Pew scholarships and golden triangles, but for some reason are unable to back these claims up with anything even remotely substantial.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
pjb05
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1402
Gender: male
Re: PJ's golden triangles
Reply #5 - May 9th, 2010 at 10:02pm
 
] Quote:
If the criticisms are so half backed or BS why don't you give a line by line rebutal of each point?


Because it took me a few pages of discussion to change your mind about the most glaringly obvious point. You have to take these things one step at a time. I could spend days constructing a detailed rebuttal of every single one of his points, and you would reject it in five minutes.

How have I changed my mind?  What is this most glaringly obvious point?

How did you become so omnipotent as to know what my reply will be so don't need to bother with your own answers? This is just another trick of yours to weasil out of trying.


Quote:
Plenty of our scientists are critical of our rush to marine parks.


How many of them believe in golden triangles?

Actualy there is only one. It's a region in SE Asia on the borders of Thailand, Vietnam and Cambodia where drugs (opium) is grown.

Quote:
That they tend to be the most senior or recently retired


Tell me PJ, which one is the most senior of them all? [/quote]

I suppose the two Professors are - whats the point of your question?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
pjb05
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1402
Gender: male
Re: PJ's golden triangles
Reply #6 - May 9th, 2010 at 10:08pm
 
.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
pjb05
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1402
Gender: male
Re: PJ's golden triangles
Reply #7 - May 9th, 2010 at 10:15pm
 
freediver wrote on May 9th, 2010 at 9:14pm:
pjb05 wrote on May 9th, 2010 at 8:56pm:
Quote:
Quote:
Why is circumstantial evidence not real?


You don't seem to be getting this PJ. If you conspriacy theories about golden triangles were real, the evidence would be more than circumstantial.  



Fine, then as I asked previously, explain how in a case like this. Use an example if you like.


Suppose you try to pressure 5000 marine scientists into lying about marine parks, either by offering them money, or threatening their jobs. 100 of them cave in to your requests. 4900 of them expose your efforts to mislead the public. That is what happens in reality. In your fantasy, 4995 fall into line with the threats. The remaining five start ranting like loonies about Pew scholarships and golden triangles, but for some reason are unable to back these claims up with anything even remotely substantial.


You haven't answered the question at all. You have just offer a ludricrous analogy. Ie were there 5000 scientists authoring the paper in question?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
pjb05
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1402
Gender: male
Re: PJ's golden triangles
Reply #8 - May 10th, 2010 at 11:46am
 
This might help with your comprehension problem, FD:

Circumstantial evidence
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Circumstantial evidence indirectly proves a fact. It is evidence that requires or allows a trier of fact to make a deduction to conclude that a fact exists. This inference made from a trier of facts supports the truth of assertion (in criminal law, an assertion of guilt or of absence of guilt). By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any intervening inference.

Testimony that the witness saw the defendant shoot the victim gives direct evidence. A forensic scientist who testifies that ballistics proves the defendant’s firearm killed the victim gives circumstantial evidence, from which the defendant’s guilt may be inferred.

Similarly, a witness who testifies that she watched the defendant stab the victim gives direct evidence. A witness who says that she saw the defendant enter a house, that she heard screaming, and that she saw the defendant leave with a bloody knife gives circumstantial evidence.
Circumstantial evidence usually accumulates into a collection, so that each piece corroborates the other pieces (the pieces then become corroborating evidence). Together they support more strongly the inference that the assertion is true.

Forensic evidence supplied by an expert witness is usually circumstantial evidence.

The two areas in which circumstantial evidence is of most importance are civil and criminal cases where direct evidence is lacking.

A popular misconception is that circumstantial evidence is less valid or less important than direct evidence. This is only partly true: direct evidence is popularly, but mistakenly, considered more powerful. In fact many successful criminal prosecutions often rely largely or entirely on circumstantial evidence, and civil charges are frequently based on circumstantial or indirect evidence. Much of the evidence against convicted American bomber Timothy McVeigh was circumstantial, for example. Speaking about McVeigh's trial, University of Michigan law professor Robert Precht said, "Circumstantial evidence can be, and often is much more powerful than direct evidence". [1] The 2005 murder trial of Scott Peterson trial was another high-profile conviction based heavily on circumstantial evidence.

Indeed, the common metaphor for the strongest possible evidence in any case—the "smoking gun"—is in fact an example of proof based on circumstantial evidence. Similarly, fingerprint evidence, videotapes, sound recordings, photographs, and many other examples of physical evidence that support the drawing of an inference, i.e., circumstantial evidence, are considered very strong possible evidence.

In practice, circumstantial evidence has an advantage over direct evidence in that it is more difficult to suppress or fabricate.[citation needed] Eyewitness testimony is notoriously inaccurate at times,[citation needed] and many persons have been convicted on the basis of perjured or otherwise mistaken testimony. Good strong circumstantial evidence can be a far more reliable basis on which to determine a verdict.[citation needed] It should be noted that circumstantial evidence normally requires a witness, such as the police officer who found the evidence, or an expert who examined it, to lay the foundation for its admission. This witness, sometimes known as the sponsor or the authenticating witness, is giving direct (eye-witness) testimony, and could present credibility problems in the same way that any eye witness does.




Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: PJ's golden triangles
Reply #9 - May 10th, 2010 at 10:33pm
 
Quote:
A popular misconception is that circumstantial evidence is less valid


You got me there PJ. Your evidence is not circumstantial after all. It is merely less valid. Far less valid in fact.

Quote:
You have just offer a ludricrous analogy. Ie were there 5000 scientists authoring the paper in question?


No, but the analogy is still valid, unless of course you are now arguing that the golden triangle only applies to the authors in question. Do you believe that all the other scientists who support marine parks do so in good faith, but these particular scientists do so because of your little conspiracy theories?

I will try to make it even simpler for you. If the golden triangles were real, it would be very easy for you to produce direct evidence. A rational person would expect that evidence to be easy to obtain. You on the other hand insist it would naturally be difficult to obtain and that therefor what little evidence you have points to you being right, rather than merely highlighting your inability to produce any real evidence. These golden triangles you go on about would be in the face of every scientist and it would be a simple matter for them to be exposed. It would be unavoidable. To suggest anything different is just absurd.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
pjb05
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1402
Gender: male
Re: PJ's golden triangles
Reply #10 - May 11th, 2010 at 10:33am
 
4789] Quote:
A popular misconception is that circumstantial evidence is less valid


You got me there PJ. Your evidence is not circumstantial after all. It is merely less valid. Far less valid in fact.

You have just spent pages arguing my evidence isn't good enough because it is only circumstantial. Now like with Newspeak in '1984' you have gone off into a totally different direction without missing a beat.


Quote:
You have just offer a ludricrous analogy. Ie were there 5000 scientists authoring the paper in question?


No, but the analogy is still valid, unless of course you are now arguing that the golden triangle only applies to the authors in question.

I asked a direct question. Ie what would be an example of the direct evidence you keep whining about in this particular case.

Do you believe that all the other scientists who support marine parks do so in good faith, but these particular scientists do so because of your little conspiracy theories?

Tha's just silly. I can't account for the motives of every single scientist who promotes marine parks. In any case my post was about a particular paper.

I will try to make it even simpler for you. If the golden triangles were real, it would be very easy for you to produce direct evidence. A rational person would expect that evidence to be easy to obtain.

Well at the start of this post you admitted you were wrong and circumstantial evidence can be just as valid as direct evidence. As the Wiki article pointed out direct evidence can often be hard to obtain. The reason being people doing something wrong tend to take some care not to leave it lying around!

You on the other hand insist it would naturally be difficult to obtain and that therefor what little evidence you have points to you being right, rather than merely highlighting your inability to produce any real evidence. These golden triangles you go on about would be in the face of every scientist and it would be a simple matter for them to be exposed. It would be unavoidable. To suggest anything different is just absurd. [/quote]

Your argument is not internally consistent. Your now falling back to your old argument (evidence must be direct). The rest of the paragraph is incomprehensible. Why don't you instead answer my question - what would be an example of direct (or convincing)evidence in this case?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: PJ's golden triangles
Reply #11 - May 11th, 2010 at 7:05pm
 
Quote:
Ie what would be an example of the direct evidence you keep whining about in this particular case.


4900 scientists speaking out against pressure to mislead the public.

If you want a real world example, the US government tried to pressure NASA scientists to alter the wording of the findings in a big climate report. It blew up in their face.

Quote:
Tha's just silly. I can't account for the motives of every single scientist who promotes marine parks. In any case my post was about a particular paper.


You have made a few hundred posts, many of them about magic golden triangles. Are you now backpeddling that all your posts about golden triangles were only in reference to the authors of a single paper?

Quote:
The rest of the paragraph is incomprehensible.


OK, I'll make it even simpler. The evidence you present does not match your conclusions. The only rational conclusion from the little evidence you have been able to find in support of golden triangles is that they don't exist and marine scientsts are free to speak the truth. It would require an enourmous and absurd conspiracy to account for the lack of evidence of golden triangles, or a delusion about the reality of working in the research community.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
pjb05
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1402
Gender: male
Re: PJ's golden triangles
Reply #12 - May 11th, 2010 at 7:40pm
 
] Quote:
Ie what would be an example of the direct evidence you keep whining about in this particular case.


4900 scientists speaking out against pressure to mislead the public.

If you want a real world example, the US government tried to pressure NASA scientists to alter the wording of the findings in a big climate report. It blew up in their face.

And it looks like reefgate is blowing up in certain people's faces too. Also it really does seem that you have a comprehension problem. I said "in this particular case". 4900 scientists or NASA don't fit that description.

Quote:
Tha's just silly. I can't account for the motives of every single scientist who promotes marine parks. In any case my post was about a particular paper.


You have made a few hundred posts, many of them about magic golden triangles. Are you now backpeddling that all your posts about golden triangles were only in reference to the authors of a single paper?

Strawman. You have barely touched on the pertinent facts surrounding reefgate. Expanding the topic to all of marine science is not going to help in this regard. PS: you still can't even get the term right - It's iron triangle not golden!

Quote:
The rest of the paragraph is incomprehensible.


OK, I'll make it even simpler. The evidence you present does not match your conclusions. The only rational conclusion from the little evidence you have been able to find in support of golden triangles is that they don't exist and marine scientsts are free to speak the truth. It would require an enourmous and absurd conspiracy to account for the lack of evidence of golden triangles, or a delusion about the reality of working in the research community.

I have offered plenty of evidence. Much of it you haven't even acknowledged or responded to. Eg the information on Pew, the factual criticisms of the paper in question. Bland assertions like those above are pretty lame.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: PJ's golden triangles
Reply #13 - May 11th, 2010 at 7:50pm
 
Quote:
And it looks like reefgate is blowing up in certain people's faces too.


Not really. BTW, who was it that pressures these scientists to change their conclusions? Or is this nothing to do with golden triangles?

Quote:
I said "in this particular case". 4900 scientists or NASA don't fit that description.


A golden triangle is not a one-off event PJ.

Quote:
You have barely touched on the pertinent facts surrounding reefgate.


This thread is about golden triangles PJ, not gates. Nothing in your reefgate thread is evidence of pertinent to this discussion about pressure on marine scientists. You have an odd tendency to insist that I address every sinlge point you bring up, all at the same time.

Quote:
Expanding the topic to all of marine science is not going to help in this regard.


You are the one who brought up golden triangles PJ, not me. Though I agree that it hasn't helped.

Quote:
I have offered plenty of evidence.


But no evidence that marine scientists are being pressure by golden triangles to mislead the public. You seem to think that posting any evidence that somehow falls in with your world view is the same as posting evidence in support whatever claim you make, like the one about golden triangles.

Are you just trying to avoid the topic of golden triangles now? Perhaps you shouldn't have brought it up. If you admit you were wrong about that too, I would be happy to move on to one of the other issues.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
pjb05
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1402
Gender: male
Re: PJ's golden triangles
Reply #14 - May 11th, 2010 at 8:20pm
 
[] Quote:
And it looks like reefgate is blowing up in certain people's faces too.


Not really. BTW, who was it that pressures these scientists to change their conclusions?

The hand that feeds them.

Or is this nothing to do with golden triangles?

Yes nothing to do with them.


Quote:
I said "in this particular case". 4900 scientists or NASA don't fit that description.


A golden triangle is not a one-off event PJ.

I'm trying to get you to expand on your 'no evidence' argument. Why are you so evasive or are you just thick?

Quote:
You have barely touched on the pertinent facts surrounding reefgate.


This thread is about golden triangles PJ, not gates. Nothing in your reefgate thread is evidence of pertinent to this discussion about pressure on marine scientists. You have an odd tendency to insist that I address every sinlge point you bring up, all at the same time.

I didn't ask you took keep spinning off threads FD. Reefgate was the original thread and you seem to be doing everything possible to obfuscate the pertinent facts on this issue.

Quote:
Expanding the topic to all of marine science is not going to help in this regard.


You are the one who brought up golden triangles PJ, not me. Though I agree that it hasn't helped.

Iron triangles FD.

Quote:
I have offered plenty of evidence.


But no evidence that marine scientists are being pressure by golden triangles to mislead the public. You seem to think that posting any evidence that somehow falls in with your world view is the same as posting evidence in support whatever claim you make, like the one about golden triangles.

Pot-kettle-black. All you offer is assertions to the contrary. Why won't you answer my question - what would be evidence of undue influence in this case in your mind? Are you worried that the house of cards that is your argument will fall over?

Are you just trying to avoid the topic of golden triangles now? Perhaps you shouldn't have brought it up. If you admit you were wrong about that too, I would be happy to move on to one of the other issues. [/quote]
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 
Send Topic Print