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?

freediver wrote on May 9^th, 2010 at 8:17pm:


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.

pjb05 wrote on May 9^th, 2010 at 8:56pm:


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.

.

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.

4789] Quote:


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:


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?

] Quote:


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:


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:


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.

[] Quote:


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:


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:


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:


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

Iron triangles FD.

Quote:


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]

] Quote:


So it blew up in their face, but no-one knows about it? I don;t see any grand revelations in the media of these scientists getting pressured by golden triangles.

The GBRMPA and Garrett's office are stonewalling at the moment (a tacit admission of guilt). We might hear something from the journal or the centre of coral reef studies. The paper could even be withdrawn and the authors censued. Remember it took a while for Watergate to unfold too, so we will just have to wait and see. Also, sadly outside of a few fishermen and academics , no one is much interested is this issue.  

Quote:


There isn't really much to expand on. There is simply no real evidence. If your magic golden triangles were real, the evidence would come out, just as it did with NASA.  

It is coming out. Your no real evidence argument is in tatters after you just spent pages arguing circumstantial evidence is not 'real'.

Quote:


I think your belief in these golden triangles is a significant issue. Like I mentioned in regard to Pew, to seems to be a common thread to all the anti marine park rhetoric, yet for some reason the accusation is rarely made as directly as you did. You took it from nudge nudge wink wink to standing on a street corner proclaiming it to the world.

Quote:


I am asserting that you have no real evidence.

Exactly, no real argument, just assertions.

Quote:


It might be very similar to the evidence in the NASA case. At the very least, you would get scientists complaining that they are being prevented from speaking the truth. It seems pretty obvious to me. Not even any of the scientists you have put on a pedestal are making this accusation. Except perhaps Walter, but he can't bring himself to say it directly. He is still doing the nudge nudge wink wink thing. Maybe he does still value his reputation after all.

Stawman - they are not prevented from speaking the truth. They are encouraged (financially) to bend the truth.

Scientist are complaining - the ones outside of the iron triangle. I gave you quite a few names. They may not have used the term 'iron triangle' but big deal, it's not widely known outside the political science field. They have used descriptions such as conflict of interest, community of belief, faith based fisheries and pointed to green politics and preference deals. Ie other terms describing the same phenomenon.

What grandiose conspiracy do you have to explain how all these scientists are being pressured to mislead the public, but none have spoken up about it?

Strawman - it's not a grandiose conspiracy. Also there is an admission from Pew that their fellowship grants are used to promote Pew's agenda.

freediver wrote on May 12^th, 2010 at 9:36pm:


You can't have looked at my posts then. Garrett's office has recieved a letter from Walter Starck. The GBRMPA has replied via Fishing World (this has been posted here) but haven't responded to any of the matters of science.

PS: Do you really think I would accuse them of stonewalling without checking to see if they have been contacted?

freediver wrote on May 12^th, 2010 at 9:49pm:


So serious and substantive allegations that don't fit your agenda should just be ignored. Don't you realise that that attitude just confirms what I have been saying?

pjb05 wrote on May 13^th, 2010 at 9:01am:


They aren't substantive at all. They certainly provide no real evidence of golden triangles, or the government pressureing these scientists to change their conclusions.

You have some very odd notions about obligation in debate. It's like you see it as a teacher-student relationship, where you decide which topics are to be discussed, which questions are to be answered, how they are to be answered, and pretty much what the answer should be. Now you seem to think the government is obligued to give a detailed technical response to every loonie that writes to them with absurd accusations.

Quote:


So now you are arguing that golden triangles and scientists being prevented from speaking the truth is insignificant, and we should focus instead on the technical arguments? You made the allegation of golden triangles. I picked up on it because I think it is the most important one. None of the technical details will shed any light on whether scientists are being pressured to mislead the public.

Just out of interest, which do you think are the most important allegations?

Quote:


I'm pretty sure I did not say that. I said that they had acknowledged that they work for GBRMPA on the front page of their paper, and that this is more than sufficient acknowledgement. To expect them to acknowledge Walter Starck's fantasies about golden triangles pressuring them to mislead the public is absurd.

Quote:


No it doesn't. Even if Walter was right and the scientists were wrong, he has not presented any evidence at all that they ere pressured into it. You are confusing evidence that someone is wrong with evidence of their motive for being wrong, or even evidence that they had a motive.

Quote:


Your bias is consistent and one sided, that is all.

Quote:


No PJ. I said that they acknowledged on the front page that they work for GBRMPA. I see no need for them to acknowledge Walter's little fantasy and claim that working for the GBRMPA is a conflict of interest because the GBRMPA is out to mislead the public. If they were obligued to acknowledge every lunatic theory about possible motives for misleading, the acknowledgements would be longer than the paper itself.

Quote:


He did accuse them of failing to acknowledge a conflict of interest. It seems most likely to me that it is of the goldent triangle variety, but you are right that it is impossible to tell exactly what Walter is going on about. He seems to prefer letting people like you fill in the blanks with their favourite conspiracy theory.

Quote:


Another error of logic. People like Walter and you would still make the accusation. Not everyone is capable of judging whether the paper is fair or misleading. That is why they use peer review rather than asking pundits like Walter.

Quote:


I would leave it up to their peers to make that judgement.

Quote:


Why not? Are you the only one allowed to make these accusations? Am I supposed to disprove every silly accusation you make first?

Quote:


The topic is golden triangles. Any evidence that they exist?

Quote:


Yet none of the scientists involved can bring themselves to say it?

Quote:


They did not fail.

Quote:


I am in no trouble. I just put a lot more stock in review by real scientists rather than internet wannabes. Your only way round this is to build elaborate conspiracies and golden triangles to explain why all the scientists are out to get you, but you can't produce any real evidence that they exist.

Quote:


I am not saying you should be ignored. I am not ignoring you. But I am also not taking you seriously. That's the difference.

Quote:


But this is exactly what you do. You just confuse yourself into thinking that copying and pasting technical criticisms and vague accusations is evidence of a golden triangle.

Quote:


Walter Starck won't even come out and say it. Only you.

Quote:


What is your evidence of golden triangles again? How is that 'peating out'? Is it up to me to disprove your accusations about goldent triangles?

Quote:


No. I just guess that's why I haven't looked into the technical aspects yet.

So PJ, can we conclude that you have no direct evidence of these golden triangles?

Quote:


Well, for starter's we could leave this one in the trash where it belongs and move on to some of the other issues you raised.

Quote:


You don't need a wiki to point that out for you PJ. But what about this case? Are you saying that it would be possible to pressure all those marine scientists into lying and not get exposed?

Quote:


Can you quote them please?

And what is that agenda? Revealing the truth, or misleading the public? I am not aware of many charitable organisations that fund fundamental research, without demanding to own the results. If their agenda is anything but revealing the truth, they are going about it the wrong way.