The Editor speaks: When Scientific Evidence is not really evidence at all
Last September 15th we published a PR from the Central Caribbean Marine Insitute titled “ CCMI urges close look at downstream and long-lasting impacts to the Island by proposed George Town Dock whilst there is still time” at: http://www.ieyenews.com/wordpress/cayman-ccmi-urges-close-look-at-downstream-and-long-lasting-impacts-to-the-island-by-proposed-george-town-dock-whilst-there-is-still-time/
There was scientific evidence provided by the CCMI to suggest that if the proposed cruise ship berthing facility is executed as planned it COULD cause detrimental impacts to Seven Mile Beach and the coral reef ecosystem in the George Town area. The Institute urges “all stakeholders to really take stock whilst there is still time”.
Included in their PR (called a Statement) is another “statement statistics, facts and justification”.
When you read it there indeed “facts” but most is certainly not “scientific evidence”.
Hot on the heels of the above comes a PR from the Office of the Premier titled “Scientific Evidence Refutes CCMI claims regarding impact to SMB”. Please see iNews Cayman story published today under that title.
Included in the PR is another release with the “scientific evidence”.
This “evidence” completely refutes the previous “evidence”.
How can both “evidences” be different?
Because the supplied “evidence” isn’t evidence at all. It is an opinion based on largely the viewpoint you have. What is perceived is NOT evidence.
Evidence must be the same. It must reach the same conclusion.
In a study conducted by Nathan F. Dieckmann and Branden B. Johnson and released on Feb 7 2019 under the title “Why do scientists disagree? Explaining and improving measures of the perceived causes of scientific disputes” they have evaluated the reasons. (See https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0211269).They found three distinct groups containing reasoning factors – Process/Competence, Interests/Values, and Complexity/Uncertainty.
They conclude:
“Overall, science dispute reasons appear to be more strongly driven by attitudes and worldviews as opposed to objective knowledge and skills.”
They are more detailed under the subtitle – “The causes of expert disagreement”
“Why do scientists disagree in the first place? One set of potential causes focuses on the experts themselves. One or more of the experts may be making an inaccurate claim because of incompetence (i.e., they are not experts at all [5]) and/or the fundamental limits of human judgment, or they may be intentionally or unintentionally biasing claims because of idiosyncratic attitudes, beliefs, or personal interests. Another expert-focused cause might be different methodological choices that stem from individual scientists’ skills or preferences, or from historical developments in their respective fields or sub-disciplines. Alternatively, disagreements among experts within scientific fields may be due to irreducible uncertainty of the world itself and could be conceived of as a part of the normal process of science. From this perspective, it is inevitable that experts will disagree when confronting complex and uncertain real-world problems. It is the complexity and inherent uncertainty of the world that leads to disagreements about how to conceptualize problems, the research methods that should be used, etc. From a conceptual standpoint, these various expert- and world-focused reasons are neither logically nor practically mutually exclusive. For any given dispute among scientists there might be multiple causes, and these causes might differ from one dispute to another.”
Therefore, my final word is.
Take both PR’s, along with their scientific evidence, as worth nothing more, than a grain of salt.
