Releasers - Anne Kilmer couldn't possibly be more wrong!

[Neil Jones]

Anne Kilmer wrote :-
"As far as I know, commercial breeders have addressed the problems that 
NABA cites"

Anne couldn't possibly be more wrong!

I suspect what I have to say may produce an emotional response this is not my 
intention . I am speaking as an honest scientific type.

The IBBA has singularly and totally failed to address NABA's concerns. It is 
obvious, clear and unequivocal. This is strong language but it is motivated 
by absolute logical reality. If my response angers you please accept that 
this is not my intention. I have  known this stuff since I was a little kid. 
To me it is so simple that I find it extraordinarily frustrating when other 
people cannot see it.

The argument the IBBA propose  is fatally flawed.  For me to explain this it 
is necessary for me to delve back into the origins of modern science, to a 
concept at its very base. 

Let us examine one of the fundamental concepts advocated by the IBBA and its 
members. Continuously repeated by the membership this mantra is a central 
tenet of their philosophy.

"There is  no evidence that releases do any harm".

For  the purpose of making the point I will concentrate on the question  of 
disease, but it applies equally to any of the aspects. This argument  is 
flawed.  So old and basic is this fallacy  that it even has a name in Latin!

 - "Argumentum ad Ignorantiam" - An Argument from Ignorance. 

Put simply the argument fails because "Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of 
Absence"

To explain this further let me advance the following similar but false 
argument. " The SARS virus can do me no harm." and the false basis for this 
argument "There is no evidence that a Welshman has ever been infected by the 
virus." Using this flawed logic since I am a Welshman I cannot be harmed by 
it, since there is no evidence that I can.
Of course this argument is complete rubbish. SARS is new so there has rarely 
been an opportunity for my fellow countrymen to be exposed, but it directly 
parallels the releasers argument on disease.

NABA are perfectly right to argue that the IBBA are wrong. Such a basic flaw 
in  logic can only indicate one of two things. The proposer is either trying 
deliberately to mislead, or is incompetant at the very basics and 
fundamentals of science. I'm sorry if this upsets people. Logic is neither 
polite nor impolite it just exists. It is no more related to feeling than the 
eight times table. If you can spot a flaw in my logic we can debate it 
civilly.

Putting it simply if you use this argument from ignorance you are displaying 
to the world what can at best only be described as incompetance. 

We know very very little about butterfly diseases.  I once spent several days 
in the British Library going through abstract journals by literally the 
trolley load. I examined hundreds of them trying to find information on the 
wild ecology of one of the best known insect pathogens, Bacillus 
thurigiensis. I did not find a single paper that dealt with its natural 
behaviour in the wild. (The only thing I have ever see in a brief mention of 
a Bacillus causing disease in Papilio homerus, The endangered Jamaican 
Swallowtail) If anyone knows of any please tell me!

Since we know so little it is foolish to claim there is no evidence of an 
effect. Nobody is looking!

Finally, in my defence, if you think my language is strong on this, Bob Pyle 
is on record as describing releasers arguments as "biological crap". That is 
a rational, logical, scientists view of it. One with a Phd in Butterfly 
Ecology from Yale too.


-- 
Neil Jones- Neil at nwjones.demon.co.uk http://www.butterflyguy.com/
"At some point I had to stand up and be counted. Who speaks for the
butterflies?" Andrew Lees - The quotation on his memorial at Crymlyn Bog
National Nature Reserve

 
 ------------------------------------------------------------ 

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl