[leps-talk] Releasers - Anne Kilmer couldn't possibly be more wrong!

Charles Bordelon legitintellexit at earthlink.net
Sat Apr 26 20:01:37 EDT 2003


While this is a beautiful and eloquent piece of writing, I see nowhere that
you have any evidence to back up your arguments...  cb
----- Original Message -----
From: "Neil Jones" <neil at nwjones.demon.co.uk>
To: <tils-leps-talk at yahoogroups.com>; <leps-l at lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2003 2:38 PM
Subject: [leps-talk] Releasers - Anne Kilmer couldn't possibly be more
wrong!


>
> 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
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
> Get A Free Psychic Reading!
> Your Online Answer To Life's Important Questions.
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/cjB9SD/od7FAA/AG3JAA/CCYolB/TM
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
>
> TILS Motto: "We can not protect that which we do not know" © 1999
>
> Subscribe:  TILS-leps-talk-subscribe at yahoogroups.com
> Post message: TILS-leps-talk at yahoogroups.com
> Archives: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TILS-leps-talk/messages
> Unsubscribe:  TILS-leps-talk-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
> For more information: http://www.tils-ttr.org
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>


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

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

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


More information about the Leps-l mailing list