This blog is a year old tomorrow, the 14th April.
Interestingly there are comments at that first post from Walter Starck, Tim Lambert and Michael Duffy.
I have learnt a lot over the last year, especially about people and how they view different issues, and the knowledge and prejudices they often bring to a discussion.
I have been amazed at the web traffic this blog has generated. My Alexa rating is now 91,696. If this is any reflection of comparative traffic, my blog is now one of the most popular political blogs in Australia according to analyses in January by Tim Blair and Tim Lambert, click here. In fact, while my Alexa rating has improved dramatically over the last few months moving from 482,108 to 91,696, the other blogs mentioned at that post have not moved much with Tim Blair now on 42,756 (was 50,087), Catallaxy now on 238,196 (was 225,665) and Gravatt.org on 482,108 (was 488,606).
I would like to thank National Forum for hosting this site and advertising the blog at The Domain.
I am going to start using the subscribe facility at this website to send out a monthly email. I will perhaps include links to a few of the best blog posts for that month and information about what’s happening and where I might be speaking. So please log on, and register your email address by clicking here.
The blog costs me time and money and I am considering placing some advertisements at the site or asking for sponsorship.
The blog and website might be useful for advertising upcoming conferences in environment and related areas – doesn’t anybody know anybody who organises lots of conferences who might be interested?
The blog Larvatus Prodeo has a paypay for donations, maybe I could also add something like that?
There have been some comments, particularly at the global warming threads, suggesting I am pushing a particular perspective in my posts while others claim that I am too negative and always questioning rather than providing answers.
In response:
1. I repeat my offer to post essays at this blog from those with a very different perspective. I have posted different perspectives on whaling (including from Greenpeace and Libby Eyre) and I am more than happy to do the same on global warming.
2. According to Wikipedia: The Socratic method is a negative method of hypothesis elimination, in that better hypotheses are found by steadily identifying and eliminating those which lead to contradictions. It was designed to force one to examine his own beliefs and the validity of such beliefs. In fact, Socrates once said, “I know you won’t believe me, but the highest form of Human Excellence is to question oneself and others.”
Anyway, thanks for sharing your prejudices, evidence, insights, and stories with me over the last year – and may the reef be as beautiful, and autumn as warm, in April next year.
I leave tomorrow for a few days of camping on the New South Wales mid-north coast. But I will be back.
Best wishes for Easter, from the beach, East Coast of Australia.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
This is funny
Lambert says
You advocated the spraying of DDT in Sri Lanka after the tsunami even though it would have been completely useless since mosquitoes there developed resistance to DDT in the early 70s. This is the sort of thing that shows that you are not to be taken seriously on enviromental issues.
Me says
Has this knucklehead’s tone ever changed? It’s hysterical. Your very first post and he’s already attacking you.
Note the “pithy”, accusatory tone. He’s like that at everywhere.
Whatever you do, don’t mention DDT in front of him as it could send him off in one of those Manchurian candidate (going postal) seizures thingis.
Jennifer: I could say you can’t leave us pondering all this now, but keep your swelled end up in the surf, there sure will be bigger challenges on your return.
Enjoy!
Socrates wasn’t a professional industry apologist though.
“..Socrates jokes about his certainty of being able to make a fortune, if he chose to practise the art of pandering”
A very good idea and a noble aspiration, to examine your own beliefs and the validity of such beliefs.
Jennifer,
Have a great Easter and may your God be with you (apologies to Dave Allen).
The highest state of thinking is negativism – so when confronted with a novel phenomenon, the scientist would reject it on the basis of, then known, knowledge, and cognisant of the fact that while the new phenomenon did not fit existing theories, new theories might, concluded that the new phenomenon is not A or B etc.
The religious mind automatically classifies novel phenomena according to preconceptions.
The irony is that we cannot distinguish the religious bigots among us unless we have also scientists.
So Phil Done, Ender, Tninksi (or whatever noms de plume this individual writes under) have s useful function here.
It’s really interesting that Louis never stays to debate any of his theories. Jumps to hyperspace before he gets cornered or has to make a substantive argument. And it’s also fascinating that he actually thinks he’s in the role of Galileo. And also very interesting that it’s about religious zealotry and commie politics – when the trio named above rarely mention such things. A past cold war still alive in his mind. What a very confident person Louis is – so utterly sure of everything. But I’m sure he’s not deterred by our meagre efforts in debate and so I encourage him to keep going. A vital addition to the blogsphere. But be careful – we wouldn’t want any cognitive shocks into reality spoiling his day.
Jen – which draws me to conclude after your first year on-line.. .. I’m not sure we’ve gotten anywhere. It’s probably a good spectacle for the lurkers – and you do get your share of links and information – (thanks all!) – but given we live in a democratic society – you need to bring most people with you. The blog in its first year has reinforced the divisions between us. And little attempt to build bridges or arrive at compromise. Maybe you can’t have a half a whale to eat and half to watch.
A glimmer of hope arrived at with Ian Castles below. Perhaps interpreted by myself as giving the contrarians on AGW more an audience and a seat in the meetings. And an interesting comment by Ian about calculating risk regardless being worthwhile and a throw perhaps to systems analysis – which those of us on either side may share some agreement.
So contemplate year two – divisions reinforced? Still taking a null nulla to the dumb commie scumbag low-life greenies or an attempt to build a pathway through?
Happy Easter and have a good surf. The strangest inpirations occur in some dumpers. Tell us if you find a perfect wave.
Never having enunciated a theorey, little wonder I did not stay to debate a nothing.
Phil advances his theories and challenges those to debate them saying, as Coby does, that the burden of proof now lies with you.
Failure to then debate your own scepticism is then seen as a victory for rational thought.
Just a tactic
Jennifer,
I hope you enjoy your well-deserved vacation.
Joe,
Your notion of DDT-resistant mosquitoes is laughable. The “resistant” mosquitoes are resistant because they *avoid* areas with DDT. Insect tropisms and all that, so sad for your agenda.
Friends generally,
Here’s some advice about dealing with activists in general and *ksi in particular. Activists appear to partake in scientific discussions, but their involvement in discourse at that level is for the *sole* purpose of seeing *what side you are on.*
When you mention a fact they don’t like, that makes you an opponent.
That seems simple, but it’s actually subtle. Activists insert themselves into debates where the science is not settled enough to make clear who is dead wrong. In such a situation, activists always say, “Well, at least I am properly concerned, as opposed to those who fail to worry that the sky is falling.”
In such a debate situation, anyone who asks for facts and logic is cast as uncaring and probably in the pay of etc., and a shill for whoever. Even worse, resisting shrill unfounded alarms marks one as an “opponent” of lovely, darling, beautiful, biodiverse etc. and so forth.
Play by the rules of that debate and you’ll lose every time. *ksi and others don’t care about true or false, they just want to pick sides and fight.
Schiller.
It appears that Louis believes in the existence of a (perfectly?) rational scientific mind (past exchanges suggest this is only applicable to the minds of scientists he agrees with). Rhetorical q: is there rational scientific evidence of such a purely rational mind that’s devoid of the preconceptions that plague religious minds?
Phil is unsure of having gotten anywhere. Probably unlikely to ever go anywhere either. How many participants in this blog are actually open to a balanced exchange? How many commenters will admit to learning from a commenter they debate? How many refrain from making blanket generalisations about ‘the other side’? Is anyone here open to a paradigm shift?
Socratic dialogue can never take place if the participants have an entrenched win-lose mindset. It doesn’t occur if there’s (unconstructive) criticism, put-downs and outright rejection of other perspectives as there is on this blog. It doesn’t take place without an impartial moderator/guide and there is no such guide here. A socratic dialogue requires a keen willingness to critically examine and adjust your own beliefs, not just those of others. The latter happens regularly here, but the former?
I have at times gained a lot from the exchanges on this blog and I thank those commenters, but it has diminished as most participants have shown repeatedly that they aren’t interested in having learning exchanges. Now I consider that it’s largely a waste of time of prepare thoughtful and well-researched comments like I would do months ago.
I fail to see how any participant on this blog could seriously believe that they embody the highest state of thinking or active application of the socratic method. Mostly, I think there is a sad waste of potentially valuable learning exchanges here.
What a load of codswallop from Joe, Rog and Schiller. More of the same tired old Cold War clap trap arguments. Guys if you don’t know about DDT resistance in insects you must have been having a vacation on Mars in the last 30 years.
Google Scholar alone reveals 1,970 articles on DDT + mosquitos + resistance
All this righteous talk about scepticism – how about blatant stupidity and right wing ignorance of the worst order more like it.
Activists argue from a position of confidence. Bolstered by self-righteousness, they are, by implication, prevented from self-doubt.
How many of contributors to Jennifer’s blog are motivated to at least keep the debate balanced? A social dynamic that ensures the status quo by uncompromising extremes, that never the twain shall meet.
Louis and Phil personify this irreconcilable righteousness and yet both, if they could only admit it, argue to notions of equal (albeit incongrous) validity.
Louis: “The irony is that we cannot distinguish the religious bigots among us unless we have also scientists.”
Phil: “The blog in its first year has reinforced the divisions between us. And little attempt to build bridges or arrive at compromise.”
Perhaps both should revisit http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/000656.html
Good one Neil, I would never make an activist (eg a greenpeace type), public lobbyist or a politician because they need this unwavering confidence to argue a consistent b&w position – frequently without regard to new data that comes to light. The manner of this blog does tend to pigeonhole people and push them to argue a fairly fixed position, unfortunately.
Following Niel’s comment, to raise an interesting question from last year:
***What do you believe that you cannot prove?***
(it doesn’t need a public reply, but it’s a good question to mull over)
What do you believe that you cannot prove?
Music is good for the soul…….
Cats are more understanding than some of our fellows………..
Sgt. Schiller Says:
Your notion of DDT-resistant mosquitoes is laughable. The “resistant” mosquitoes are resistant because they *avoid* areas with DDT. Insect tropisms and all that, so sad for your agenda.
I don’t have an agenda.
Pure science can’t save us from our folly………
As usual Schiller you have made an oustanding contribution. To people like you an activist is someone who doesn’t see things from your point of view, agree with your opinion, walk in your foot steps. You are a hypocrite with no tolerance for others and their opinion’s and do little to engage in debate on this blog or inspire or inform.
Phil: Always keep your opponents off their pet topic like joe with his DDT
A thread or two back joe was lost on Santobrite, didn’t have a clue. Joe didn’t Google either it seems (where DDT is a pesticide, the other and its various trade names belong to a group of very long term fungicides).
Joe: This was about long term effects, observations and proper standards…….
Phil: There are a lot of contributors to the climate debate that haven’t got a handle on physics either; meantime they wait for some other goon to make their observations and interpretations.
Neil; When someone starts a thread with PhD, I go looking for a hammer literally, this relates partly to a time when a rather senior policeman reckoned I couldn’t sharpen a badly chipped axe on a bench grinder after a bushfire.
After working with an old fashioned blacksmith for a while you realize what academia misses. They can’t teach you how to wield a 14 pounded, round or over, bam, bam, bam!
Pinxi and Travis; an activist is someone we know who trusts we can both do better and tries to remain in themselves tireless, on and on.
Rog: A crusading hardliner goes way beyond and sometimes chills or burns on their way out.
Posted in another long thread by mistake
That variety and diversity (among human cultures as well as other organisms) is the spice of life.
***What do you believe that you cannot prove?***
That participating on this blog is not a waste of time.
(probably warrants an application of the precautionary principle)
OK – so what topics don’t we touch much. Maybe some changes for Year II?
Rangelands don’t get much of a run.
Birds – reckon Rog likes birdies.
Insecticides and herbicides aren’t as prominent as they used to be as issues (DDT excluded)
Water resources – allocations, environmental flows, aquatic ecology
Soil acidification – non existent
Ornamental weeds from nurseries
Mining pollution issues
So – is there an IPA checklist of topics?
“How many commenters will admit to learning from a commenter they debate?”
Pinxi , I’ve no problem admitting to learning a lot of information from commenters at the blog.The links are useful and I have changed my views on AGW.
But I’ve learned little new about politics.
I absolutely agree that the test of an open mind is the genuine capacity for paradigm shift ( awful word – a curse on HR Managers wherever they reign)when new facts become apparent.
Because both sides of the debate on AGW for example so often demonstrate a refusal to make any concession to their position on this blog.
To give Jennifer her credit , she is the most tolerant and honourable host I’ve come across. There is a plurality here that isn’t common.
But that doesn’t change the fact that the AGW and DDT debate for example are so obviously political that a concern for genuine dispassionate scientific fearlessness is hardly misplaced.
A happy Easter break to you all.
Jennifer,
Congratulations on keeping the blog going for a year and providing a forum for us. I imagine it’s bloody hard work on your part.
Keep it up, please.
You Hybrid car post is off the front page list but here as interesting link showing these cars sometimes are wasteful on petrol
http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/003373.html#003373
enjoy fishin
d
ionolsen23 Very good site. Thanks for author!
c13cefc3a2a1 Good theme
1edb79f8cc5c Hi