greenbean36191
Premium Member
Steve, what you describe is happening, and it's plagued virtually every scientific discipline that affects public interests.
Scientists who work in a given field tend to be abreast of what the NGOs in their specialty are and aren't doing- not so much for average Joes (which includes scientist who aren't experts in that specialty). In the case of the ornamental reef fishery, of the groups you mentioned, the WWF is really the only one I think most fisheries managers or reef ecologists have a favorable view of. Generally, we don't pay much attention to what kind of information NGOs are putting out because it's not peer reviewed and we know they have vested interests. As we speak, some people are currently in hot water because they cited the WWF.
Unfortunately, the general public (which again includes scientists who aren't experts in that specialty) often take their word at face value because they don't know how to or don't care to check. They simply assume everyone is honest- at least as long as they're telling you what you want to hear
. This is one of my personal pet peeves, and until people get better at determining the reliability of sources I don't think the situation is going to get better.
When it comes to reef fisheries, the situation is ripe for misinformation and overstatement since there's so little data out there though. If WWF wants to have a bunch of volunteers go out and do reef assessments or analyze export logs and their conclusion is that we're overfishing, it's hard for us to say they're wrong because in a lot of cases that might be the only hard data there is. About all we can do is stress that the result is very preliminary and bring up any flaws we can spot in the methodology. Unfortunately, most people have no grasp of what preliminary findings are. They seem to think that once something gets published (especially if it's peer reviewed) it's accepted as true and the case is settled.
The NGOs also make a business out of blurring the lines between scientists speaking as experts and scientists speaking as regular citizens who happen to be scientists. We don't waive our right to have political opinions or champion causes when we get our degrees. Unfortunately, sometimes that makes it hard for people to distinguish between what we believe because of our expertise vs. what we believe about other areas.
For example, I'm a marine biologist, but my expertise is in reef ecology. If you asked me how I feel about commercial whaling I might say that I find it concerning, or heck I might even join Greenpeace and fight in an anti-whaling campaign if I was really concerned about it. An anti-whaling group would love to point to me as a marine biologist who thinks that whaling is of concern. However, the fact that I'm a marine biologist shouldn't give my view any more weight than the truck driver who is concerned about whaling since neither of us has any expertise on the subject- but it does. It's all a game of public perception.
Unfortunately, until people get a better handle on determining source credibility and their understanding of logic and the scientific process, I don't think there's really any practical solution. Given the trend towards agnotology lately I doubt that will happen any time soon.
Scientists who work in a given field tend to be abreast of what the NGOs in their specialty are and aren't doing- not so much for average Joes (which includes scientist who aren't experts in that specialty). In the case of the ornamental reef fishery, of the groups you mentioned, the WWF is really the only one I think most fisheries managers or reef ecologists have a favorable view of. Generally, we don't pay much attention to what kind of information NGOs are putting out because it's not peer reviewed and we know they have vested interests. As we speak, some people are currently in hot water because they cited the WWF.
Unfortunately, the general public (which again includes scientists who aren't experts in that specialty) often take their word at face value because they don't know how to or don't care to check. They simply assume everyone is honest- at least as long as they're telling you what you want to hear
. This is one of my personal pet peeves, and until people get better at determining the reliability of sources I don't think the situation is going to get better.When it comes to reef fisheries, the situation is ripe for misinformation and overstatement since there's so little data out there though. If WWF wants to have a bunch of volunteers go out and do reef assessments or analyze export logs and their conclusion is that we're overfishing, it's hard for us to say they're wrong because in a lot of cases that might be the only hard data there is. About all we can do is stress that the result is very preliminary and bring up any flaws we can spot in the methodology. Unfortunately, most people have no grasp of what preliminary findings are. They seem to think that once something gets published (especially if it's peer reviewed) it's accepted as true and the case is settled.
The NGOs also make a business out of blurring the lines between scientists speaking as experts and scientists speaking as regular citizens who happen to be scientists. We don't waive our right to have political opinions or champion causes when we get our degrees. Unfortunately, sometimes that makes it hard for people to distinguish between what we believe because of our expertise vs. what we believe about other areas.
For example, I'm a marine biologist, but my expertise is in reef ecology. If you asked me how I feel about commercial whaling I might say that I find it concerning, or heck I might even join Greenpeace and fight in an anti-whaling campaign if I was really concerned about it. An anti-whaling group would love to point to me as a marine biologist who thinks that whaling is of concern. However, the fact that I'm a marine biologist shouldn't give my view any more weight than the truck driver who is concerned about whaling since neither of us has any expertise on the subject- but it does. It's all a game of public perception.
Unfortunately, until people get a better handle on determining source credibility and their understanding of logic and the scientific process, I don't think there's really any practical solution. Given the trend towards agnotology lately I doubt that will happen any time soon.
