Monday, February 08, 2010
Evidence based decision making
"At the end of the day" As Ruddy would say . most politicians are in no position to weigh up the evidence. Yet they will go out and try, anaction which highlights little more than their willingness to wear soem special clothes.
Kevins chants about evidence based actions ( so evident on Qand A 8th feb ) highlight the immaturity of the advice polys now recieve on complex science questions.
Mind you he is not alone. Richard Dawkins is not alone either(ABCTV Enemies of Reason 11pm) He can't quite see why reason alone is no longer enough.Yet reason alone is never enough ( its too greek) non scientists seem to more prone to forget it. Strangely Hawkins too is too quick to judge ( "i am going to find out why " when he probably will not . Paradoxically too ,Lateline's Niki has named the nail tonight - too greek .
Many in the west need to stop and stand back before they act - our knowledge is limited , but we are relucatnt to admit same .
The comfort zone for polys happens easily because most scientists do not operate across wide areas of risk . If they did, and the polys were listening, the scientists would be the fall guys. Are they not worthy of the honor ( perhaps its their white coats ?) Science has become politicized. Politicians almost seem to have become scientists - What does that say about Labor's respect agenda ? oh yeah!
In other words these non scientists carelessly venture where a angel like risk scientist would not dare to tread . They end up alone, talking about solving the immediate problems rather than picturing the future problem effectively. If their staff were infact experienced risk management students they would draw us to the future, not dictate to us about the present, as they are trying to do with the ETS.
Like Wong , Rudd thinks that the current debate is the ultimate debate, when most practical advisory scientists DO NOT change their tune ( whether its a ETS or Carbon Tax )and have a set position on both the problem and the range of possible solutions.
The action Now imperative nonsense leaves them standing in the soup without the protection talk which MUST go with knowledge of risk talk to win hearts .
For example Rudd used this line
"The hottest and driest continents on earth' is the reason WE must act NOW -but we all shower with fresh water , so where is the goverenmenets FULL commitment to seeking in a full story on resource use. Actions going in all directions but nowhere in particular.
Such full stories sell well, the stuck in a rutt ones do not . The attempt to defend action positions which you don't really understand or admit "are not perfect" a.....leave us all confused .
"I am not prepared to take the risk " Isn't he a brave man.
"Men measuring things for 20yrs means nothing , even if they wear white coats" It means that you may be ignoring those men wearing coats for 200 years. The ones who couldn't bear the politicization of science. The evidence is that the parliament has politicized the scientists.
Kevins chants about evidence based actions ( so evident on Qand A 8th feb ) highlight the immaturity of the advice polys now recieve on complex science questions.
Mind you he is not alone. Richard Dawkins is not alone either(ABCTV Enemies of Reason 11pm) He can't quite see why reason alone is no longer enough.Yet reason alone is never enough ( its too greek) non scientists seem to more prone to forget it. Strangely Hawkins too is too quick to judge ( "i am going to find out why " when he probably will not . Paradoxically too ,Lateline's Niki has named the nail tonight - too greek .
Many in the west need to stop and stand back before they act - our knowledge is limited , but we are relucatnt to admit same .
The comfort zone for polys happens easily because most scientists do not operate across wide areas of risk . If they did, and the polys were listening, the scientists would be the fall guys. Are they not worthy of the honor ( perhaps its their white coats ?) Science has become politicized. Politicians almost seem to have become scientists - What does that say about Labor's respect agenda ? oh yeah!
In other words these non scientists carelessly venture where a angel like risk scientist would not dare to tread . They end up alone, talking about solving the immediate problems rather than picturing the future problem effectively. If their staff were infact experienced risk management students they would draw us to the future, not dictate to us about the present, as they are trying to do with the ETS.
Like Wong , Rudd thinks that the current debate is the ultimate debate, when most practical advisory scientists DO NOT change their tune ( whether its a ETS or Carbon Tax )and have a set position on both the problem and the range of possible solutions.
The action Now imperative nonsense leaves them standing in the soup without the protection talk which MUST go with knowledge of risk talk to win hearts .
For example Rudd used this line
"The hottest and driest continents on earth' is the reason WE must act NOW -but we all shower with fresh water , so where is the goverenmenets FULL commitment to seeking in a full story on resource use. Actions going in all directions but nowhere in particular.
Such full stories sell well, the stuck in a rutt ones do not . The attempt to defend action positions which you don't really understand or admit "are not perfect" a.....leave us all confused .
"I am not prepared to take the risk " Isn't he a brave man.
"Men measuring things for 20yrs means nothing , even if they wear white coats" It means that you may be ignoring those men wearing coats for 200 years. The ones who couldn't bear the politicization of science. The evidence is that the parliament has politicized the scientists.
