SailGP

[Black Panther 1,591]

 

[K4309 268]

17 minutes ago, Black Panther said:

 

That fairly much proves my point BP.

Scientists can describe gravity, and quantify it, but they can't explain it.

So, what causes gravity?

[Black Panther 1,591]

 

[Black Panther 1,591]

1 hour ago, K4309 said:

That fairly much proves my point BP.

Scientists can describe gravity, and quantify it, but they can't explain it.

So, what causes gravity?

You're sounding like a religious zealot. Using that circular argument no one can explain anything. However science has given us a far greater understanding of many things than anything that came before. Science works

[Black Panther 1,591]

 

[Psyche 634]

10 hours ago, K4309 said:

That fairly much proves my point BP.

Scientists can describe gravity, and quantify it, but they can't explain it.

So, what causes gravity?

Dolphins?

[DrWatson 378]

12 hours ago, K4309 said:

That is if said dolphin doesn't get scared off by the racket of these foils, and can't get out of the way of something that is moving just as fast as it's natural predator (while making a massive racket).

Huge assumptions here are that dolphins will know to stay away from the thing that’s making the huge racket, that said huge racket won’t confuse them, and  that the visual identification of a big arse flying machine dragging it’s razor blade appendages in the water as an identifiable danger will be made by the dolphin. The approach speed may be the same but picking up an orca on your sonar or visually is going to be easier than picking up set of foils that have the frontal projection area of a toothpick.  

The BOI issue is different because the dolphins are/were starving - not being run down by a fleet of 5knt crappers.

Lastly, humans have been using the “I don’t think that preserving nature should disrupt economic activity” argument for quite a long time now and look how screwed we are. 
 

 

[K4309 268]

10 hours ago, Black Panther said:

You're sounding like a religious zealot. Using that circular argument no one can explain anything. However science has given us a far greater understanding of many things than anything that came before. Science works

If I were a religious zealot I'd be proudly supporting the current genocide going on like all the other religious zealots, and sending more bombs, but I digress.

This little segway about science explaining gravity started because of the refrain to only use peer reviewed scientific papers to win the discussion about dolphins and boats, instead of just applying some logic. People often reach for the old 'peer reviewed scientific papers' in the hope that it is some sort of infallible fact. Science is by far incomplete in terms of our understanding of many things. There are examples of science being completely wrong many times in recent history.

In modern times (the covid era) the scope of scientific studies is often wrong, or limited, and then the results of said study are taken wildly out of context, mostly on social media but occasionally even by govts. Said results are paraded as facts when they are often nothing more than a distraction.

I was merely highlighting this by pointing out that science still can't explain the mechanism that causes gravity. It is just a whole lot more succinct way of setting out what I've said above.

This all boils down to the impact on the Sail GP on the presence of the dolphins. I was of the understanding that there were only a few hundred Hectors Dolphins, not 15,000 (possibly as much as 18,000). That a population of those numbers is classified as endangered is still taking a bit for me to get my head around. It sounds more like an issue with the classifications than an issue with the population.

[Black Panther 1,591]

It the mortality rate exceeds the fertility rate by 1000 p a then in 15 years they are all gone. Permanently. 

[aardvarkash10 968]

7 hours ago, K4309 said:

In modern times (the covid era) the scope of scientific studies is often wrong, or limited, and then the results of said study are taken wildly out of context, mostly on social media but occasionally even by govts. Said results are paraded as facts when they are often nothing more than a distraction

is this a case in point? 😁

[DrWatson 378]

9 hours ago, K4309 said:

In modern times (the covid era) the scope of scientific studies is often wrong, or limited,

No

 

2 hours ago, aardvarkash10 said:

and then the results of said study are taken wildly out of context,

Yes, and you also pretty much did exactly the same with this statement in general. 
 

You took an idea (a subjective idea) presented it as a fact and made it general.

 

The greatest issue with scientific studies is that science is hard and it does take a lot of knowledge, and brain power to  evaluate the work - that’s why we use peer review, and don’t simply allow Larry and Sindy from X - formerly known at Twatter - and their millions of stupid idolisers to determine what’s true and what’s not. Popularity is not peer review.

Additionally, many people are very fond of throwing the word “fact” around without understanding that science doesn’t generate facts, it assesses the evidence and explains the topic using the available evidence. 
 

Common sense may or may not be aligned with truth and the evidence. It’s just common, popular, and can  simply be a poor (mis)interpretation of the evidence that was never updated as more complete evidence was uncovered.

[K4309 268]

1 hour ago, DrWatson said:

No

 

Yes, and you also pretty much did exactly the same with this statement in general. 
 

You took an idea (a subjective idea) presented it as a fact and made it general.

 

The greatest issue with scientific studies is that science is hard and it does take a lot of knowledge, and brain power to  evaluate the work - that’s why we use peer review, and don’t simply allow Larry and Sindy from X - formerly known at Twatter - and their millions of stupid idolisers to determine what’s true and what’s not. Popularity is not peer review.

Additionally, many people are very fond of throwing the word “fact” around without understanding that science doesn’t generate facts, it assesses the evidence and explains the topic using the available evidence. 
 

Common sense may or may not be aligned with truth and the evidence. It’s just common, popular, and can  simply be a poor (mis)interpretation of the evidence that was never updated as more complete evidence was uncovered.

But there isn't any science in this issue.

Coutts has been told he can't hold SailGP in Feb cause of dolphins.

We aren't talking nuclear fusion of metaphysics here. At best we are talking local bylaws, in that he wants to hold a yacht race in a commercial port, that also has a legislative overlay as a marine sanctuary. 

We are told the dolphins are endangered. 'Endangered' isn't a scientific fact, it is a human construct based on opinion. Sure the death rate might be higher than the birth rate, then again it might not be (I haven't seen the peer reviewed scientific report), but at 15,000 these dolphins aren't at imminent risk of extinction. The Maui dolphin is clearly endangered and at imminent risk of extinction. Hectors aren't.

The science element came into this thread cause CD wanted to see peer reviewed sceintific papers to hold a yacht race. I called nonsense on that. Now everyone, including yourself seem to be conflating astro-physics and cancer cures (peer reviewed scientific research) with wether or not a yacht race can go ahead. 

I'm a bit surprised so many intelligent folk need to use 'peer reviewed scientific research' as a crutch for supporting decisions that have very little to do with sceince and everything to do with regulations, restrictions and economic prosperity for our country.

 

[Black Panther 1,591]

55 minutes ago, K4309 said:

human construct based on opinion. Sure the death rate might be higher than the birth rate, then again it might not be (I haven't seen the peer reviewed scientific report), but at 15,000 these dolphins aren't at imminent risk of extinction. The Maui dolphin is clearly endangered and at imminent risk of extinction. Hectors aren't.

All pure speculation. If the population is decreasing ( as it has been for quite a while) we can say with a lot of certainty that mortality exceeds fertility and they are at risk of extinction, certainly endangered.

[Black Panther 1,591]

10sec on Google

 

Are Hector's dolphins endangered?

 

 

Endangered (Population decreasing)

Hector's dolphin/Conservation status

There has been a 74% overall Hector's dolphin decline and a 90% loss for Māui dolphin over just three generations. Hector's dolphins are now facing extinction.

[Priscilla II 392]

On 15/04/2024 at 10:29 PM, Black Panther said:

You're sounding like a religious zealot. Using that circular argument no one can explain anything. However science has given us a far greater understanding of many things than anything that came before. Science works

Only sometimes.

Despite the continuing popularity of the theory, essentially every prediction of the Big Bang theory has been increasingly contradicted by better and better data, as shown by many teams of researchers. The observations are, on the other hand, consistent with a non-expanding universe with no Big Bang.

[DrWatson 378]

9 hours ago, K4309 said:

I'm a bit surprised so many intelligent folk need to use 'peer reviewed scientific research' as a crutch for supporting decisions that have very little to do with sceince and everything to do with regulations, restrictions and economic prosperity for our country.

Science is not a crutch. The regulations are a result of the scientific evidence of the population decline. That science is peer reviewed. In this case the reports of Mackenzie and Clement have been reviewed by their peers, the Scientific Committee of the ICW.

"15.3.3.1 REVIEW OF ABUNDANCE ESTIMATES

The Committee agreed at last year’s meeting to review the abundance estimates for Hector’s dolphins intersessionally (IWC, 2016t, p.365). A formal process was established intersessionally following IWC procedures for such review including the creation of an Intersessional Expert Group (IEG) and an Intersessional Correspondence Group (ICG). The IEG consisted of independent experts who were asked to review the abundance estimates produced by Mackenzie and Clement (2014a; 2014b; 2016a; 2016b). The ICG was available in an advisory role for the IEG. The IEG report describes this in more detail and can be found in Annex M, appendix 2.

Palka presented a summary of the IEG report. The IEG reviewed the Mackenzie and Clement (2014a; 2014b; 2016a; 2016b) papers which estimated the abundance of Hector’s dolphins around the South Island, New Zealand (excluding sounds and harbours) to be 14,849 (CV:11%; 95% CI 11,923-18,492).

The IEG recognised that this study accounted for many difficulties that also affect other small cetacean abundance estimation studies using aerial surveys. It commended the ambitious and often innovative work undertaken by the authors to attempt to deal with all of those issues. After an in-depth review of the survey design, analyses and results, the IEG endorsed the abundance estimates and concluded that the estimates accurately reflected the data, were derived from appropriate data collection and analysis methods, and represented the most current abundance estimate for Hector’s dolphins around the South Island. Thus, they believed that it follows that it would be reasonable to use them to inform a management plan. The IEG also considered this study to be a step forward in the development of survey methodology more generally. Full details of the discussion within SM concerning the IEG report can be found in its respective section in Annex M." - From -J. CETACEAN RES. MANAGE. 18 (SUPPL.), 2017 "Report of the [IWC] Scientific Committee" from the ICW meeting from 7-19 June 2016. 

 

Mackenzie, D. and Clement, D. 2014a. Abundance and distribution of ECSI Hector’s dolphin. New Zealand Aquatic Environment and Biodiversity Report No. 123 to the Ministry for Primary Industries: 79pp.

Mackenzie, D. and Clement, D. 2014b. Abundance and distribution of ECSI Hector’s dolphin - supplementary material. New Zealand Aquatic Environment and Biodiversity Report No. 123 to the Ministry for Primary Industries: 79pp.

Mackenzie, D. and Clement, D. 2016a. Abundance and distribution of WCSI Hector’s dolphin. New Zealand Aquatic Environment and Biodiversity Report No. 1168 to the Ministry for Primary Industries: 79pp.

Mackenzie, D. and Clement, D. 2016b. Abundance and distribution of WCSI Hector’s dolphin - supplementary material. New Zealand Aquatic Environment and Biodiversity Report No. 1168 to the Ministry for Primary Industries: 79pp.

 

Hamner, R.M., Constantine, R., Oremus, M., Stanley, M., Brown, P. and Baker, C.S. 2014a. Long-range movement by Hector’s dolphins provides potential genetic enhancement for critically endangered Māui’s dolphin. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 30(1): 139-53

Davies, N.M., Bian, R., Starr, P., Lallemand, P., Gilbert, D.A. and McKenzie, J. 2008. Risk analysis for Hector’s dolphin and Māui’s dolphin subpopulations to commercial set net fishing using a temporal-spatial age-structured model. Ministry of Fisheries, Wellington, New Zealand. [Available at: www.fish.govt.nz/en-nz/Consultations/Hector+new/default. htm].

[DrWatson 378]

9 hours ago, K4309 said:

I'm a bit surprised so many intelligent folk need to use 'peer reviewed scientific research'

This is because that's what intelligent folk do. They know they don't know everything, so they reach out to experts who know more than they do.

[Black Panther 1,591]

1 hour ago, Priscilla II said:

Only sometimes.

Despite the continuing popularity of the theory, essentially every prediction of the Big Bang theory has been increasingly contradicted by better and better data, as shown by many teams of researchers. The observations are, on the other hand, consistent with a non-expanding universe with no Big Bang.

Tell us who said this and when and what was being referenced. 

Meanwhile

 

[CarpeDiem 430]

To me, it feels unintelligent to conclude, that because we don't know why gravity works we shouldn't trust the science behind counting dolphins. 

[aardvarkash10 968]

11 minutes ago, CarpeDiem said:

To me, it feels unintelligent to conclude, that because we don't know why gravity works we shouldn't trust the science behind counting dolphins. 

perhaps this might assist those afflicted types