tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5354570505974016585.post4473203360229275434..comments2023-12-27T05:56:10.287-08:00Comments on Denton Drilling: A Blog by Adam Briggle: Truth, Lies, and FrackingAdamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05658985227327961661noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5354570505974016585.post-34333397542819582722012-09-20T17:32:12.447-07:002012-09-20T17:32:12.447-07:00No, I think you are pushing a fair point here and ...No, I think you are pushing a fair point here and I appreciate it. I just think that when you say "science" or "the scientific method" or "the evidence" you make it sound more simple and homogenous than it is. There are often conflicting sciences, methods, and bodies of evidence. So, I agree that we need to base beliefs on evidence...but the question is which or whose evidence?Adamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05658985227327961661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5354570505974016585.post-67318342252081979252012-09-19T19:27:43.601-07:002012-09-19T19:27:43.601-07:00You are correct, you did not use the word "fe...You are correct, you did not use the word "feelings." You did, however, make the statement "So my plea to everyone engaged in this debate is to frame your position explicitly in terms of your values, especially about how you believe we ought to act under conditions of uncertainty."<br /><br />How should one "ought to act" under conditions of uncertainty? I contend that we should look at the evidence and make a decision on the information we have. You appear to argue against this by framing one's position based on values and beliefs.<br /><br />How would a position be formulated if it is to be based on values and beliefs? If a belief is not based on, or supported by, evidence - even with uncertainty - then it has been formulated by nothing more substantive than a feeling.<br /><br />Science - or the scientific method of collecting data - is the only way to base a policy dealing with public health and risk. The evidence seen, examined, and discussed is what should compel action. If what you believe is a risk is not supported by the data, and you have no grounds to discard that data, then the belief in the risk must be discarded instead.<br /><br />If I have misconstrued your statement on how a position should be formulated on the matter of shale gas policy, then I apologize.Jeff R. Bowmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09082453428089138555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5354570505974016585.post-50345762038800076122012-09-18T07:33:13.677-07:002012-09-18T07:33:13.677-07:00I agree that correlation is not causation - a poin...I agree that correlation is not causation - a point I make in my piece that I link to here, where I say "But what does it mean for shale gas policy? To claim, as some activists have, that this proves shale gas drilling causes cancer is to make the questionable cause fallacy. That area is home to lots of other environmental risks that could explain the finding." <br /><br />I appreciate your feedback, but I think you misrepresent my piece. I explicitly acknowledge the importance of science and I never counsel anyone to "ignore facts" and I don't use the word "feelings" at all. I think we disagree on the ability of science to compel policy action - that is a good disagreement and one that we can't resolve in the abstract (I think it will vary case to case). But let's at least be clear on where we disagree. Adamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05658985227327961661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5354570505974016585.post-66887302193435062912012-09-14T12:44:30.551-07:002012-09-14T12:44:30.551-07:00I am disappointed in the way you have gone about i...I am disappointed in the way you have gone about instructing your readers to ignore facts and instead base a position on values related on how one believes "we ought to act under conditions of uncertainty." <br /><br />To say that science should be relegated to a subsidiarity position because what counts as 'acceptable' is an "ethical and political one" completely misses the benefit science brings to determining what is, and is not, factual.<br /><br />You seem to be espousing the precautionary principle as the only way forward and ignoring what has been shown to be factual regarding oil and gas production using hydraulic fracturing because the evidence to support an outright ban is not there. You do this under the guise of uncertainty, which as a college professor, you know can never be eliminated.<br /><br />Science adds to the preponderance of evidence to which an informed decision can be made. You seem to ignore that premise and put in place one's feelings as the lamp to guide one's decisions on this topic.<br /><br />And what did you do to add more fuel to the fire of the uncertainty you seem to want to keep in place? You throw into the debate, using the credibility of the CDC, a report on the incidence of breast cancer in Texas. However, for reasons only you know as to why, you fail to tell your readers the probable reason, instead taking the truth-but-not-the-whole-truth way out by explaining "No one denied the CDC finding and no one claimed it proved a link between drilling and breast cancer."<br /><br />Why even put that out there if it was not intended as another way to sow the seeds of uncertainty?<br /><br />So I will frame my position in terms of the only value of worth, and that is the truth. <br /><br />The CDC found the highest incidence of invasive breast cancer in those counties. A true statement. The Barnett Shale represents 18 counties, a true statement you left out. You know what else you failed to tell your readers, that the CDC eludes to a possible reason for this by stating, and I quote; "Registry data also indicated that access to mammography screening in these counties was limited and that screening rates for breast cancer were low."<br /><br />That's a more likely reason for a higher incidence of invasive breast cancer.<br /><br />You know what else science has taught me? That correlation does not imply causation. A good scientist would never mislead his audience with other possible causes until the most likely one has been eliminated.<br /><br />Here is another truth: You don't have to lie to mislead.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Jeff R. Bowmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09082453428089138555noreply@blogger.com