From: young@alw.nih.gov (Jeff Young)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Case Example #1
Date: 6 Apr 92 14:41:31 GMT
Organization: National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD


young@alw.nih.gov (Jeff Young) writes:

[who cares - deleted]

Ted replied:>

[who cares - deleted]

Jeff answers: 

[who cares - deleted]

Ted replied:>


Boy, aren't we insulting today.  Look, I am not interested in idle 
fantasies when there is good data available. 

	The point is that this isn't good data.  You say it is
	and then preform some arithmetic on the data and pronounce
	sweeping conclusions.  I say it isn't because you've 
	left out some important numbers - let's call them variables
	 - and that without these numbers your simple arithmetic 
	becomes more complex algebra.  

 If you are going to insist on silly assumptions about 19 bucks 
busy with 231 does to produce 321 fawns, then I can only conclude 
that you are more interested in reconstructing facts to suit you stubborn preconceptions instead of allowing facts to inform your conceptions.  

	I retract my original statement.  I stand corrected.  It is
	more than possible it is probable that a herd of 269 can
	produce 231 fawns (read 231).  Now read the more comprehensive
	analysis of your data that I posted (which was completely
	ignored) if you wish to continue this discussion.  Is it likely
	that the herd would continue to reproduce at this rate if
	the environmental conditions remain constant?  

I've already cited
one primary source (viz. David Black) who reported on Severinghaus's
study of White-tailed Deer in which, for instance, 60% had twins, 33% 
had 1 young and 7% had triplets.  Why do you want to assume that 100% 
of the does had only 1 young apiece?  Because you don't want to believe 
the evidence that deer can regulate their fecundity rates in order
to maintain their population at a near steady state?

	Because your data does not support this claim.  If your claim
	is that deer regulate their rate of reproduction in response
	to their environment I will agree.  When food is plentiful, 
	deer are prolific. If you say that they will regulate their 
	rate of reproduction in response to hunting, you'll have to 
	provide more complete data.

Yes, go ahead, insult my reading ability again, but how about 
first doing some actual reading on your own.  

	I insulted you reading ability because you ignored what I
	had written and accused me of making up numbers.

	I've just started Singer's book and the "Sexual Politics of
	Meat"  I can only digest so much at a time.  I just finished
	"Eco-Warriors" and "Animal Rights - Opposing Views" which I 
	highly recommend.  Do you read anything in opposition to animal
 	rights?  To understand  an issue one must understand both sides 
	- just how open-minded are you, Ted?  What percentage of the
	3000 books which surround you have you allotted to the "other
	side?"
 
At least I've provided some references where you can check what I am 
saying for yourself.  I'm not asking you to take my word
for it; just do some reading.

	I wouldn't assume that anyone would be stupid enough to post
	false numbers to this group.  I don't need to check your
	numbers, I do need to check your conclusions.


 
>>   Sounds as if someone
>>   has looked long and hard to find a study which would support
>>   a claim - but then ar has nothing to do with good science.
> 
>And your making up numbers and precluding right at the start
>that this study is invalid, or must invariantly be irrelevantly
>atypical, is called "good science"?
> 
	Ted, I didn't make the numbers up, you provided them.
	If you want to ignore the variables and just do simple
	arithmetic, so be it.  Your not an Engineering professor
	or anything are you?  Let's just say I'd like to know
	if you've designed any structures that I may want to 
	avoid.
> 
> 	Making up numbers?  I don't think so.  Asking a little more
>	algebra of you than you were ready for, maybe.  They're
>	your numbers, I was only trying to show that they're not
>	a stable set of numbers that I would base any conclusions
>	on.  There's more in a second post.  I also gave some improv-
>	ments that must be made before I could base any conclusions
>	on your numbers.

Jeff, if you're going to persist upon making unintelligent slurs upon 
my ability, then so be it.  First of all, there was no algebraic
manipulations in your irrelevant calculations, only simply arithmetic 
predicated on the silly assumption that each and every doe is only going 
to birth one and only one fawn. 

	In the future I will try to refrain from making light of the 
	mathematically or the grammatically challenged.

 Well, since you don't know the difference 
between algebra and arithmetic I guess it is not too surprising that you
might know even less about how to assess descriptive statistics.

                                            ted

	Unless your a math/engineering prof or a theoretical physicist
	I'm not conceding to my math background to someone who ignores
	variables.
	
	With this data and your conclusion, do you intend to make the
	assertion that culling is not necessary, in fact it is detrimental
	to the herd in this National Forest?
--
___________	
	jy
	young@heart.dcrt.nih.gov