From: altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar)
Subject: Re: Case Example #1
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 06:04:19 GMT

young@alw.nih.gov (Jeff Young) writes:
>
> 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.
 
What arithmetic?  I've only presented a table of data for us to
inspect and allow to speak for itself.  Let us more modestly
observe that data is "good" to the extent that it is sufficient,
reliable, and valid for providing a provisional answer to those
research questions that one has started out with.  The
conclusions don't have to be "sweeping" to be interesting and
important and certainly the conclusions I've presented are not
very "sweeping" at all.
 
 
 
>  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.
 
Permit me to point out that with respect to empirical data a set
of numbers per se are not variables.  Of course, some numbers might
well represent a variable, or be interpreted as the
manifestations or markers of a variable.  In general, a
"variable" refers to some "quantity" or a set of mutually
exclusive "properties" (a property being something which
characterizes some things but not others), that may increase or
decrease.  Now, what variable, relevant to the thesis at hand, is
missing?  If it is winter survivor rates, then how does this
affect the thesis except to strengthen my point that fecundity
rates increase in response to their numbers being ravaged by
hunting.  If it is migration rates you are referring to, then
this could cut both ways.  Deer leave and others from the outside
may well enter the refuge.  Being situated in New Jersey,
however, which is mostly metropolitan, then large deer migrations
don't seem likely.  Please correct me if I am wrong, but do so
with facts and figures rather than `ipse dixit' assertions.
 
 
 
 
> 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.
 
Well, I did in fact read your more "comprehensive analysis" (two
paragraphs constitutes a "comprehensive analysis?) and I did not
see anything that was not already brought up by yourself or
somebody else, and, which in turn I thought I had already
addressed.
 
Your worries raised in your conclusion #1 concerning post-winter
survival rates and the number of migrating deer have already been
raised.  If you think you've made a novel point not already
addressed, please draw my attention to it.  It would be better,
however, for you to address the comments I've already made to
those criticisms rather than voice the same criticisms anew each
time.
 
  With respect to your single sentence comment in conclusion #2:
 
     "Or,   the study was designed correctly and was preformed
     and compiled     by blundering idiots.we simply have a derogatory 
 
This is simply a remark whose only purpose is to express your
unseemly derision.  Hardly is this a "comprehensive analysis".
 
 
 
>>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.
 
Again, I believe that it is well established that "density-
dependent factors do control population size" (Slobodkin, 1961).
 
One such factor would be predation which by way of the removal of
some animals increases the food available for others, thereby
increasing the reproductive rate.  The figures provided support
rather than contradict this relationship that the reproductive
rate of deer varies inversely with their population density.
If you have an alternative explanation for how these deer have
maintained their numbers in spite of this heavy new toll on their
population caused by hunting, then please state your alternative
hypothesis more explicitly.
 
Now, I've already provided some primary sources, which I hope you
will peruse, establishing the principle that deer fecundity rates
change with population densities.  Since the data provided
conform to that principle, then indeed it is reasonably to use
this data as an illustration of that principle, as well as, to
offer it as further support for the same principle (although it
is not needed).
 
If, for instance, migrations from the outlying areas is what you
propose, then how about providing some evidence to support this
alternative explanation.  It is possible that some influx of deer
from the outside could have helped to augment the population, but
look at the numbers again.  Do you really want to claim that this
near steady state of our deer in the Great Swamp Refuge was
maintained simply by immigrating deer from the outside?  If so,
then how about providing some data of your own to support this
more implausible alternative hypothesis.
 
Why is it implausible, you ask?  Well, I know that some hunters
are of the view that nature created deer so that they may have a
weekend hunting lark, but it is too much to believe (without
supporting evidence) that coincidental with the introduction of
hunting in 1974, deer migrations into the what was formerly a
safe "refuge" would steadily and markedly increase to maintain
the same population at pre-hunting levels.  I think it prudent to
first have some documented facts before we place our confidence
in a less plausible hypotheses at the expense of the more likely
one.
 
 
 
> 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.
 
Very good!  All that I ask is that we all become better informed
and not create phantoms of the positions we would reject without
first understanding.  Incidentally, I am critical of Singer's
utilitariamism even though his conclusions are very much the same
that I would support.
 
 
 
>  Do you read anything in opposition to animal
>  rights?  To understand  an issue one must understand both
sides
 
Yes, of course.   I've attended the talks of Jan Narveson and
David Gauthier, both competent philosophers who reject animals
rights for quite different reasons.  Indeed, I am exposed
everyday to the opposition by virtue of living in the same
society that would deny legitimacy to animal rights.  I think
that if one adopts an outlook which goes against the `status quo
ante' one must by necessity read the opposition as it is best
articulated.  To cite one example, I've read William Paton's book
"MAN & MOUSE: ANIMALS IN MEDICAL RESEARCH who would deny the
claim that animals have rights as based upon his appeal to the
authority of D. G. Ritchie's NATURAL RIGHTS (a book first
published in 1894 was which was not by any means universally
accepted even then).  I've also read some (not all) of Michael
Allen Fox's THE CASE FOR ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION: AN EVOLUTIONARY
AND ETHICAL PERSPECTIVE. 1986  While this is most likely the
single best case for animal experiments, I'm afraid that I not
likely to finish this book.  Why you ask?  Well, simply because
Fox himself, around 1990, completely retracted the anti-AR
position that he took in that book!  While it may take a while,
some people at least do change their minds in light of the
stronger arguments..
 
 
 
> - just how open-minded are you, Ted?  What percentage of the
> 3000 books which surround you have you allotted to the "other
> side?"
 
Is this a sincere question or are you just being derisive again.
First of all, the point of my even mentioning that I have some
books was not to be immodest but simply to provide a convenient
counter-example to our perfervid friend who simply and
authoritatively pronounced that all AR folk don't read books.
All I have to do simply cite one counter-example to such an
extreme stereotyping to provide a refutation.
 
 
 
>>>   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.
 
I'm sorry, but you did make up some numbers.  In attempting to
demonstrate how implausible my data must be, you postulated that
"the 19 bucks that were on the refuge in the fall of 1977 had
their hands full to impregnate 250 does".  Now, where does this
figure of 19 bucks come from?  Certainly, not from the numbers
I've provided.
 
 
 
>  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.
 
Evidently, in your mind, I am not "anything", so I guess
there is no point in disabusing you of your presumptuousness.
And here I thought that at last you would attempt a reasoned
and civil reply.
 
 
 
>>  Making up numbers?  I don't think so.  Asking a little more
>> algebra of you than you were ready for, maybe.
 
You just can't seem to refrain from further insults, can you?
Not at all very scholarly way to "comprehensively analyze"
the data I've presented.
 
 
 
>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.
 
Let it rest, Jeff.  I will again return in kind if you persist.