And the style of each may not be too important, as long as the two fit together comfortably. The scientific process is often described as an iterative dance between empirical observation, hypothesis formation and model building, followed by more observations, and so on. Those models described in common language are best suited for explanation while those described in the more precise language of mathematics are better at prediction. CQS was formed largely because fisheries is an applied science, and as such, demanded predictive models. No one has been more confident than the famous French mathematician Laplace, who about 200 years ago boasted that if he knew all the initial conditions he could specify the future states of nature.
Modern scientists are more skeptical.
While I think most scientists today would side more with Gould's view than Laplace's, our political leaders seem more inclined to side with Laplace. Such laws tacitly assume that modern science can translate these legislative goals into suitable mathematical objective functions and has the necessary modeling tools to determine how best to achieve them. The Act ordains that its environmental goals must be achieved. I suspect that many in this audience have at some point in their career been one of these low visibility decision-makers. There certainly is no shortage of controversial issues in fishery management.