Comment by laughingcurve
7 months ago
“I do not like the results!” Or “The result does not make sense to me!” are not valid criticisms of science. They are arguments made from emotion. And in your case, based on your account history, it’s clearly something political for you. I would encourage you to write that kind of commentary in a more appropriate venue. Like the bathroom stall of your local truck stop. Just not here.
While I didn’t like the tone of OP I do understand where they’re coming from. Assuming what they’re saying is correct, it’s a valid question where explaining the mechanism is a solid response.
I’ll say that I’ve not read the article so if it’s in the article then I would rather you just point to that, rather than make this response.
But it's perfectly valid to question results that don't make sense, and the role of the supposed expert is to explain why it does.
After all, off in a democracy an expert expects to be paid by taxpayers to make decisions that affect the taxpayer the expert should be, at the very least, be able to explain himself in an intelligible manner.
Thats the bare minimum of expectations. I also expect the taxpayer funded expert to provided full access to his data, notes and analysis software.
Im considered an expert in thermodynamics, materials science and E&M. The people that pay me routinely don't understand what I'm working on, but they expect me to explain myself.
>they expect me to explain themselves
But the experts did explain themselves. They’ve published numerous studies on how small wolf populations impact the larger ecosystem.
It’s not even that hard to understand. Yes Yellowstone is large, but there are a finite number of elk herds and the wolves move to follow and prey upon the elk herds.
Wolf packs can kill 20 elk per year per wolf, there are 120 wolves inside the park and 500 immediately around the park wandering inside it and killing elk that wander outside.
At the peak there were 18k elk in the park and now the numbers are down to 2000. There’s plenty of evidence that the decline is a direct result of the wolves.
Controlling elk population has tons of 2nd and 3rd order effects which have also been well documented.
Well there you are! Good for you for writing that, and not the self-righteous snark I was replying to.
The beauty of HN is that when someone doesnt know, or is wrong, we don't assume bad intent, but explain with good intentions at heart.
It's literally in the rules
Here on HN we are looking at the effects and beliefs of the people reading the studies? What effect does this have on us?
Many downvoted comments etc. ( and much thanks for explaining the population numbers!)