- Messages
- 3,061
- Reactions
- 9,997
Since we are discussing the infallibility 'science', remember what happened to Pluto!
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
how is that a demonstration of any kind of failure of science? when we were discovering things in the solar system, we didnt know what all was up there. we started labeling objects into categories as we found them. pluto got labeled "planet," as that was the only classification we had for it at the time. once we got to the point that we could actually get out into space and see things clearly, we discovered there are lots and lots of objects orbiting the sun, and needed new classifications for them all. the really big ones remained "planets," the smaller ones were called "planetoids" or "dwarf planets," because they were too big to be asteroids but too small to be planets.Since we are discussing the infallibility 'science', remember what happened to Pluto!
Exactly. Like the way they cut the kill part of the video and move right to the feasting on the carcass? Why don't they show the reality of it, where the wolves are eating on the poor thing and ripping its guts out while it's still watching them, terrified out of its mind?Minimizing the untidy habits of Wolves is in that person's best interest
Holy Cow, he's an expert on the solar system too!!Why so touchy, B?
I am pointing out EXACTLY that.
"Native Species" is a construct based on time and perspective, and subject to interpretation by the viewer.
I am trying to be more diplomatic than to point out that they make bubblegum up as they go!
When I read that 10 percent statistic my initial reaction was to call BS. If any species was only 10pct sucessful at getting food theyd die off to extinction.The ten percent figure is frequently assigned to numerous predators. It is rather subjective, in what constitutes "every time they hunt prey". Since they are nearly always hunting, what is the criteria for an episode to measure?
It is true that most predators are largely unsuccessful in their attempts. Far more often than successful (and this would include humans).
In this instance, we must also consider the source: an employee of an "Eco Tour", with motivations toward preserving the business (and a job). Minimizing the untidy habits of Wolves is in that person's best interest, especially when minimizing is as easy as "quoting" the ten percent statistic read somewhere.
Watching this clip, did it seem early on as if the Wolves only had a ten percent chance of a score? Were their actions haphazard and random or more calculated and coordinated? Were they operating each to himself or within a plan with duty assignments that had previously paid off repeatedly? We must remind ourselves that we see only the CONCLUSION of the hunt. We are deprived of the strategy of positioning and the stalk prior to the chase.
If THIS sort of specific activity qualifies as "every time they hunt prey", I feel rather certain that this specific level of activity has a success rate measurably higher than ten percent.
Also, did that elk look like it was immature, sick or weak? Or did it become the "choice" simply as a result of its position (and a stumble) on the fringe of the herd where it could be isolated?
Regarding my experience with the Caribou, I believed the Wolves probably wouldn't be successful on the first animal. After having watched their methods, the second Caribou's fate was a foregone conclusion. Anecdotally measuring the Wolves' rate of success there puts them at 200 percent.
huh?Why so touchy, B?
I find it interesting they are 'assuming' 'person or persons are responsible' when they admit:The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife announced non-profit groups and members of the public have pledged a total of $47,736 as of Dec. 15 as a reward for information leading to the person or persons responsible for the poisonings of Oregon's Catherine wolf pack — which consisted of five wolves — and three other wolves in Eastern Oregon earlier this year.
Science: The world is flat.Since we are discussing the infallibility 'science', remember what happened to Pluto!
"The Center for Biological Diversity said an adult male wolf from the same pack was already killed on Nov. 18 for preying on livestock.
"Why did state officials allow the killing of this wolf without waiting to see the effect of previously shooting another animal from this family?" said Amaroq Weiss, senior wolf advocate with the Center for Biological Diversity."
This is the crux of the matter. There are those who are in love with diversity as a concept. It's part of earth worship. Practicality be damned.
She's a LITERAL wolf hugger! Good thing she doesn't love unicorns, or hunters wouldn't be able to hunt them with dogs either!LOL…. "Senior wolf advocate". As opposed to a junior or trainee "wolf advocate"?
Poisoned. The glove fits!Since we are discussing the infallibility 'science', remember what happened to Pluto!
Is this going to be one of those stories like that bear lover guy? Or was it a tiger/lion lover guy. Ended up getting half eaten by one of his beloved wild animals?This one is a LITERAL Wolf Lover!!
The bear lover, Tim Treadwell, was a real whack job. He was TOLD by wildlife bios he WAS eventually going to die and they would not be able to save him.Is this going to be one of those stories like that bear lover guy?
Now you are being unfair. None of the above represent conclusions which were reached using the scientific method.Science: The world is flat.
Reality: Nope
Science: Everything revolves around the earth.
Reality: Nope.
Science: Disease is caused by malignant humours.
Reality: Nope.
Well, you get the idea...
Bingo!!! No science is ever truly "settled".ETA: The foundation of science is skepticism and continuous testing, not unquestioning acceptance.