New Sea Shepherd vessel and shes a beauty

[avb3]

Originally Posted by weavis

I really wish this was true.

What Mike described was the application of the scientific method. There is no doubt that individual researchers may have a passion for their topic, but true peer review will show up issues.

I can think of a couple of wildlife projects I was involved in on the approval of the funding side of things, where that peer review study vastly improved the science, and the end result became much more applicable than at first.

[Cadence]

Originally Posted by avb3

What Mike described was the application of the scientific method. There is no doubt that individual researchers may have a passion for their topic, but true peer review will show up issues.

I can think of a couple of wildlife projects I was involved in on the approval of the funding side of things, where that peer review study vastly improved the science, and the end result became much more applicable than at first.

Peer review can be great if a true review. Hypothesis has gotten to be my favorite word. More often than trying to prove the pros and the cons it seems to be all pros. and disregard the cons..

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by avb3

What Mike described was the application of the scientific method. There is no doubt that individual researchers may have a passion for their topic, but true peer review will show up issues.

+1 Exactly.

Peer review, open sharing of methods and results, reproducibility ... these are core to the method. The science can be perverted when the process is distorted, such as when data or methods are kept secret, but then that's no longer the actual scientific method at work.

IMO, the scientific method is the greatest "discovery" of human endeavour. It understands that humans are always biased. Science is a process that works despite this reality. It can take a long time, especially when faced with broad societal forces. There can be reversals and tangents. Researchers can be bought, sold, and more commonly, become blind to their own biases. But real science pushes through this over time.

Note, I'm not saying science always leads to "better" understanding. That's a value judgment that can only be made from a social (biased) perspective.

[weavis]

Originally Posted by avb3

What Mike described was the application of the scientific method. There is no doubt that individual researchers may have a passion for their topic, but true peer review will show up issues.

I can think of a couple of wildlife projects I was involved in on the approval of the funding side of things, where that peer review study vastly improved the science, and the end result became much more applicable than at first.

Excuse the length of the comments. Below is the criteria that I teach in medicine. It has nothing to do with medicine and everything to do with a scientific protocol.. It is a distillation of everything I know in research.

There are four fundamental conditions which must be met in the practice of science:

1. Observability
Science requires the collection of observable phenomena, either in the uncontrolled environment of a case study situation, or under more or less strictly controlled experimental conditions. These observations must be accurately and objectively recorded without interpretation, and they form the raw data

Observation then forms the first condition of science. By observation, I mean anything discernible to any of the senses (aided or unaided). In reality therefore, science has empiricism at its base. Without empirical data, the hypotheses and theories could not have been proposed. All these theories etc., have been born out of direct or indirect observation, not out of thin air. It must be remembered that the theory must fit the data, NOT that the observations (if confirmed) must be wrong since they don't fit the theory.

2. Reproducibility
Once properly collected, raw data cannot be altered or discredited. That is to say, given the parameters that were set in the controlled experimental conditions, and knowing all the variables (both controlled and uncontrolled) present, then such raw data will always be reproducible. If the experiments can be repeated over and over again, not by one but by many different and independent individuals or groups of individuals, and the resultant data agrees, then the probability of observer bias and observer error becomes negligible. Thus, reproducibility must be fundamental to the design of all scientific procedures, whether at the stage of initial observation, or later, when testing the predictions of a theory, and scientists are careful to list all materials and methods in their literature so that their experimental procedures may be repeated by others to yield similar results.

3. Predictability
Using raw data which has been confirmed, we begin to form ideas as to what such data means (given the circumstances of the experiment or observation). These ideas are essentially an attempt at generalising the collected data, and is the method of induction or inductive logic. As the observations develop, the ideas (postulates, hypotheses, theories) also evolve to better fit all the data collected. Induction therefore, in science, is the process of drawing generalisations (hypotheses) from a number of particular observations.

We may now apply our hypothesis to extrapolate these results and make predictions as to the outcome of a particular event. This process of making predictions is the deductive process in science (deductive logic). Various observers may propose various predictions based on their own interpretations, this is quite all right, since it does not change the initial raw data. So far we have seen that we can use raw (uninterpreted) data to make predictions. In other words, we can use what events we have observed to predict the outcome of events we have not yet observed. This is another fundamental aspect of the practice of science.

4. Testability
It is no use making predictions based on observation if there is no way to test (in order to verify or refute) such predictions. This is a most important concept in the formation of scientific hypotheses. All good science can only progress by the constant formation and reformation of testable hypotheses which more and more closely fit the observations. These hypotheses must then be modified, accepted or rejected, based upon the outcome of prediction testing. The more rigorous and objective the testing, then the more verified and accepted becomes the theory. Thus, a good scientist always applies the theory (formulated or induced from the raw data) to predict the outcome of future observations, being ever so careful to objectively record the minutest detail; and if the results fit the initial theoretical predictions, then he has verified his theory; but if the results are contrary to the predictions, and there is no flaw in experimental design or procedure, then he has grounds for refutation. In fact, this is so important, that science cannot be performed without testing. If a idea is not testable, then it is relegated to mere opinion, since it can neither be verified nor falsified.

Now, another point whilst we are on this subject. The whole framework of modern science is geared towards attempting to falsify any proposed hypothesis or theory. It works like this; if a theory has been generated, then the experimenter designs a test to try and disprove or falsify that theory. Thus, the mind of the experimenter is critical at the outset, and the testing procedures more rigorous than would be the case if the experimenter set out to prove his theory.

This in fact, is the essential difference between modern science and the so-called science of old - that we set out to disprove, rather than to prove our own generated theories. The less falsifiable the theory, the more it fits the results of prediction data, and the more accepted it thus becomes. Hence, the falsifiability of a theory is a test of its ability to fit the facts of experience.

If this is the basis of "science" and carried out in the above method, then I concur. However.......... if the collected data does not fit with a political aim or financial direction......... then the results may well be obfuscufated.

I can think of several dozen medically accepted 'facts' in common usage today that have ignored scientific protocols.

Hence in a very "real" sense Mike is correct...... but anyone of the 4 tenets not observed above will lead to false results.

[barnaclejim]

It surprises me how many boat and sea lovers on this forum react with disdain towards an organization that seeks to protect marine wildlife and the life of the oceans in general. I have lived on or near the sea my whole life and in a short 50 years have seen the decline in fish and the mountains of floating trash and plastic and abandoned nets that kill most everything in its wake. But as a species we are really a bunch of selfish ********. I expect more from seamen.

[europaflyer]

Originally Posted by clownfishsydney

FC1937, not sure why you think this is a joke, I am happy to see someone like Martin Sheen supporting Sea Shepherd. The work they do, however controversial, is brilliant for anyone who loves the sea and its environment.

A joke because, in spite of spending every summer the last ten years steaming round the southern ocean, the Japanese are still able to kill hundreds of whales a year, often in full view of Sea Shepherd vessels. A joke because for all their big talk of being 'pirates' and 'ready to die to save whales' the worst they often do is throw bottles of acid on the decks of the whaling ships, or steer in front of the ships so they can say on camera how they were rammed. A joke because they call themselves environmentalists yet burn thousands of tonnes of fuel a year and regularly dump dozens of bucketfuls of nylon rope in to the relatively unpolluted Antarctic ocean knowing full well that it makes good television but is totally ineffective at entangling the propellors of the whaling ships. A joke because they have proven time and time again that the biggest danger to their lives is their own poor seamanship and undisciplined, amateurish command structure rather than the Japanese.

I would like to believe that I am as strong an environmentalist as anyone on those boats, but I have the sense to realise that the biggest step in stopping Japanese whaling was the ICJ ruling in March of this year, which Japan has agreed to abide by, and which looks set to stop southern ocean whaling for good. If a tenth of the effort which has gone in to Sea Shepherds haphazard 'direct action' over the last decade had gone in to campaigning for this ruling, it could have been made years ago. Of course, it wouldn't have made nearly as good television, or kept Sea Shepherd in funds...

[Cadence]

Originally Posted by europaflyer

A joke because, in spite of spending every summer the last ten years steaming round the southern ocean, the Japanese are still able to kill hundreds of whales a year, often in full view of Sea Shepherd vessels. A joke because for all their big talk of being 'pirates' and 'ready to die to save whales' the worst they often do is throw bottles of acid on the decks of the whaling ships, or steer in front of the ships so they can say on camera how they were rammed. A joke because they call themselves environmentalists yet burn thousands of tonnes of fuel a year and regularly dump dozens of bucketfuls of nylon rope in to the relatively unpolluted Antarctic ocean knowing full well that it makes good television but is totally ineffective at entangling the propellors of the whaling ships. A joke because they have proven time and time again that the biggest danger to their lives is their own poor seamanship and undisciplined, amateurish command structure rather than the Japanese.

I would like to believe that I am as strong an environmentalist as anyone on those boats, but I have the sense to realise that the biggest step in stopping Japanese whaling was the ICJ ruling in March of this year, which Japan has agreed to abide by, and which looks set to stop southern ocean whaling for good. If a tenth of the effort which has gone in to Sea Shepherds haphazard 'direct action' over the last decade had gone in to campaigning for this ruling, it could have been made years ago. Of course, it wouldn't have made nearly as good television, or kept Sea Shepherd in funds...

[weavis]

However, all this aside. How do we like the vessel?

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by weavis

If this is the basis of "science" and carried out in the above method, then I concur. However.......... if the collected data does not fit with a political aim or financial direction......... then the results may well be obfuscufated.

I can think of several dozen medically accepted 'facts' in common usage today that have ignored scientific protocols.

Absolutely. Fully agree. But that's the power of the scientific method. Over time these fallacies are sussed out. As you know better than I, it can take a painfully long time, but eventually the weight of evidence builds.

Originally Posted by barnaclejim

It surprises me how many boat and sea lovers on this forum react with disdain towards an organization that seeks to protect marine wildlife and the life of the oceans in general. I have lived on or near the sea my whole life and in a short 50 years have seen the decline in fish and the mountains of floating trash and plastic and abandoned nets that kill most everything in its wake. But as a species we are really a bunch of selfish ********. I expect more from seamen.

I fully agree with your sentiment Jim. It's Sea Shepherd's methods which turn many people off. Sadly, I think they are now necessary given the way humans are treating our collective planetary home. But that's not science.

BTW, nice ship .

[Cadence]

Originally Posted by weavis

However, all this aside. How do we like the vessel?

Putting one on my bucket list. My bucket must have a hole in it. I'm not sure it is ideal for a RV but I could get by with it.

[smac999]

I don't understand why these pirates aren't at the bottom of the ocean along with there boats. The other boats should be shooting back in self defence

The fact that they post video evidance on tv of them saobotaging other boats and nothing happens to them is ridiculous. they should all be charged for attempted murder. that is what sabotaging a boat in open seas is.

And these people are dumb enough to provide there own incriminating evidence.

[europaflyer]

Originally Posted by weavis

However, all this aside. How do we like the vessel?

I love it. I might have winged about SS in my last post, but at least here they're operating a much greener vessel, and dealing with a problem I care passionately about. I hope they actually got down to business and used it to sail to islands in the pacific gyre and clean the plastic off the beaches, which would at least make amends for some of their southern ocean tomfoolery. Until they prove that the 'research' is not just a tropical jolly for their crew, though, I think I will deal with the plastic pollution problem by cleaning up beaches closer to home rather than sending them my money.

[rognvald]

What a great concept: a new vessel captained by a lawless eco-terrorist captain named after a pea brained Hollywood "star." Ahhhhhhhhhhh . . . I can feel the hearts bleeding.

[nagrom snoyl]

The sea shepherd people have way to much money behind them and seem to be getting bigger each year why are people so fooled by them?

[Cadence]

Originally Posted by smac999

I don't understand why these pirates aren't at the bottom of the ocean along with there boats. The other boats should be shooting back in self defence

The fact that they post video evidance on tv of them saobotaging other boats and nothing happens to them is ridiculous. they should all be charged for attempted murder. that is what sabotaging a boat in open seas is.

And these people are dumb enough to provide there own incriminating evidence.

I just wrote a diatribe and deleted it by mistake.

Those kids on the ships involved in that are naïve, their lives are being put in danger. So and so is CPO of the head, every one has an impressive rank.

Their intent could well be put to a real eco. use. Fouling a prop a whaler is so unlikely and would only be part of the cost of doing business.

I agree, it is paramount to piracy.