The Australian legal system ruled on the definition of science some years ago, however, the Australian government is now pursuing the Japanese and their whaling program on the basis of an all together different definition, explains Charlotte Ramotswe.
Dear Jennifer,
Australia has taken Japan to the International Court of Justice disputing a basis of its whaling program – that it is scientific. You wrote about this recently in the blog post “Japan Attacks Aussie Moralising on Whaling”.
In the international court, it seems that the Australian Government has argued that what the Japanese are doing does not constitute "science". What is this thing called science? The subject has preoccupied philosophers and historian and been the subject of many books including a classic by A.F. Chalmers.
Let's face it: at least the scientific whaling program does generate a lot of data and publications.
In the history of this issue in Australia, there was the very famous case of "Harry Messel vs John Thomas Davern", which was essentially about Messel and co-workers catching fish out of season, and shooting geese in a protected area, filleting them, and packing all the meat away for human consumption. It was claimed that this was done under a scientific permit to study crocodiles, and the science involved in this case was essentially throwing the filleted carcasses into the river and noting in the morning that all had gone. This case went all the way up to the High Court, and back to the Darwin Judiciary, and in the end Messel got off. Double Jeopardy and a string of complex courtroom battles ensued over years.
The final say by the Australian legal system was essentially that science is what a scientist thinks it is. The case started with guilty in a Magistrates court in Darwin, and the conviction was eventually squashed. The final determination, by Justice Gallop, should summarise the whole issue of "what constitutes science" at least for Australia. Despite the Australian legal system reaching this conclusion at home, the Australian government is now pursing the Japanese on the basis of an altogether alternative understanding of science in the International Court of Justice. What does this say about the Australian character and the Australian government?
Best wishes, Charlotte Ramotswe
The image of the Minke whale is via Wikipedia... http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d9/Minke_Whale_%28NOAA%29.jpg
Comment from: jennifer August 3rd, 2013 at 11:13 am
"Hey Larry,
I would be interested to learn more about the Daubert versus Frye Standards."
Perhaps we could persuade cohenite to read and comment on the two Wiki articles. My understanding is that he's a lawyer in his day job.
Nuances of the law are not my strong suit. And once the reading material gets above a certain level of complexity, my tired brain shuts down.
I learned about Frye and Daubert from the late Glenn Burress. Back in the day, he was the foremost expert on economic policy. He correctly forecast all of the ups and downs of the 1970s. And yes, that includes the Oil Shock of 1979, which is another story. One of these days, I'll trundle on down to a university library, and look up his old column in the Journal of Commerce.
However Glenn was largely shunned by orthodox economists. And the hard feelings went both ways. Even though Glenn's PhD was in Economics, he described himself as a Systems Scientist, in the tradition of John Maynard Keynes and Buckminster Fuller.
The upshot: The Warmists were definitely not the first academic mafiosi to get a stranglehold on policy-making in the 'Free World'.
Yes I find the sophistry of the pseudo science program tainted with double standards.
And wasn't being extreme. It's our cultural heritage ! Why find it irksome Debs. Surely you'll like to swim in the blood and guts at Byron - don't be shy now.
Ever heard of the middle ground Luke?
Just because people find the behaviour in the international court of justice is extreme or rather 'over the top' and tainted with double standards... does not automatically mean that people think the other extreme is any more justifiable or acceptable.
Geddit?