What The Hell is Science-Based Management?
- Thread starter Nameless Range
- Start date
Dougfirtree
Well-known member
I'm often annoyed by the way people cite "the science" in stupid and conflicting ways. But, different groups of people using peer-reviewed science to inform important decisions is still one of the best ways we have to make decisions. And the cultural effort to create an educated, savvy society that can evaluate the data in any meaningful way, or even spot a decent percentage of the bullshit seems to be failing on an epic scale.
I guess that's my way of saying that I also roll my eyes about some of the ways we talk about following the science, or what science-based management is, but I'm terrified of what's stepping in to fill the void as people's faith in the word (and concept) "science" diminishes.
I guess that's my way of saying that I also roll my eyes about some of the ways we talk about following the science, or what science-based management is, but I'm terrified of what's stepping in to fill the void as people's faith in the word (and concept) "science" diminishes.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
Science is the part that people debate, management is the part people fight over.
Nameless Range
Well-known member
I like it.
Nameless Range
Well-known member
I appreciate the comments.
I guess it is just that "science", which is really just an epistemic method, is only part of the equation. It is certainly not enough to say a management being "science-based", makes it objective in the sense that there's only one way to move forward. But that's often what folks allude to...As if if only we managed wildlife scientifically, it would be a meaningful framework, and it just isn't.
I guess it is just that "science", which is really just an epistemic method, is only part of the equation. It is certainly not enough to say a management being "science-based", makes it objective in the sense that there's only one way to move forward. But that's often what folks allude to...As if if only we managed wildlife scientifically, it would be a meaningful framework, and it just isn't.
Elky Welky
Well-known member
For me I guess I have always oversimplified this to simply mean that we should prioritize and/or defer to the wisdom of those trained in a certain field/profession to help us make management decisions, particularly if the coin toss comes down to a social consideration versus one rooted in a scientific field. Specifically, I am thinking of biologists, foresters, land managers, water experts, and the like, who all rely on scientific methodology to come to their conclusions, for better or worse.
We now live in a world with a strong distrust for expertise, wherein the internet has "leveled" what it is to be an expert. People without any training and experience in a certain area suddenly feel like they are an expert because they know how to google, and if you say things with enough authority on an internet forum, people can start to believe it. It's scary.
I actually do continue to put my faith in those with the training and experience to inform decisions. And I would like to see our commission rely on the expertise of field biologists when they are weighing their decisions against the wishes of a trade organization, for example. In that way, I suppose, "Science-based" really just means prioritizing the needs of the resource over the desires of human beings.
Last edited:
noharleyyet
Well-known member
Pedigreed (science based expert witnesses for hire) prostitute themselves for policy makers and soap sellers every day.
bmt99
Active member
Unfortunately, they do not all use the scientific method. I know at least one wildlife biologist very well and he is hamstrung to very specific topics and not able to spend time needed to use the scientific method. Unfortunately, he and many others get their paychecks as a checkmark for logging company A or policy maker B. That and I don't believe many people in the sciences (pick one, wildlife, social, climate, political, etc) even know what the scientific method even is!
"Trust the science" is probably the most unscientific thing you can say in an attempt to win an argument or sway a person's opinion.
this is in no way intended to turn this to a political argument. Just saying it happens.
4 out of 5 dentists disagree with this post.
Elky Welky
Well-known member
You are, no doubt, correct. Much like the NAM, my post was probably a little too idealistic.
FI460
Well-known member
In my field we like to say "It doesn't exist until it's published". A lot of agency science isn't real by that metric.
I'm one who generally supports agency biologists and the historical meaning of "science based management", but I'd like to see a little more rigor in some of the work. Not to say that there isn't some very good science going on at many agencies, but the term is often bandied about.
BigHornRam
Well-known member
I believe the phraseology has gone from
"Trust the science" to
"Science denier" to
"Follow the science" and now to
"Science-based"
Any bets on the next phraseology?
"you will do as you're told"
D
Deleted member 52098
Guest
i had a gif all lined up there for that and thought better of it lol
BigHornRam
Well-known member
Chicken...
BigHornRam
Well-known member
My money is on "the science has spoken"
"you will do as you're told" is a good 5th generation possibility.
"Science equity" ?
BigHornRam
Well-known member
"Science inclusive "
Nicoli7153
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2021
- Messages
- 451
Think that's more the case. Politicians leaning on the people that actually devoted their careers to the science.
Similar threads
