View Single Post
  #27  
Old 01-02-2018, 11:52 AM
Pikebreath Pikebreath is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,257
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyTheory View Post
Something that I note to all of you is to stop using anecdotal claims to support your opinion. Just because something was great once, 38 years ago, doesn't make your experience the "true view" of the location.

Edit: grammar correction
I always cringe when I hear "scientists" discount "anecdotal observations"...

The scientific method relies on reliability of the data and repeatability of the methodology to get the same result over and over. In the natural world there are just way too many variables that cannot be controlled to ever allow "laboratory" predictabilty of results.

The fact is there is very little "hard data" that has ever been collected on a lot of these issues in the past, so anecdotal observations are the best you have if you must compare present to past.

Many avid sportsman have spent years observing the natural world,,,, and may I dare say,,, spend far more time afield than many of their laboratory trained colleagues. What is needed by the researcher is the ability to weed out anecdotal observations that have a unbiased rational basis, which are likely true or close enough to being factual as opposed to observations based on or clouded by emotion and bias.

Last edited by Pikebreath; 01-02-2018 at 12:07 PM.
Reply With Quote