"I feel that we environmentalists should hold ourselves to a higher standard than the PR firms of multinational companies. ?"


The difference between corporate and individual input to any discussion is found in why we express our concerns.  "Higher standards" means what?  Corporations are driven by economics first and foremost.  We can easily see that the proportion of resources that they invest in environmental goodwill increases if, by neglecting environmental goodwill, they either lose money or risk losing a profitable product.  So they invest proportional to their return.  It doesn't matter who works for the company, or which individual working for that company has a good attitude about the environment....all that matters to corporate decision-making is profit.  So what "higher standard" do you hold environmentalists to?


There are scientists who are also environmentalists, and then there are just environmentalists...people who love nature and want to stop thoughtless or greedy destruction of the web of life around us.  Each clamors to be heard.  What is the difference between them?

This might be a good opportunity to review how science is conducted. I will explain the inductive approach:


1. Observation....something you notice that is interesting but that you cannot explain.

2. Question(s)....you propose various questions, based on your observation.

3. Hypothesis....after choosing the best question, you design a statement that can be verified (YES or NO) from which to test your question.

4. Experiment....you test your hypothesis.

5. Validation....you compare your results to those of several others, who are using different experimental approaches to test the same hypothesis.

6.  If everyone agrees, then you can advance to the "theory" stage.   If there is no uniform outcome, you must remain at the "hypothesis" stage until enough evidence is gathered to validate or invalidate that statement (hypothesis).


?Thus, if a scientific consensus is reached, that conclusion is based on substantial corroborating evidence.  It merits attention.  If an environmentalist group expresses a consensus based on members' input, that view must still be evaluated on the SCIENCE that they REFERENCE.  If they didn't support their point of view with data, well, then their view is just an opinion.

I submit that the definition of a "higher standard" is one that a) uses the results of the scientific method (above) to support the position, b) lacks bias, and c) is open to new input that might alter that position.


Christina







             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html