What The Hell is Science-Based Management?

[noharleyyet]

History shows in the end the aspirations of left and right forms of populism end up being realized by strongmen who can protect them from the bad guys deplorables.

 

[noharleyyet]

Your chosen definition tells the reader how it sells but not what it is selling. Populism is like Hooters - crappy overpriced food sold to you because you are busy watching the boobs.

Dogmatic narrators counselor, the lot of them...I have the free will to pick up either end of the turd I wish.

 

[BigHornRam]

Your chosen definition tells the reader how it sells but not what it is selling. Populism is like Hooters - crappy overpriced food sold to you because you are busy watching the boobs.

Scranton Joe is faux populism. Telling you what a poor victim you are while robbing you blind.

 

[TOGIE]

Populism is like Hooters - crappy overpriced food sold to you because you are busy watching the boobs.

hey i've heard the hot wings are actually quite solid

 

[VikingsGuy]

Dogmatic narrators counselor, the lot of them...I have the free will to pick up either end of the turd I wish.

That you do. And I have free will to critique that choice.

 

[BigHornRam]

That you do. And I have free will to critique that choice.

How's your choice working out for you?

 

[VikingsGuy]

Scranton Joe is faux populism. Telling you what a poor victim you are while robbing you blind.

Urban populism panders to those left behind in large population centers with leftish dreams and rural populists pander to those left behind in rural areas with rightish dreams.

Those left behind in both locations have fair concerns that we should address in a rational way, but tribal blaming anti-everything BS is counter productive to the whole.

And then there is the criticism of the middle. We sit in the middle because the system is working for us, yet we seem too caught up in our own forms of tribalism, virtue signaling and youth baseball practices to actually do something to make the lot of the left behind better.

Lots of blame to go around. If folks think their brand of politics is above reproach then they are just delusional partisans.

 

[VikingsGuy]

How's your choice working out for you?

My choice to critique has gotten me 30,000 like on HuntTalk, so I have that going for me, which is nice.

 

[VikingsGuy]

How's your choice working out for you?

Ron Johnson didn’t win so not much effect so far.

 

[Nameless Range]

Stay on em!!

 

[BigHornRam]

Urban populism panders to those left behind in large population centers with leftish dreams and rural populists pander to those left behind in rural areas with rightish dreams.

Those left behind in both locations have fair concerns that we should address in a rational way, but tribal blaming anti-everything BS is counter productive to the whole.

And then there is the criticism of the middle. We sit in the middle because the system is working for us, yet we seem too caught up in our own forms of tribalism, virtue signaling and youth baseball practices to actually do something to make the lot of the left behind better.

Lots of blame to go around. If folks think their brand of politics is above reproach then they are just delusional partisans.

I actually didn't vote for trump or hillary. First time in my life I did pick a tapered end. How about you?

 

[Ben Lamb]

This conversation is the world episode of Veep I've ever seen.

 

[QuazyQuinton]

Stay on em!!

View attachment 313151

The rambling path of this thread illustrates that we can't agree on what science is, and we can't agree on how to manage stuff. The chances of achieving science-based management are slim.

QQ

 

[Nameless Range]

The rambling path of this thread illustrates that we can't agree on what science is, and we can't agree on how to manage stuff. The chances of achieving science-based management are slim.

QQ

I think it's pretty clear that science is a politically charged word, and I don't think folks are wrong about that.

That said, when it comes to wildlife management, I'm more thinking that "science-based" isn't a thing or at the very least is a confusing term. "Based" kind of implies that our management emanates from science, which isn't really correct. "Science-informed" is more accurate.

Doesn't make the role of scientists within wildlife management any less important, just clarifies that science is a tool that helps us get to a destination - the destination really being a goal or value that takes into consideration things outside of what we would typically classify as science, that itself also happens to be in flux. Dang complicated.

 

[BigHornRam]

The rambling path of this thread illustrates that we can't agree on what science is, and we can't agree on how to manage stuff. The chances of achieving science-based management are slim.

QQ

We could conduct a scientific study to determine how slim those chances truly are.

 

[bmt99]

And one I would really like - To be published a scientist would have to publish their experimental hypothesis and the standards it will be held against IN ADVANCE of the work being done and then commit to reporting the results regardless of the outcome. Say good-bye to p-hacking and much of the confirmation bias BS plaguing science today.

I know this was over 20 years ago for me but I was required to do just that in starting engineering grad school. So was everyone else that I was going to school with. Then we had research and experiments to attempt to prove and/or disprove the hypothesis. Then defend the thesis to get the piece of paper. Just saying, it is still out there. I believe the engineering school I went to still follows this to my knowledge.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I know this was over 20 years ago for me but I was required to do just that in starting engineering grad school. So was everyone else that I was going to school with. Then we had research and experiments to attempt to prove and/or disprove the hypothesis. Then defend the thesis to get the piece of paper. Just saying, it is still out there. I believe the engineering school I went to still follows this to my knowledge.

It may have been a teaching tool (which is good). But I am not aware of any major peer reviewed journal that requires anything resembling what I suggested.

 

[SAJ-99]

It may have been a teaching tool (which is good). But I am not aware of any major peer reviewed journal that requires anything resembling what I suggested.

What is being described is a hypothesis test. It still is very important and I would say most professions require some version of it. But I admit it's not like someone couldn't come up with the hypothesis after the research is done if being done outside of school. Not all research needs a hypothesis, Think migration research. Sometimes research is just research/observation and making conclusion after. Seeing if those conclusions can be replicated is a typical review. This kind of stuff, in economics/finance at least, sometimes results in crazy conclusions but more often, reasonable conclusions that don't hold when future conditions are similar. That is science. Collect, Analyze/Test, Conclude, Replicate.

 

[Eric Albus]

As to the lawyers back a few posts, tort reform.

Wildlife management, somewhere in between what I’ve attempted (managing for 6+yr old bucks) and FWP’s no holds barred mule deer management.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Collect, Analyze/Test, Conclude, Replicate.

Problem is that it is supposed to be collect/observe, hypothesize, test, conclude, repeat. Skipping hypothesis is what drives p-hacking and other back practices.