The Birds And The Salmon - A Short Parable
Jan. 7th, 2010 01:53 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
snousleA burly, gray-bristled fisherman once lived in the islands of Alaska, where he ran a small salmon boat. In the spring, when they were feeding, the salmon would drive great schools of herring to the surface. The herring, in turn, attracted huge flocks of birds, which scooped them from the water and ate them. He learned early on that when such a flock appeared, the salmon would be biting especially well.
One day, feeling the strain of age, he decided to hire a cabin boy to assist him with his duties. On their first day out, he spotted a flock of birds and instructed the cabin boy to steer towards them. "But captain", the boy protested, "how can the birds attract fish?"
"Shut up", the captain replied, "and keep fishing."
But the boy would not let up. Every time the birds appeared, he would try to explain why birds could not possibly attract the salmon. One day, he said "Captain, the salmon cannot see the birds from under the water, even when they are right below. How could they travel from far away to find them?" The next day, he pointed out that birds flocked all year, but the salmon only appeared in the spring. "Why do you think the birds bring salmon when they have obviously failed to do so for the past eight months? Your theory cannot possibly be correct."
On occasion, the captain would grudgingly take the boat to some other location where there were no birds, and would catch little. After several months, he grew cranky, and grabbed the boy by the shoulders. "What the hell is wrong with you, boy? Every time we follow the birds, we get salmon, and every time we go elsewhere, we come up with nothing. Can't you see that this WORKS?"
"Captain...", the boy replied solemnly, in a low voice. His lips trembled with the passion of his words.
"Captain... I must tell you: correlation does not imply causation."
The captain lifted the boy in the air and threw him overboard, leaving him to drown. Soon after, he found a new cabin boy who was not so stupid. They fell in love, caught many salmon, and lived happily ever after.
The end.
One day, feeling the strain of age, he decided to hire a cabin boy to assist him with his duties. On their first day out, he spotted a flock of birds and instructed the cabin boy to steer towards them. "But captain", the boy protested, "how can the birds attract fish?"
"Shut up", the captain replied, "and keep fishing."
But the boy would not let up. Every time the birds appeared, he would try to explain why birds could not possibly attract the salmon. One day, he said "Captain, the salmon cannot see the birds from under the water, even when they are right below. How could they travel from far away to find them?" The next day, he pointed out that birds flocked all year, but the salmon only appeared in the spring. "Why do you think the birds bring salmon when they have obviously failed to do so for the past eight months? Your theory cannot possibly be correct."
On occasion, the captain would grudgingly take the boat to some other location where there were no birds, and would catch little. After several months, he grew cranky, and grabbed the boy by the shoulders. "What the hell is wrong with you, boy? Every time we follow the birds, we get salmon, and every time we go elsewhere, we come up with nothing. Can't you see that this WORKS?"
"Captain...", the boy replied solemnly, in a low voice. His lips trembled with the passion of his words.
"Captain... I must tell you: correlation does not imply causation."
The captain lifted the boy in the air and threw him overboard, leaving him to drown. Soon after, he found a new cabin boy who was not so stupid. They fell in love, caught many salmon, and lived happily ever after.
The end.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Natural selection agit prop
Date: 2010-01-08 04:26 pm (UTC)That's quite the fish story.
And, I hesitate to make a "moral-of-the-story joke.
On of the epistemological problems with climatic science is that fast conclusions may arrive "too late". We sort of know the direction, but people piss on each other about the magnitude. By the time we have sufficient evidence to convince everyone, it may be too late to un-fry the planet, because the effects of GHGs are irreversible, at least under current technology.
I mean, you can clean-up a river, if you wait for the super-bitchy Jack Welch to retire, for instance, but how does one fix the upper atmosphere?
Re: Natural selection agit prop
Date: 2010-01-08 05:44 pm (UTC)I actually wrote this parable in response to the oft-repeated claim that "scientific consensus does not make things true". Think salmon = reality, herring = evidence, birds = scientists. But I didn't make that particular comparison explicit because the parable covers such a broad range of faux "skeptical" thought: the kind that relies on arguments that are technically correct, but based on an incorrect framing of the question.
Re: Natural selection agit prop
Date: 2010-01-08 06:42 pm (UTC)As with many cult-of-stupidities, there is a grain of truth wrapped in a larger falsehood.
There are legit epistemological problems centered on when theory becomes fact, but that doesn't justify the existence of, say, James Inhofe, who sadly enjoys a Seante vote, from his small state, that equals the one from your very large state...