Underlying almost all conclusions in scientific studies is a presumption that something is 95% likely to occur. But that threshold could just as easily be 50:50, or less. By setting the bar so high, researchers can be quite certain that their results stand. But what if the threshold isn’t met and an idea is rejected? What if that presumption is incorrect? That is when Type II errors can occur.
Type II errors are inherent in all conservationWhy is animal conservation important? Animal conservation is important, because animals are the only mechanism to create biodiversity, which is the mechanism that creates a habitable planet for humans. Without animals, the energy from today’s plants (algae, trees, flowers etc) will eventually reach the atmosphere and ocean, much of it as carbon. The quantity of this plant-based waste is so More decisions. Without an over-riding belief system to protect us from our own ignorance and negligence, when it comes to wildlife, we continue to destroy everything.
Infinite variation in ecosystems
There is never any outright proof in any study as results are only likely to be repeatable if the conditions of the experiment are exactly replicated. But in complex ecosystemsHow ecosystems function An ecosystem is a community of lifeforms that interact in such an optimal way that how ecosystems function best, is when all components (including humans and other animals) can persist and live alongside each other for the longest time possible. Ecosystems are fuelled by the energy created by plants (primary producers) that convert the Sun's heat energy More, there are an infinite number of potential conditions, which means the observed outcome can be literally anything … hence why you hear one study saying wine is good for you, another saying it isn’t and widely differing views on generally how much you should drink.
The precautionary principle
When it comes to matters like health and the environment, we like to take a risk-approach. Instead of proving something works a certain way (which is impossible), we look at the overall trend. What if 95% of the time, it’s best to only drink one glass of wine a week? It doesn’t mean some people can’t drink more, or other people should drink less.
We ask, is the consequence severe, in most cases? If so, we should probably act to save ourselves. This is why a doctor will generally advise against drinking too much.
This Precautionary Principle helps ensure we don’t make Type II errors, despite the fact that there are studies that show some people can drink lots.
Wildlife and total absence of knowledge
When it comes to wildlife the situation is different. We literally have no idea what is going on. I can’t think of a situation that is more profoundly difficult to study.
We can’t see, taste, smell, feel or behave like an animal. We can’t assume any animal has emotions like us. The relationship between us, animals and our environment, is so complex, it will forever defy any and all scientific explanation.
Our studies of nature and ecosystems, at best, describe the tiniest component of a larger system. There simply isn’t enough computing power, human resources, or time, to input enough data to build a ‘model’ of how this works and make any reasonable predictions.
Type II errors are inherent in conservation
Type II errors are fundamentally inherent in all conservation science because the mechanism upon which animal (and human) survival exists is ‘culture’. This is intangible. It follows general rules but is also wildly complex, often metaphorical and spiritual. In the short-term it may not even be viable. Western society’s culture, for instance, has never been able to build a civilisation that lasted more than about 1,000 years.
Western science faces two major problems that result in the constant decline of wildlife, and hence, our own ecosystem life support:
- We cannot prove anything about animal culture and connection to ecosystems (hence why we surrogate all our attempts to conserve, to questions of abundance*).
- We have no belief systems left in the western world, which protect animals, in the absence of such scientific proof.
*Counting the numbers of animals is largely irrevelant to any question of ecosystem function(Of an ecosystem). A subset of ecosystem processes and structures, where the ecosystem does something that provides an ecosystem service of value to people. More. Plus, a dependence of numbers as thresholds of significance, merely results in a continual decline in populations, meaning the threshold continues to get smaller and smaller e.g. if a population of 10,000 birds is considered secure, then 20 developments might be given permission to destroy habitat for 1% (100 birds), meaning the new population falls to 8,000, and the threshold is now 80.
The role of belief systems
Research credibility depends on the 95% confidence limit. But we have become accustomed to using this threshold as a reason for doing nothing. Scientists are partly at fault here. They enter the public discourse and muddy the waters with rhetoric designed to empower them with research grants and consultancy.
But the manner in which research is done, was never designed to be used this way, to make important public policy decisions. It’s all too common for what is observable risk and common sense to be ignored, in the absence of proof.
When it comes to wildlife and ecosystems, this is incredibly dangerous. The collapse of ecosystems is entirely to do with the disconnection of human and animal cultural blueprints, which determined the stability and longevity of ecosystem function and life support.
This is where a belief system is needed. In order to protect wildlife, we have to believe it’s more important to us than science can ever prove.
