Data is Beautiful

852 readers

1 users here now

Be respectful

founded 4 months ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Global land use for agriculture across different diets (lemmy.ca)

submitted 2 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

93 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It is a big question. For myself, somewhere in those five pages, it has to relate to things that are measurable. If you’re against measurement, you’re against science.

oh, of course, yes. testability. disprovability. this is the crux of critical rationalist critiques.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Cool. I never took a 400-level philosophy course. A quick look on Wikipedia suggests it's not against measurement or theory, just certainty. That's fine, I don't believe in certainty. Maybe a black swan comes along, but until then, it's not bad to say swans are white.

If you're not a postmodernist or something I'm not sure why, rationally, you would object to measuring the land footprint of animal husbandry as a concept.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

measure it all you want. what is your hypothesis?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Animal husbandry uses comparatively more land than the equivalent caloric output from plant crops would, which seems inevitable just by force of physics. Beyond that, I have no special information.

You said this study was flawed, I asked if you had a better one. I was honestly expecting "Sure! Here's a great one that shows something slightly different, as I follow this closely enough to have an opinion...", and then I would have said "Thanks! I can see how that's slightly different".

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

I thought I explained my objections to the methodology pretty clearly. I have no dog in the fight regarding the conclusion: the paper speaks for itself. another study using the same methodology would likely reach the same conclusion, necessarily relying on the same source material. that does not mean the methodology is correct.

edit: I said "correct" but what I should have said was "useful for determining a correct policy for agriculture".

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

the problem surmized:

"your idea doesnt make sense, and here is why." "I know my idea is false, but then again, if you don't have a better idea, that makes my idea come true. UNO REVERSE CARD!"

i think the problem is a fundamental misunderstanding how a logical debate goes down. its not about what you want inside yourself.

its about finding the best model for representing your actuall expiriences.

and that statistic thing has a very bad model which brings up a lot of questions.