3 ms·

> but you seem to think that your willful ignorance by reductive 'reasoning' is more relevant Thanks for the personal attack. Instead of just bringing somethi

> but you seem to think that your willful ignorance by reductive 'reasoning' is more relevant Thanks for the personal attack. Instead of just bringing something more useful than windshield studies into the discussion. My complaint was that we keep hearing about windshields, when real data ought to exist. I'll take a look at your link, even if I'm inclined to suspect the bias of the source.

toss1 4y ago
Not meaning to be personal, but reductionist approaches are too often a way for brains to make bad assessments and decisions. Although reductionism has the benefit of being "efficient" and reducing cognitive load required to find a conclusion, it is often like the hapless drunk looking for his key under the streetlight instead of where he most likely lost it. Also unimpressive are arguments based on casual encounter with the issues that armies of scientists must have missed some One_Thing, and these arguments are often used in anti-science advocacy, so maybe I've got too little patience for that sort of thing. Here's some more data: first a famous German study showing 82% loss in nature preserves over just three decades [0], and then a meta-study of 166 studies (including the first one) [1]. Good luck and I'd suggest also looking into system dynamics, where even getting a clue of the complexity can lead you to avoid many pitfalls. [0] https://www.science.org/content/article/germany-s-insects-are-disappearing https://www.science.org/content/article/germany-s-insects-ar... [1] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/new-study-gives-more-complex-picture-insect-declines-180974749/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/new-study-gives-mo...