Whoa. Another huge salvo in the HSUS wars.

[Mark Billadeau]

Yes, Humane Watch org is biased; but does that mean the linked article is a biased report of the events witnessed or simply that the report was selected by Humane Watch since it fit with its agenda?

 

No matter how hard a scientist tries, there will always be some bias in the discussion of results and conclusions in a report on a study. The key here is that the experimental details and reported results typically show all the data without bias which allows every reader to draw their own conclusions.

 

The subtle biases come in how the information is given and it it these biases that are nearly impossible to avoid.

[bc4pack]

"Yes, Humane Watch org is biased; but does that mean the linked article is a biased report of the events witnessed or simply that the report was selected by Humane Watch since it fit with its agenda?"

 

Kinda like what HSUS puts out there ? Not exactly unbiased

[Debbie Meier]

Mr. McCaig, if you could tell me that the movement to end confinements based on a platform of abuse and inhuman treatement of animals as depicted in videos released to the public was an accurate depiction of everyday life and was limited to confinement operations I would be 100% behind you. But I don't believe the depiction of confinement, or puppy mill treatment for that matter, is any more accurate then if a 2 minute clip of working dogs aggressing, ravaging and making stock run for it's lives would be an accurate depiction of working dogs.

 

It is my belief that if a ban was to be enacted that the corporately owned operations would be the first in line making the transition and taking command of the market share. The small farmer would be left with their useless confinement building trying to figure out where to get their next dollar so that they can feed their own family. Hence CA, now they want to totally ban eggs produce in a caged format even if brought in from out of state. It would be interesting to see who has the money that is going toward cage free facilities, is it the little guys or is it being done to increase the market share enough so that big businesses will come a build free range facilities within CA. Big fish - little fish, how do you change that? Isn't it part of free enterprise, being able to operate lean & mean and survival of the fittest?

 

As to the abuse and inhumane treatment of animals, it will always be there, there will always be people breaking the law, but we also have to careful that laws do not get passed that make us unable to continue to utilize livestock as anything more then a lawn ornament.

 

I would still love to hear someone share with me how livestock would be wintered here in Iowa safely, efficiently, consistently and in a volume that is needed without utilizing some form of confinement. The confinements that surround us include cattle (open air buildings), hogs, chickens (both egg laying for consumption and for McMurry Hatchery) and turkeys. Also do you consider feed lot as confinement, if so then we have sheep too along with cattle in feed lots.

 

 

On an aside since I brought up puppy mills, in the commercials, here in Iowa they keep showing a bin of little dogs with their mouths zipped stripped shut and their eyes bugged out. Can someone tell me the frequency of that occurance, where it is happening and under what conditions?

 

Deb

[Donald McCaig]

Dear Doggers,

Ms. Meier writes:

 

"Mr. McCaig, if you could tell me that the movement to end confinements based on a platform of abuse and inhuman treatement of animals as depicted in videos released to the public was an accurate depiction of everyday life and was limited to confinement operations I would be 100% behind you."

 

Since I've not seen these videos I cannot comment on them. I have visited the poultry houses I speak of, and with or without videos, they abuse animals and the small farmers who fund and work in them.

 

Ms. Meier continues,

 

"Big fish - little fish, how do you change that? Isn't it part of free enterprise, being able to operate lean & mean and survival of the fittest?"

 

The social darwinism that informed and excused the robber barons of the 1880's and 1890's was discredited by the horrors of World War One. Darwin himself opposed the use of his evolutionary theories to explain away human rapacity. As it turned out, unchecked capitalism neither promoted world peace nor the public good. Subsequent reformers in many western countries have tried to encourage capitalism's innovation while minimizing the harm it can do to humans, other animals and the environment. Some reforms (see State Socialism) were as bad or worse than unchecked capitalism, others (see Democratic Socialism) have worked pretty well. The extreme Free Enterprise/Randian theories of the American Right failed spectacularly in 2008. As it turned out, it isn't the "fittest" that survive in unchecked capitalism but those with access to power and contempt for the 8th commandment.

 

Donald McCaig

[Debbie Meier]

As it turned out, it isn't the "fittest" that survive in unchecked capitalism but those with access to power and contempt for the 8th commandment.

 

 

But, they (referring to the survivors) always seem to find a way to make it legal or atleast plea or settle out. "Fittest" has a way broader definition these days.

[Ooky]

No matter how hard a scientist tries, there will always be some bias in the discussion of results and conclusions in a report on a study. The key here is that the experimental details and reported results typically show all the data without bias which allows every reader to draw their own conclusions.

 

The subtle biases come in how the information is given and it it these biases that are nearly impossible to avoid.

 

There is a difference between the two fields in that you don't typically get to assess the primary sources of data in most non-scientific articles, but that doesn't mean it makes sense to assume an equal level of unbiasedness.

 

Having "some" bias when you are trying your hardest not to is a matter of being trapped within a human mind which is constrained by prior experiences and the limits of your own perception. This is in no way comprable to having an active agenda that you are actively promoting. And it IS possible to recognize and intuit the degree of the latter, even without data.

 

As far as scientific papers go, you can typically tell the degree of bias in the intro and discussion of results, and if it is glaring, that calls into question other parts of the study before you even assess the validity of the methods and the data. Primary literature is certainly not infalliable. Methods, and the way they are reported can be biased to favor a certain outcome, and the way data is reported can also be biased to favor a certain outcome. Sometimes it is not (anymore so than the limits of human perception/statistical tests etc allow), sometimes it is. But when I read primary literature critically, I use info in both the "biased" hand-wavey areas (intro and discussion) as well as the supposedly "non-biased" methods and results to give me clues to come to a conclusion as to whether I agree with the validity of the results and what they supposedly mean or not.

 

I am surprised that you seem to think there is no way to use some of these same critical skills when assessing level of biasedness in any other type of source, or using certain additional logic as Eileen has pointed out for example - what does the source have to gain/lose by reporting a certain outcome? What is their level of involvement in the issue? Do they appear to have assessed issues/facts from more than one point of view? It's not an infalliable system, but at the same time I've always thought it's one of the main skills you learn in higher education, period.

[Eileen Stein]

Yes, Humane Watch org is biased; but does that mean the linked article is a biased report of the events witnessed or simply that the report was selected by Humane Watch since it fit with its agenda?

 

It absolutely could, at least theoretically, have been an unbiased report that happened to fit Humane Watch's agenda. But once you start reading it, it's obviously dripping with bias. And the author's bias is evident if you Google her, through her extensive comments on Humane Watch's facebook page, and even from her website promoting her kennel (http://www.blackknightakitas.com/index.html). This is not a neutral observer of the event she is reporting, nor one who makes any effort at objective reporting.

 

No matter how hard a scientist tries, there will always be some bias in the discussion of results and conclusions in a report on a study. . . .

 

The subtle biases come in how the information is given and it it these biases that are nearly impossible to avoid.

 

Always? Are you talking about something like a preference for structuring a regression analysis one way over another in the (debatable) belief that that first way is more meaningful, or are you talking about actual bias that results in a distortion of the findings? In most of the study reports I read, the authors are pretty scrupulous about including caveats to their interpretations of the findings. I don't believe it's an impossible achievement for a scientist to be unbiased. And surely you're not talking about the blatant type of bias you see at Humane Watch.

[Mark Billadeau]

Always? Are you talking about something like a preference for structuring a regression analysis one way over another in the (debatable) belief that that first way is more meaningful, or are you talking about actual bias that results in a distortion of the findings? In most of the study reports I read, the authors are pretty scrupulous about including caveats to their interpretations of the findings. I don't believe it's an impossible achievement for a scientist to be unbiased. And surely you're not talking about the blatant type of bias you see at Humane Watch.

I'm not talking about a blatant bias where data is excluded or a distortion of findings; but in what the author chooses to highlight in the results and how these results could impact other findings. The discussion of results and conclusions often have the authors leading readers to the conclusion(s) that the authors have drawn. These conclusions may be the correct way to interpret the results, but it may not be the only conclusion. Some authors may present multiple ways of interpreting the data and then they will justify their preferred interpretation. In all cases the authors are leading the readers towards a conclusion that is biased the author's view of the data.

 

Everyone is biased due to their past experiences and personal beliefs and these typically color how one interprets what they observe and how they present what they observed. There is no way around it. Sometimes these biases will have subtle influences on how we present what we have observed while other times it is very blatant.

[Mark Billadeau]

I guess what it comes down to is I am just as much anti animal rights orgs as Eileen is anti AKC and that biases my perception of anything they do especially how their current campaigns fit into their long term agendas. It certainly is a fault of mine.

[kelpiegirl]

Where is the thumbs up icon? It is not a fault Mark, it's called "eyes wide open"

 

I guess what it comes down to is I am just as much anti animal rights orgs as Eileen is anti AKC and that biases my perception of anything they do especially how their current campaigns fit into their long term agendas. It certainly is a fault of mine.

[Tea]

As Ghandi said, "Live the changes you wish to see in the world."