June 13, 2006

Sexiness in Forestry Science

Filed under: Accessability,Forestry Research,Timber Growing — shem kerr @ 1:59 am

SawmillHandcartSome would expect that science is scientific.

Hold on.

Those doing the work are creatures of evolutionary biology. OK, so you’re a creationist. Get over it, let’s just all go along with these scientists’ preference for evolution and see where it puts them. Below the scientific facade lurks the selfish gene. Charles Darwin’s theory along with subsequent research basically states that the best mate is the one that can afford to spend the most resources on uselessness. Given a disability such as the peacocks’ tail or the Irish elks’ antlers, it is the animal with the biggest appendage, the one that is the biggest drag on resources and a threat to survival, that is the most sexually attractive. When it comes to the sexiest forestry scientist, it is the one with the most useless research project. Add on evolutionary biology’s essential tools of deception and what we used to call psychopathy, and things get real sexy. When a scientist asks for funding for a research project, what are the criteria for judging if it holds value for forestry science, or if it’s just some guy getting his jollies?

Probably the first thing is to look at the information: what it is; how it’s presented; when, and to whom. All team members of the funding body should be given information on the aims of the project; on it’s background; what other work has already been done in its area of researc; what tasks are involved; the budget; and the likely outcomes for growers and processors in financial terms.

The funding body should then take time to examine the proposal before any decision is taken to fund.

The funder should look to independent analysis, not just to the applicant’s nominees.

If it looks like it’s something that you’ve seen before, perhaps dressed up, then it probably is.

People can be very convincing liars. Can the information be verified: or has it been fudged?

Are some inconvenient members of the funding body being isolated? Or is some other tactic being used to deceive?



  1. Your lack of sophistication in dealing with this topic can have several possible causes. The most charitable is ignorance.

    Comment by Ronald Lanner — July 7, 2006 @ 3:03 am | Reply

  2. Ronald is correct in implying that I haven’t used sophistication in dealing with this topic. However, I could think of a far more charitable cause for my lack of sophistication than ignorance. ‘Sophia’ (wisdom) has only an etemological connection with ‘sophistication’ (specious but fallacious reasoning) which is closely connected to the word ‘sophisticated’ (adulterated;falsified; worldly-wise; devoid or deprived of natural simplicity).

    This blog is intended to be accessable and simple. There are detailed references within the Special Needs List for readers who want to more deeply explore a particular topic. That I have put up this blog should be some kind of evidence that I’m not ignoring the topic. If you have references to some work on any of the topics, or if you are an expert, please drop in, thanks.

    Comment by shem kerr — July 7, 2006 @ 7:19 am | Reply

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Blog at

%d bloggers like this: