Discussion»Statements»Rosie's Corner» Allegedly there are 6-10 million species of which only 1 million have been identified. WHAT? Wait a minute. Does that make sense?
New species are being identified quite often but I can't see how they can make such estimates, especially on that scale.
It reminds me of once seeing an archaeologist, in a letter to the local paper, objecting to a proposed extension to quarries by among other things, damage or destruction of caves "not yet discovered". She was right that the area - Portland, in Southern England - generally holds caves, but none have been found in the specific location, so it was a valid point, but as published was thrown away by being made nonsensical. It should have read written something like "... of caves that may exist but are not yet discovered".
I was trying to be fair to her, as her letter may have done that but been poorly-edited to fit the page space available.
I suppose the biologists look at what wildlife is known and examine its ecology to see if there seem to be "gaps", when compared with other regions of similar conditions. They would also look at how well a particular region has been explored, and again compare it with known similar regions; but it can only ever be an estimate. I'd also examine the source of my information to see if it might be a report that may have accidentally or deliberately distorted what the biologists had actually published.
Gee you too Durdle? When I saw your moniker I figgered you could explain it to me but you are puzzled too? So is it some odds -making thing? Or just a guess that no one is going to question? SIGH. I surely do appreciate your reply. I'm in good company then if you think it puzzling too. Your point is well-taken about what was reported to have been published and what was ACTUALLY published. Sometimes in paraphrasing one distorts unintentionally. And remember the thread about precision? How important is it? Your adding "caves that may exist but are as yet undiscovered" makes it make sense. Possibly words such as those were there but the paraphraser/reporter didn't realize their meaning? Mebbe. Thank you for your informative reply m'dear!! :)
Well, I have a fairly broad lay science knowledge but I'm not a polymath! :-)
Not sure if it would be an "odds-making thing"; but I suppose whoever compiled the original estimates might have used numerical principles like Probability in their calculations.
Statistics are often very badly mis-represented in the press because few journalists understand them properly. Even if not using them to skew the story, not by outright lying but by selective editing. Statistics proper is a mathematical field way beyond me at any but the most basic level, but even simple statistics are too easily muddled to give misleading impressions. Using percentages does not help either when they are quoted without the supporting numbers.
Here's an invented example of facts presented truthfully but in a misleading way:
Suppose there were 20 accidents in the bright new fast-growing "extreme sport" of Synchronised Crochet last year, and 30 this. The Press would have a field day: "50% Rise in Synchronised Crochet Accidents! Action Demanded!"
Now suppose the numbers were 2 and 3. It's still a 50% rise... but far fewer accidents, perhaps rating short notices in the casualties' local news, but no more than that. Note though that I have given % but even if I also report the numbers of accidents, I have not reported the number of regular synchronised-crocheters in the country. That might be 300, 3000, 30 000.
Either way, if we are not participants in the sport, we are given the impression that Synchronised Crochet is desperately dangerous. Whilst 30 out of 300 is worrying, 30 out of 30 000 is a very low rate. (By percentages, 10%, 1%, 0.1%, of total enthusiasts.)
Note too that I have not described the accidents: were they all severe or mainly minor?
+++
So, no I do not know how biologists might estimate the number of species they might still find, and of them most will be things like insects and small plants. When I wondered if they use probability theory I had in mind comparing catalogues of known species in explored regions with each other and with those from the unknown regions, all of similar characteristics. If so, they might estimate from these both how probable it is that the new region will have a similar variety, and the rough size of that variety. The probability would set fair limits to the forecast of variety.
"Synchronized CROCHET"? In my mind's eye I "see" millions of people crocheting in unison. A fearsome sight! Here's the thing. Who is going to challenge it? People pull "statistics" out of their butts and those who hear it believe it. So given the proclivity of homo sapheads to believe everything they want to believe anyone has carte blanche to say anything at any time and it will be embraced celebrated and passed on as GOSPEL. Look at the quack photographer scott atlas who now is the head of the dumb cluck duck pandemic panel. Herd mentality immunity is the golden ticket. DO NOTHING. Get ill and survive or die. Eventually no one will get it because it will have run its course thus making the survivors immune. So millions die? So what? Who cares? That is the bona fide BIBLE that is being used. The dumb cluck duck plans to hold 14 rallies until Monday evening. That is the scott atlas method. How can it get any better than that? Thank you for your thoughtful reply Durdle. Synchronized crocheting? I have to Google that! :)
LOL! I didn't mean millions crocheting in unison. Perish the thought! I was inspired by having once seen a video of synchronised swimming, so a team game!
Yes, you have a point about statistics there. It's not the arithmetic that's the problem but people mis-using it.
This Scott Atlas chap. Isn't he a radiologist, or at least radiographer, so medically trained? I don't know his credentials as an epidemiologist though; and it's certainly wrong to use medicine as a political tool.
Yes. He does MRI's. He has no background in epidemiology other than that he is a proponent of the imbecilic herd mentality immunity bullsh** and since the dumb cluck duck lives for conspiracies and crackpot nutjob wackadoodle theories this quack is right up duck alley. This is what duck most loves. Select the least knowledgeable most incompetent HATERS of a thing and put them in charge. Not kidding. He picked betsy de ross for education because she HATES public schooling. Being born a rich bi**ch all she ever has known is PRIVATE SCHOOL. So she works her a** off to kill public education. The dumb cluck duck has done that for all his heads. You HATE the environment he makes you HEAD of the EPA. Seriously. He goes out of his way to do so knowing they will kill shred murder behead annihilate that department. Since the dumb cluck duck values nothing but himself it's a sure thing for him! Thank you for your reply. If you are a nuclear physicist I don't want you operating to remove the cancerous tumor in my brain. Being well trained in one medical discipline is irrelevant and worthless. The atlas jacka** might as well be a ditch digger mortician trash hauler or dog catcher for all the knowledge and expertise he brings to it. BAH HUMBUG! :(
This post was edited by RosieG at November 2, 2020 5:32 AM MST
Durdle 