This helps explain your error in logic, FD:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greedy_reductionism

Greedy reductionism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Greedy reductionism is a term coined by Daniel Dennett, in the book Darwin's Dangerous Idea, to distinguish between what he considers acceptable and erroneous forms of reductionism. Whereas reductionism means explaining a thing in terms of what it reduces to, greedy reductionism arises when the thing we are trying to understand is explained away instead of explained, so that we fail to gain any additional understanding of the original target.

Examples
For example, we can reduce temperature to average kinetic energy without denying that temperature exists, so this is good reductionism. In contrast, when we consider the question of why clicking on a hyperlink takes us to one website and not another, any answer that says that it all comes down to electrons and that hyperlinks don't really exist anyhow is a greedy attempt to explain away the problem without solving it.

B. F. Skinner's radical behaviorism has often been criticized as greedily reductionist, due to a perception that it denied the existence of mental states such as beliefs. Notably, Skinner himself characterized his views as anti-reductionist: in Beyond Freedom and Dignity and other works (e.g. About Behaviorism and chapter 19 of Verbal Behavior [1]), he wrote that while mental and neurological states did exist, behavior could be explained without recourse to either. Thus, from the Skinnerian standpoint, it is mentalism which displays greedy reductionism, as human behavior is explained away by mental processes which occur in an ambiguous "mind" while ignoring the importance of the study of behavior for its own sake. This example is particularly relevant because Dennett himself can be categorized as a type of behaviorist.[citation needed]

In Consciousness Explained, Dennett argued that, without denying that human consciousness exists, we can understand it as coming about from the coordinated activity of many components in the brain that are themselves unconscious. In response, critics accused him of explaining away consciousness because he disputes the existence of certain conceptions of consciousness that he considers overblown and incompatible with what is physically possible. This is likely what motivated Dennett to make the greedy/good distinction in his follow-up book, to freely admit that reductionism can go overboard while pointing out that not all reductionism goes this far.


'Nothing Buttery'

C. S. Lewis coined the term 'nothing buttery', which is synonymous with greedy reductionism (though he used it specifically to counter the reductionism of materialism). The term refers to the tendency to say something is 'nothing but' something else (as in, 'The Mona Lisa is nothing but daubs of paint on canvas'), without acknowledging that the whole that emerges may be greater than the sum of the parts.[1]

You and Ray were the ones trying to reduce it down to a simple point. I did not reduce it at all. I pointed out that he was just plain wrong. You then tried to change the topic back to a much broader one, without conceding that the 'reduced' argument was illogical. Or rather, you tried to introduce the broader argument as evidence that the reduced argument was correct. However, the reduced argument is not dependent on any broader, more complex ones. It is a very simple statement of logic, which happens to be wrong.

I don't think you even realise what your saying. You first sentence says we are trying to reduce it down to a single point and then you go on to your greedy reductionism tactic. You ignore or dismiss the explanations (ie 'broader arguments') because that will expose flaws in you marine park mantra. By excessively reducing the argument you are attempting to obscure and avoid any meaningful debate.


At no point was the issue ever 'explained away to nothing', so I'm not sure what your cut and paste job was about.

It was. And whats wrong with 'cut and paste jobs'? If someone has said something better or has some authority in an area, whats wrong with quoting them?

I am happy to debate the broader issues. I just see no point while you cannot even concede the simple error in logic. Otherwise you are just changing the topic constantly to muddy the waters, so that not even one basic principle can be agreed upon.

There is nothing to stop you debating the broader issues (if you can call them that), apart from you having to abandon greedy reductionism.

I'm suprised FD has been silent on this development. Do we now need any more evidence that marine parks are merely the tool of radical greens and their ant-use philosophy?

Radical plan for marine parks Article from::
By Malcolm Holland

December 05, 2008 12:00am

ALL forms of fishing would be banned in a third of waters within a series of marine parks under plans revealed by the National Parks Association yesterday.

The NPA wants five new marine parks and the extension of one existing park, covering 215,880ha. It is demanding fishing bans within a 70,000ha area.

Within a Sydney marine park, covering 103,150ha from the Central Coast to the Royal National Park, about 30,000ha would be locked away from anglers and commercial fishing.

The NPA, a non-government conservation organisation, unveiled its marine park proposals while launching a report called The Torn Blue Fringe, which claimed NSW marine life was in trouble.

The proposed marine parks would be in the Yamba, South West Rocks and Camden Haven areas on the North Coast, off Sydney and a South Coast park at Twofold Bay, while extensions were sought to the existing Jervis Bay marine park.

Anglers fear marine greenies

NPA marine program manager Nicky Hammond said the Sydney park would include the Harbour, Broken and Botany bays, Port Hacking and beaches.

NPA executive officer Andrew Cox said the group also wanted 12 aquatic reserves covering 20,777ha stretching along the coast, and 32 more reserves in estuaries covering 12,767ha.

The report also called for fishing bans in any estuary within a national park or reserve.

Recreational anglers fear the no-fishing zones would be placed around productive fishing spots, leaving only barren areas, devoid of species anglers target.

Anglers' Action Group president Phil Ingram said the Sydney area, called the Hawkesbury Shelf bioregion, already had 27 marine protected areas, including 10 aquatic reserves and 17 national park and nature reserves with substantial marine components.

NSW Fishing Clubs Association president Robert Smith said a Federal Government risk assessment has found recreational fishing had negligible impact.

Environment Minister Carmel Tebbutt said she had referred the report to the NSW Marine Parks Authority.

Source: The Daily Telegraph

freediver wrote on Dec 5^th, 2008 at 2:02pm:


The map is with the Telegraph article. It didn't come over with the cut and paste. You can go to the paper's site if you want to see it.

The risk assessment was done for Commonwealth marine parks, I have come across it before and may be able to find a reference.

Anyway what do you think about the proposal. What does it say about the motives behind the push for marine parks?

freediver wrote on Dec 5^th, 2008 at 5:24pm:



Yes I thought you would mindlessly parrot the consensus statements put out by a relatively few marine scientists in favour of marine parks.

As to Sydney being the most overfished area in Australia, I'd really like to know what you base that on. The strong anecdotal evidence is that fish stocks are on the way up in the area. Did you know that 3 of the 4 estuaries  are rec fishing havens (no commercial fishing). The SFM only has 17 boats, there are only 2 ocean going fish trawlers from Sydney to Bermagui and there is a ban on trawling in the Port Kembla area.

Also that most of the fish that pass through Sydney are highly migratory and benifit from the 80% reduction in NSW commercial licenses since the 1990's. Also note that 90% of NSW seafood is imported!

freediver wrote on Dec 5^th, 2008 at 6:16pm:


I'm not 'parroting' anyone - there my own words. Would you rather I say-  most of the fish found in the Sydney region are highly migratory?

Now with silly semantics out of the way, what is you evidence (in the light of the details I have provided) that Sydney is the most overfished area in Australia?

freediver wrote on Dec 5^th, 2008 at 6:42pm:


The travel habits of Sydney anglers are hardly evidence of poor fishing. It is a prosperous city - people can affort to travel! Have you heard of wanting to leave the rat-race or get a change of scenery?

The fish are naturally migratory - what has that got to do with overfishing?

Regarding declining baselines there is some interesting research about what the fishing 'used to be', titled The Good Old Days? Historic Insights into NSW Coastal Fish Populations and Fisheries. Done by Dr Julian Peperell (see his column in Dec MF), he starts with the earliest accounts of Capt Cook and the First Fleet. Fresh fish was intended to be the food supply of the 1300 or so colonists and many accounts of fish and fishing were written during this period. The prevailing theme was that while the occassional good haul was caught (when identified usually Aust salmon or snapper), catches were very unpredictable and long periods of relatively scarcitiy of fish, especially in winter, were repeatedly noted. Certainly catches of fish were never bountiful enought to produce a glut or to permit smoking or preserving on any scale. In fact the colony came close to failure with even some cases of death by starvation. The conclusion of this part of the study was that fish populations, at least in the Sydney area, where nowhere near abundant as one might imagine.