Philosophy

There have been several instances where commentators at this blog have criticised others for publishing their information on websites rather in peer reviewed journals. The inference being that if its not in a peer reviewed journal, the idea has little merit.

Interestingly, there’s a new medical journal to be published by Elsevier called ‘Medical Hypotheses’ and it plans to take a deliberately different approach to peer review:

“Most contemporary practice tends to discriminate against radical ideas that conflict with current theory and practice. Medical Hypotheses will publish radical ideas, so long as they are coherent and clearly expressed. Furthermore, traditional peer review can oblige authors to distort their true views to satisfy referees, and so diminish authorial responsibility and accountability. In Medical Hypotheses, the authors’ responsibility for the integrity, precision and accuracy of their work is paramount. The editor sees his role as a ‘chooser’, not a ‘changer’: choosing to publish what are judged to be the best papers from those submitted.

Papers in Medical Hypotheses take a standard scientific form in terms of style, structure and referencing. The journal therefore constitutes a bridge between cutting-edge theory and the mainstream of medical and scientific communication, which ideas must eventually enter if they are to be critiqued and tested against observations.”

What a great idea! And doesn’t the new journal neatly articulate the problems with peer review for those working outside of established paradigms.

The quote was sent to me with a link to a blog piece by Andrew Leigh in which he suggests the concept has application to economics.

Sydney-based think tank the Centre for Independent Studies puts out a quarterly magazine called Policy. The latest issue features a piece titled ‘The Rise of the Opinionators’ by Peter Saunders which suggests that:

“In the last 50 years, people’s socio-economic characteristics have become much less significant indicators of how they will vote: many working class voters support parties of the right, and large swathes of the middle class vote Labor.

Labor’s strongest support on a two-party preferred basis is not now among manual workers. It is among education, arts and social professionals, people Peter Saunders dubs the ‘opinionators’ for their role in developing, processing, interpreting and transmitting ideas, values and opininons.

The opinionators hold many views at significant variance from the general population. Compared to other voters, for example, the opinonators are less likely to support reducing tax and more likely to favour higher government spending, and they are much more in favour of asylum seekers and much less supportive of defence spending.”

Saunders also suggests that Opinionators stand out from other voters in their strong support for the Greens and their support for, what he calls, “high-visibility election issues like logging, or on touchstone issues like GM crops”.

The article concludes with the comment, “In terms of their wider ideological importance, however, the opinionators occupy many of the key positions within our core educational and cultural institutions. Their political significance should not be measured in votes.”

What has always struck me most about this group is that, yes, they have very definite and strongly held opinions on a range of environmental issues. I have also observed that they are mostly incredibly ignorant on the very same issues for which they hold such definate views. As a consequence I see them as a real threat to the environment. I wrote sometime ago for Policy magazine on this on this issue, the piece was titled Environmental Fundamentalism.

I have also been rather taken-aback when more than once ‘an opinionator’ has declined to discuss an environmental issue with me on the basis that, in their opinion, I knew too much about the particular subject! Most ordinary folk like talking to people who know something about a subject?

What is it about environmental issue and this group, a group that has so much political and cultural clout?

The Weekly Times, a rural Victorian newspaper, had a feature this week on animal rights. It reports on a group called Voiceless that plans to work with school children against the eating and wearing of animal products.

Interestingly Voiceless already have a program with Griffith University for the development of a school curriculum.

While the Weekly Times article suggests Voiceless are also against the harvesting of kangaroos, their website focuses on intensive farming of animals, particularly pigs.

Not so long ago I spoke with farmers at Cowra about what groups like Voiceless and PETA represent. Here’s an extract:

“There has been much written about how Australia’s national character emerged from a bush ethos: the idea that a specifically Australian outlook emerged first amongst workers in the Australian pastoral industry. The recent, big environmental and animal liberation campaigns, however, challenge key assumptions from this history. They portray Australian agriculture as harmful to the environment, and the animal liberationists suggest that our farmers are inhumane.

Banjo Paterson, perhaps more than any other writer, created and defined our cultural heritage. His story about the shearer and his jumbuck in outback Queensland remains our most popular national song.

Renditions of ‘Waltzing Matilda’ dominate when Australians gather at major international sporting events, including the Olympic Games and Rugby Union matches.

But People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) are campaigning against the wool industry. They are against live export and they are against mulesing. As part of the campaign against wool products focused on US consumers, PETA campaigners have also suggested that the Australian climate is too hot for sheep.

‘The Man from Snowy River’, also by Paterson, is about bushmen and their horses in the High Country. The man from Snowy River chased the brumbies ‘down the mountain like a torrent down its bed’ through open country and mountain scrub before ‘turning their heads for home’ with his pony covered in ‘blood from hip to shoulder from the spur’.

Now the NSW and Victorian Governments are intent on banning grazing and brumbies from the High Country on the basis that they have an adverse impact on the natural heritage of the Alpine region.

The Victorian mountain cattlemen sought an emergency cultural and historic heritage listing with the Federal Environment Minister to counter the Victorian Government’s proposed ban on grazing. But lost.

No-one has a monopoly on the future. Perhaps it is time that Australians moved beyond ‘Waltzing Matilda’ and ‘The Man from Snowy River’? The PETA Website explains that there are alternatives to wool, including:
“polyester fleece, synthetic shearling, and other cruelty-free fibres. Tencel — breathable, durable, and biodegradable — is one of the newest cruelty free wool substitutes…. Choosing to buy these non-wool products not only helps the animals, but can also reduce or eliminate many of the consumer problems and inconveniences that go along with wearing or using wool. “

But what about a replacement for lamb chops? While the animal liberationists are against the farming of exotic animals, like sheep, they are also intent on preventing the development of any industry based on the farming of Australian native animals, including kangaroos. PETA is even against the drinking of milk.”

Perhaps we will one day all eat tofu and wear polyester fleece jumpers?

I am a student studying Australian Politics as a course at University, and I have an environmental question to give a presentation on:

“How does environmentalism challenge how we think about Australian Politics?”

I’m at a bit of a loss, can anyone help me on this?

Shannon Tonkin

There is no opinion, however absurd, which men [and women] will not readily embrace as soon as they can be brought to the conviction that it is generally adopted.

Arthur Schopenauer (1788-1860)