Yeah, he's definitely wide of the mark - his conclusion is because there
isn't good evidence, therefore there isn't a problem, but the lack of good
evidence is due to a lack of studies, not due to studies that exonerate
cats. As the expression goes - absence of evidence is not evidence of
absence. In this case we do know cats cause big problems in small and
isolated environments, and among some specific prey. We just don't whether
cats cause a general problem outside of those specific areas, or how big a
problem that is.
What's even worse about the article though is the absurd suggestion that
people think cats have a negative impact on the environment because they're
racists who dislike immigrants. That's crap, especially since there are so
many places around the world where cats been demonstrated to have
significant negative impacts on the environment. Everybody concerned about
the environment should worry about the impact of cats, and it's clearly not
racist to do so.
Jeremy
On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 3:39 PM, pbrooks <>wrote:
> That's a pretty old report you've dug up there, Jeremy. Regardless, I
> think you're letting this guy off lightly with 'fallacy of argument'. The
> words 'feral cat has been exonerated' are a fib to aid a weak premise at
> best and, at worst, a deliberate misrepresentation of scientific literature
> (from a professor, no less!). You want people to pass judgement based on
> the current state of scientific research; if so, you have to agree that
> he's wide of the mark.
>
|
