Animal husbandry uses comparatively more land than the equivalent caloric output from plant crops would, which seems inevitable just by force of physics. Beyond that, I have no special information.
You said this study was flawed, I asked if you had a better one. I was honestly expecting “Sure! Here’s a great one that shows something slightly different, as I follow this closely enough to have an opinion…”, and then I would have said “Thanks! I can see how that’s slightly different”.
I thought I explained my objections to the methodology pretty clearly. I have no dog in the fight regarding the conclusion: the paper speaks for itself. another study using the same methodology would likely reach the same conclusion, necessarily relying on the same source material. that does not mean the methodology is correct.
edit: I said “correct” but what I should have said was “useful for determining a correct policy for agriculture”.
“your idea doesnt make sense, and here is why.”
“I know my idea is false, but then again, if you don’t have a better idea, that makes my idea come true. UNO REVERSE CARD!”
i think the problem is a fundamental misunderstanding how a logical debate goes down. its not about what you want inside yourself.
its about finding the best model for representing your actuall expiriences.
and that statistic thing has a very bad model which brings up a lot of questions.
measure it all you want. what is your hypothesis?
Animal husbandry uses comparatively more land than the equivalent caloric output from plant crops would, which seems inevitable just by force of physics. Beyond that, I have no special information.
You said this study was flawed, I asked if you had a better one. I was honestly expecting “Sure! Here’s a great one that shows something slightly different, as I follow this closely enough to have an opinion…”, and then I would have said “Thanks! I can see how that’s slightly different”.
I thought I explained my objections to the methodology pretty clearly. I have no dog in the fight regarding the conclusion: the paper speaks for itself. another study using the same methodology would likely reach the same conclusion, necessarily relying on the same source material. that does not mean the methodology is correct.
edit: I said “correct” but what I should have said was “useful for determining a correct policy for agriculture”.
the problem surmized:
“your idea doesnt make sense, and here is why.” “I know my idea is false, but then again, if you don’t have a better idea, that makes my idea come true. UNO REVERSE CARD!”
i think the problem is a fundamental misunderstanding how a logical debate goes down. its not about what you want inside yourself.
its about finding the best model for representing your actuall expiriences.
and that statistic thing has a very bad model which brings up a lot of questions.