Comment 84175

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted December 19, 2012 at 12:36:59 in reply to Comment 84171

The councillors who voted against the pilot project in Hamilton argued that chickens will threaten public health and cause a lot of nuisance complaints, despite the fact that there is no evidence either of these scenarios will transpire, and plenty of solid evidence that they will not happen.

In addition, the whole point of a pilot project is to test an initiative on a small scale before rolling it out more widely. A pilot running in wards 1 and 2 would prove, one way or the other, whether the fears of those councillors who opposed the initiative have any merit.

I call "anti-evidence" a decision that not only assumes a conclusion that goes directly against what the evidence already tells us but also stubbornly refuses to subject that assumption to empirical testing in a low-risk trial.

Also, your pet monkey analogy, while cute and topical, fails a pretty basic test of relevance: unlike keeping a couple of hens in a coop in your backyard, there are real, evidence-based reasons why a pet monkey is a bad idea.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds