I've gotten to that point in time--or maybe my life--where I just cannot go reading a study and believe it to be factually true. I honestly don't care how many authors have signed their names to it, or whether it hails from some prestigious university or not. What I care about the most is the content of the study, what it's actually saying, and what the whole context and its purpose for being published actually is.
"There are three kinds of lies: Lies, damn lies, and statistics." --Mark Twain.
A way of saying that you can lie and use statistics, and you can tell the truth and use statistics. With regards to this animal versus plant-base land-use argument, the use of statistics can be used to either tell the truth or exaggerate to only tell half a truth. My question is this: Is this land-use versus argument of some validity, or is it just a petty means to point fingers at something so as to avoid pointing fingers at ourselves?
Time to read more below to find out!
Range Nerd, Forage & Grazing Fanatic and a Bovine Enthusiast. A love for farming, and for the soil.
Keep it civil, but don't be a jerk. Personal attacks and harassment will not be tolerated.
There's going to be a lot of heated discussions and that’s totally fine. These discussions often are about topics that we all personally care a lot about and will passionately defend. But in order for discussions to thrive here, we need to remember to criticize ideas, not people.
So, remember to avoid: