Last September 15th we
published a PR from the Central Caribbean Marine Insitute titled “
CCMI urges close look at downstream and long-lasting impacts to the
Island by proposed George Town Dock whilst there is still time” at:
http://www.ieyenews.com/wordpress/cayman-ccmi-urges-close-look-at-downstream-and-long-lasting-impacts-to-the-island-by-proposed-george-town-dock-whilst-there-is-still-time/

There was scientific evidence provided
by the CCMI to suggest that if the proposed cruise ship berthing
facility is executed as planned it COULD cause detrimental impacts
to Seven Mile Beach and the coral reef ecosystem in the George Town
area. The Institute urges “all stakeholders to really take stock
whilst there is still time”.

Included in their PR (called a
Statement) is another “statement statistics, facts and
justification”.

When you read it there indeed “facts”
but most is certainly not “scientific evidence”.

Hot on the heels of the above comes a
PR from the Office of the Premier titled “Scientific Evidence
Refutes CCMI claims regarding impact to SMB”. Please see iNews
Cayman story published today under that title.

Included in the PR is another release
with the “scientific evidence”.

This “evidence” completely refutes
the previous “evidence”.

How can both “evidences” be
different?

Because the supplied “evidence”
isn't evidence at all. It is an opinion based on largely the
viewpoint you have. What is perceived is NOT evidence.

Evidence must be the same. It must
reach the same conclusion.

In a study conducted by Nathan F.
Dieckmann and Branden B. Johnson and released on Feb 7 2019 under the
title “Why do scientists disagree? Explaining and improving
measures of the perceived causes of scientific disputes” they have
evaluated the reasons. (See
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0211269).They
found three distinct groups containing reasoning factors -
Process/Competence, Interests/Values, and Complexity/Uncertainty.

They conclude:

“Overall, science dispute reasons
appear to be more strongly driven by attitudes and worldviews as
opposed to objective knowledge and skills.”

They are more detailed under the
subtitle - “The causes of expert disagreement”

“Why do scientists disagree in the
first place? One set of potential causes focuses on the experts
themselves. One or more of the experts may be making an inaccurate
claim because of incompetence (i.e., they are not experts at all [5])
and/or the fundamental limits of human judgment, or they may be
intentionally or unintentionally biasing claims because of
idiosyncratic attitudes, beliefs, or personal interests. Another
expert-focused cause might be different methodological choices that
stem from individual scientists’ skills or preferences, or from
historical developments in their respective fields or
sub-disciplines. Alternatively, disagreements among experts within
scientific fields may be due to irreducible uncertainty of the world
itself and could be conceived of as a part of the normal process of
science. From this perspective, it is inevitable that experts will
disagree when confronting complex and uncertain real-world problems.
It is the complexity and inherent uncertainty of the world that leads
to disagreements about how to conceptualize problems, the research
methods that should be used, etc. From a conceptual standpoint, these
various expert- and world-focused reasons are neither logically nor
practically mutually exclusive. For any given dispute among
scientists there might be multiple causes, and these causes might
differ from one dispute to another.”

Therefore, my final word is.

Take both PR's, along with their
scientific evidence, as worth nothing more, than a grain of salt.