Well gang, we made it. Just.

Today (June 21^st) marks the longest day of the year – and as I write this (at 7am), looking out of the window, it might as well be the shortest day – its dark outside, raining heavily (again) and everybody has their headlights on. Bear in mind the sun has been up for a good three hours…

A quick glance at the jet stream maps (and forecast) suggests we are still well and truly stuck in the “winter weather pattern” and this looks unlikely to change significantly until early July at the very earliest….

I wonder how all the hippies, pagans and druids gathered at Avebury and Glastonbury coped this morning, being unable to see their earliest dawn!

We have had a couple of nice days this week mind, well…. at least one, and just as I cut the lawn again lat night (my job shackles me to weather forecasts and I am unable to mow our mossy lawn if it is damp), many of the local farmers were mowing their lawns for silage, their tractors being followed by kites and buzzards, looking for disturbed prey in the cut grass as I ran by on my daily three-mile run.

On yesterday’s run, I witnessed something that I rarely see and it reminded me that I am regularly dismayed by contemporary science, or more pertinently, many contemporary “scientists”.

So what did I see?

Nothing particularly special – just a buzzard hovering (like a kestrel) over a farmer’s field as he cut it for silage.

But buzzards can’t hover can they (say the “real scientists”).  Oh sure, they can “wing hang” (face the wind and hang motionless in the air with wings outstretched) but they can’t actually actively produce lift by flapping their wings and hovering like a kestrel!

The answer (and many people who spend a lot of their free time in the countryside, looking and listening will say the same thing) is that buzzards can and do hover like a kestrel – the real scientists may not have witnessed this, but many of us lesser mortals* have.

Now admittedly, they flap their wings and hover in a very untidy, clumsy fashion, with their legs often hanging beneath them (rather than tucked up neatly like a kestrel’s) – and they can’t seem to hover indefinitely like a kestrel either – maybe 30 seconds and then they have to wheel away – but make no mistake, buzzards can and do hover like a kestrel if they need to and conditions are right.

• Many scientists will tell you that is nonsense and buzzards cannot “hover” (but they can and do – ask any farmer).
• Many scientists might also tell you (if asked) that terrapins are not breeding in our rivers and lakes – but I’ve seen it (or if you don’t believe me, ask any fisherman).
• Many scientists were of the firm opinion that black swans were “out of kilter” with the timing of our seasons and therefore would not be able to breed here (they are a southern hemisphere bird naturally) – wrong again.
• Many scientists would let you know that kestrels cannot and would not catch adult rats (as the rats are too big and powerful) – but once again, I’ve seen this regularly and (I assume) if I have, others have also.

The list above is hardly exhaustive but shows a common problem with modern science (or more pertinently, many contemporary scientists).

Many scientists seem incapable of accepting any information without seeing the evidence for themselves. Now that would be fine (science equals evidence after all) if they were open to the possibility of something happening without them having witnessed it for themselves, but that particular mindset seems rarer and rarer these days.

If scientist A does not witness (and document) event X for themselves, scientist A states that event X cannot possibly have happened – flawed logic at best – an arrogant, blinkered stance to take at worst and one (like I say) that seems all to common in the scientific world these days.

NB.

For the record (and for those that don’t know) – I am a zoologist by qualification (having gained a half decent degree from a very well-respected, old university twenty years ago) and also having sat the original (harder?) “O” and “A” levels in the mid ‘80s.

I would not, though, class myself as a “scientist” these days (let alone a “real scientist”) as I am probably more “qualified” in the bakery trade than modern scientific procedure (I worked as a craft baker and a bakery manager for a decade).

I only regard myself as an amateur naturalist (in Gerald Durrell speak) and I suppose I have quite a lot of experience in the field now, as almost all of my free time has been spent outside, since I was a lad. An amateur (field) naturalist with an academic, scientific qualification. That’s all.

I now work in the largest environmental organisation in Europe (although I am not carrying out scientific work for them) but I am certainly surrounded by people who would regard themselves as “real scientists” at work.

Admittedly those “real scientists” are running after me with pitch forks shouting “Heresy! Heresy!” most of the time, but there you go….

Contemporary science does seem to be beset with issues (and not just PR issues)  – and some of my previous heroes (Dawkins etc…) and people who possibly should know better (Packham  etc) are doing nothing for the cause – quite the reverse in fact.

The sentence above might intrigue you. How on earth could I criticise the nation’s favourite wildlife presenter Mr Chris Packham or indeed a stalwart of old school (and brilliant!) evolutionary biology, Richard Dawkins)?!

I’ve not got time to blog more on this now, but will endeavour to find time to do so soon…