- Thread Starter
- #21
wildernessmaster
Lil-Rokslider
And I am not trying to discount what you are saying either, only that your experience was not “natural”. You took a deer that you admit would have died very early had it been left to It’s native instincts, to me that is adjusting nature. And it’s ok. As I mentioned I enjoyed reading your observations. Some very astute observations (esp about the moon phase).
However, you are falling victim to observational bias. We can’t generalize to a whole deer population what you see in one deer. Esp given that it was such a unnnatural environment it was provided. You were acting as it’s doe, you were it’s protector and you offered protections a doe couldn’t. Therefore we can’t generalize, only observe.
Again, appreciate those observations, I just want to lend caution to make too many conclusions based on your one observation. That’s all.
I am sorry... "falling victim"... As an engineer by education and 30 years of work, every observer mechanical or non has observational bias. If we discounted any observation based on this fact, we would never move science forward. A simple sensor (observer) in a system that is hotter than others has bias.
There are 3 outcomes of bias... truth, false positive and false negative. If a bias produces truth then it is a neutral bias. If a bias produces false positive, then the bias has caused the interpretation to be positive when it is in fact negative. Vice versa for false negative.
All in all, I attempt to provide the observation as close to its origin and true state (like if I were giving you observations after months of foster, the bias would be much larger from true state due to conditioning) and limited opinion on the observation.
Has the animal been in an unnatural state yes. For a limited time. Most of my observations were made initially in the first days - and re-affirmed as time progressed.
Its yours to do with as you please.