I think this’ll be a useful intuition pump, to the extent that the numbers diverge from any reader’s beliefs. Maybe. You say “viewpoint uncertainty” rather than “disagreement of opinion”—is the ground truth here based on polling and opinions of “scholars involved with animal ethics”, or something more verifiable (perhaps polling of wider audiences or better yet, revealed preference in terms of dollars spent for preservation per individual of the species)? Do you do any weighting of the opinions, based on years or papers on the topic, or on strength of reasoning for their viewpoints?
To be clear, I am not the author—this is an article that was submitted to the journal. If you want to read the article just reach out the email above (if you want to take a look without registering to be a gardener that is okay).
I think this’ll be a useful intuition pump, to the extent that the numbers diverge from any reader’s beliefs. Maybe. You say “viewpoint uncertainty” rather than “disagreement of opinion”—is the ground truth here based on polling and opinions of “scholars involved with animal ethics”, or something more verifiable (perhaps polling of wider audiences or better yet, revealed preference in terms of dollars spent for preservation per individual of the species)? Do you do any weighting of the opinions, based on years or papers on the topic, or on strength of reasoning for their viewpoints?
To be clear, I am not the author—this is an article that was submitted to the journal. If you want to read the article just reach out the email above (if you want to take a look without registering to be a gardener that is okay).