The consequences of paradigm change and poorly validated science: The example of the value of mangroves to fisheries
Marcus Sheaves, Kátya G. Abrantes, Adam Barnett, Claudia Benham, Pat Dale, Carlo Mattone, A. Sheaves, Nathan J. Waltham, Michael Bradley
Abstract
Abstract Accuracy in representing, communicating and reporting science is critical to the translation of science into knowledge. Any lack of accuracy degrades the quality and reliability of consequent decisions. One common cause of inaccuracy is the use of superseded paradigmatic concepts with a lack of careful validation. This leads to evidentiary dissonance (an apparent abundance of evidence with little basis in actual reported scientific findings). We illustrate the nature and consequences of evidentiary dissonance using the example of estimates of the value of mangroves to fisheries, which are key motivators of decision‐making around land‐use activities in mangroves systems, mangrove restoration and disturbance offset initiatives. Causes include the use of inappropriate or inaccurate data and inadequate support for reasoning used to develop estimates of fisheries value. Evidentiary dissonance in linking estimates to scientific understanding has produced a citable and cited body of work with tenuous foundations in current ecological understanding, and a body of literature that is likely to lead to unrealistic expectations, misdirected and wasted resources, and perverse management outcomes.