Home > Issues
> Domestic Violence > Triggers and Causes
in Feminist Pseudo-science |
|
Empowering Men:
|
Triggers and Causes in Feminist
Pseudo-science (eight times updated)
Peter Zohrab 2019 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Open Letter to the Prime Minister's Chief Science Advisor)
12 May 2019
Dear Professor Gerrard,
Under the Official Information Act, could you please answer the
following questions, which relate to the Philosophy of Science in
relation to one particular issue:
-
Do you have any information that there is a generally accepted
distinction in Science between a “trigger” and a “cause”
of a specific event?
-
If so, what scientific disciplines employ this distinction and
what references can you point me to so that I can learn more about
this?
-
Where the term “trigger” is used to mean “immediate
cause” and the term “cause” is used to mean
“underlying cause”, is it scientifically legitimate
to claim that certain constructs are underlying causes, without
ever providing evidence that they have any causal role whatsoever?
The point is that the triggers can presumably be proved to be
causal factors on their own, but some people may like to claim
that the assumed underlying causes also play a causal role.
I have studied a wide range of subjects at the tertiary level, including
Science and the Philosophy of Science and the above questions –
in case you have not already guessed – relate to the Feminist
“Power and Control” theory of Family Violence.
Yours sincerely,
Peter Zohrab
|
I received the following initial reply:
|
Kia ora,
On behalf of the Office of the Prime Minister's Chief Science Advisor,
thank you for your request under the Official Information Act 1982 which
was received on 12th May 2019, copied below.
Your request has been forwarded to the Department of Prime Minister
and Cabinet, who handles all our Official Information Act requests.
A response will be provided in accordance with the Act (please see the
Office of the Ombudsman Website for more details - http://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz/
).
The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC) may publish
the response to your Official Information Act (OIA) request.
When you are provided with a response to this request, you will be
informed about whether the response to your OIA request will be published.
If DPMC does publish the response to your OIA request, personal information,
including your name and contact details, will be removed.
Yours,
Ben Jeffares
|
In due course, I also received the substantive reply
below:
|
 |
I later responded as follows:
|
17 August 2019
Right Honourable Prime Minister
Jacinda Ardern
Parliament House
Wellington
Your ref.: CSA OIA 19-0D4
Dear Jacinda Ardern
I am writing in response to your office’s letter dated 6 June
2019.
Thank you for confirming that you have no information on the matters
which I asked about.
That would normally be the end of the matter, but I would like to
respond to your statement that my questions:
…are not requests for official information in accordance with
the Act.
I do not regard that as an honest statement of your true belief, because:
-
you did not provide any evidence, such as referring to the relevant
subsection of the Official Information Act 1982; and
-
you did, in fact, respond to my request as if you did consider
it to be a request for official information in accordance with the
Act.
I have a Law degree and I have reread the Interpretation section of
the Act. I consider your above statement to be without foundation.
Yours sincerely,
Peter Zohrab |
|
In due course, I received the following reply:
|
 |
 |
On 5 October 2019, I replied as follows:
|
Dear Jacinda Ardern,
I am writing in response to your office’s letter dated 16 September
2019.
-
Under the Official Information Act, given that you have a “Chief
Science Advisor,” could you please tell me:
What is your official definition of “science”?
Please note that that is a question, although I will now clarify
the context by making a statement.
You claimed that the third question in my correspondence of 12 May
2019 was in fact a statement. My third question read as follows:
‘Where the term “trigger” is used to mean
“immediate cause” and the term “cause” is
used to mean “underlying cause”, is it scientifically
legitimate to claim that certain constructs are underlying causes,
without ever providing evidence that they have any causal role whatsoever?
The point is that the triggers can presumably be proved to be causal
factors on their own, but some people may like to claim that the
assumed underlying causes also play a causal role.’
The first sentence ends in a question mark and contains the word-order
“is it”, which is clearly that of a question. Therefore,
your claim that that was a statement, rather than a question, is a
pure lie.
-
Under the Official Information Act, given that you have a “Chief
Science Advisor,” could you please tell me:
Is “science,” according to your official definition
of it, compatible with claiming that certain constructs are underlying
causes, without ever providing evidence that they have any causal
role whatsoever?
|
In due course, I received the following reply (I have scanned one
of the pages at a slightly smaller size than the others, but I don't
think that matters):
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
Later, for some reason, I received a further reply,
as follows:
|
 |
Then I replied as follows:
|
Dear Prime Minister,
Thank you for your reply dated 30 October 2019.
In it, you repeated your (office's) previous claim that my official
information request was not actually asking for official information.
I reject that as an apparent attempt to pave the way for future refusals
to reply to requests for official information.
Your latest letter contained the following statement:
"[t]he PMCSA advises the Prime Minister on scientific evidence
in its broadest sense...".
That statement clearly constitutes official information. It is neither:
-
a view; nor
-
an opinion; nor
-
information created for the purpose of answering my question.
It is information which tells me the basis on which your Chief Science
Adviser works and answers the first of my two questions, as repeated
below and tells me (by implication) that your answer to my second question
is likely to be vaguely related to the word "yes".
-
What is your official definition of “science”?
-
‘Where the term “trigger” is used to mean “immediate
cause” and the term “cause” is used to mean “underlying
cause”, is it scientifically legitimate to claim that certain
constructs are underlying causes, without ever providing evidence
that they have any causal role whatsoever? The point is that the
triggers can presumably be proved to be causal factors on their
own, but some people may like to claim that the assumed underlying
causes also play a causal role.’
I hope this is not too complicated for you to understand. You should
be equipped with intelligent advisers -- although that is perhaps incompatible
with them being Feminist, as required.
Yours sincerely,
Peter Zohrab
|
On 14/11/2019, I received the following response:
|
Dear Mr Zohrab,
On behalf of the Prime Minister, I confirm that the Prime Minister’s
Office has fully canvassed the matters that you have raised in your
comments below in previous responses we have sent to you. In particular,
the response that was sent to you on 30 October 2019. If you should
request information on a separate matter we will respond accordingly.
However, there will be no further comment made on the matters you have
raised below.
If you are unhappy with this decision, you have the right to ask the
Ombudsman to investigate and review this decision under section 28(3)
of the Official Information Act 1982. You can contact the Ombudsman
online via the Ombudsman website (www.ombudsman.parliament.nz), by email
(info@ombudsman.parliament.nz) or by post to The Ombudsman, PO Box 10152,
Wellington 6143.
Nga mihi,
Tabitha Spicer | Private Secretary (Administration)
Office of the Prime Minister
Authorised by Rt. Hon Jacinda Ardern MP, Parliament Buildings, Wellington |
See also:
|
| |
Webmaster |
|
Latest Update |
22 November 2022 |
|
|
|
