Good science is a falicy. Either its science following the scientific = method or its not science. Period. I agree with most of the rest of what you said. =20 Malcolm L. McCallum Assistant Professor Department of Biological Sciences Texas A&M University Texarkana 2600 Robison Rd. Texarkana, TX 75501 O: 1-903-233-3134 H: 1-903-791-3843 Homepage: https://www.eagle.tamut.edu/faculty/mmccallum/index.html =20
________________________________ From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of = Michael Sears Sent: Wed 3/8/2006 7:00 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: "Hamerstrom science" (deliberate non-use of statistical = analysis) If you can design an elegant experiment that only requires a t-test for = its analysis, that is admirable. But the simple truth of the matter, in my experience, is that many folks don't take the time to design a good = experiment, often collect data with disregard to any theory, and simply collect what = is easy or is the data that everyone else collects, hoping in the end that = somehow through mathemagic, they can make something out of their efforts. To = paraphrase Burnham and Anderson, 90% of our time should be spent thinking and only = 10% doing. I'd suggest folks be aware of theory and design experiments with = regard to it, such that the design and analysis are set BEFORE the data are = collected. Often, but not always, if that is done, an overly complex analysis may = not be necessary...but some complicated hypotheses do require complex analyses. = This is the nature of good science. Mike Sears Assistant Professor Department of Zoology Southern Illinois University Carbondale, IL 62901 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://equinox.unr.edu/homepage/msears Quoting stan moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Folks -- > > In view of recent discussions of modeling and the correct choice and = use of > > them, the correct analysis of assumptions, etc., I am reminded of a > contrarian method of science related to Frederick and Fran Hamerstrom, = two > > graduate students of Aldo Leopold, now deceased. Frederick and Fran = were > expert ecologists, but of the "old school" in that they practiced a = form of > > science that is in danger of extinction. > > The September, 1992 issue of the Journal of Raptor Research (Vol. 26, = No. 3) > > was dedicated to the work of the Hamerstroms and edited by two former > "gabboons" of theirs, Drs. Josef Scmutz and Keith Bildstein. An = interesting > > letter was published in that issue of JRR, written by Dr. Schmutz, = entitled > > "Hamerstrom Science From a Gabboon's Point of View", pp. 206-210. > > Here is a quote from that paper: "To think that only those who employ > up-to-date statistical procedure carry out "good science" is flawed. = The > difficulties encountered in the study of complex natural events are so > enormous that even approaches which are considered to be = state-of-the-art by > > peers are often insufficient. S.H. Hurlbert concluded that of 176 > experimental studies published between 1960 and 1983, 27% were = designed > inappropriately... Perhaps, the message from the Hamerstroms is not = to use > > the term "chain" when the strength is equivalent to that provided by a > "string". Much of what is considered "good science" is done not = because the > > method warrants it or because a paradigm dictates it, but because it = is > consideredc the approach of choice by peers within one's "invisible > college". " > > A couple of years ago, Dr. Steve Herman in an invited paper to the = Wildlife > > Society Bulletin, lamented the "lust for statistics" and the = distortion > between research and management now so prevalent in the wildlife > profession. > > I admire and enjoy the philosophy of such contrarians! > > > Stan Moore San Geronimo, CA [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through https://webmail.unr.edu
