On Mar 9, 2006, at 7:29 AM, Bill Silvert wrote: > One of the greatest scientific > events of the past century was the discovery of ecosystems based on > chemosynthesis rather than photosynthesis, but this was just the > result of > sending down a ROV and had nothing to do with hypothesis testing. > And Darwin > did not set out to test evolution, he joined the Beagle as a field > naturalist and developed his theory from his observations. I > suspect that > these and other major scientific developments would not pass the > rigorous > tests of "correct science". > > Bill Silvert
Indeed, in my opinion, most field experiments should start with adequate recon and descriptive characterization prior to rigorous experimental manipulations. Shouldn't one know what one is manipulating first? Descriptive studies often become the basis for models that can be used to find testable hypotheses and design appropriate experiments. However has anyone in the last 20 years received funding for a descriptive study? Moreover when was the last time any major American journal (Ecology for example) published one? Referring to previous posts on this thread: I think it equally myopic to pass judgement on the science of others, as much of this is personal opinion. Granted however that's the whole point of peer-review. Lets just try to remember that no experiment can control for every factor, and sometimes not even those we hope to, but the data almost always shows us something. I agree that we could benefit greatly from consulting statisticians a priori. But I'm sure we've all had to deal with the issue of publishing a pile of data from a flawed project. Such lessons are often only learned after the fact. As a recent publisher of a descriptive study of coarse woody debris; I think we could benefit from removing the logs in or own eyes before looking for the splinters in other's. ;-) David M Bryant Ph D University of New Hampshire Environmental Education Program Durham, NH 03824 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 978-356-1928
