I would say that science is finding patterns in nature AND explaining = them. Both are different parts of the scientific process. A major = problem today that has yet to be addressed or recognized is how many = people are so busy explaining nature they have forgotten how to describe = it. Both are important. Before you can begin manipulating the system, = be it a forest, frog, or cell, you must first know something about its = normal functional and structural patterns. THis is where modeling the = systems comes in.=20 =20 Then manipulation of those systems through hypothesis testing in order = to explain how they work and why they are there can ensue in a much more = predictable manner. You must know your system before you can = effectively manipulate it! =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: Thu 3/9/2006 5:40 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: "Hamerstrom science" -- response to M. Sears' comments I can understand your (well stated) position, but I think that I can = illuminate my stance on procedural science by modifying your quote of Starker = Leopold. Instead of, "science is finding patterns in nature", I would personally = say that "science is explaining patterns in nature." Taking one definition of = science over the other greatly changes the way you do science. Mike Sears Assistant Professor Department of Zoology Southern Illinois University Carbondale, IL 62901 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://equinox.unr.edu/homepage/msears ------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through https://webmail.unr.edu
