I like Manuel's response. To answer Jane's other questions: 1. Does it help you do better science? It can, but not necessarily. See below.
Is it crowding out other approaches? I'd like to hear more about this - what other systematic approaches are there? For example, anecdotal observations are generally discouraged, but sometimes anecdotal observations are valuable and should be a) reported and b) inspire further observation and/or experiment. E.g. observations of tool-use in animals in the wild are great example of spontaneous events that one can never set out to observe systematically (except in controlled lab settings) but are nonetheless highly informative. I also wonder about replication - the larger or longer the scale (e.g. ecosystem, biome/longitudinal studies) the harder it is to replicate. This gets at Manuel's distinction about statistical vs. scientific hypotheses. You might have a hypothesis about a process but observe outcomes that are inherently difficult to attach a p-value to or find multiple examples of. Thoughts on that? Finally there's the issue of taxonomic poverty. Hypotheses about clades with few species are more difficult to test than those with a greater number of species. A problem if you're interested in the species-poor clade for other reasons. I.e. there is a trend towards choosing your species/system of study based on your questions of interest, and lately I've heard many talks that begin "We chose to study species X because it is an excellent model for testing Y..." What if you simply want to know about species X for no other reason than that you want to know about it? 2. Have you ever had a grant proposal or publication declined because of an absent or unclear hypothesis? Yes, and I'm wondering about this trend in the stated aims of some journals as well. -- Shermin de Silva, Ph.D http://elephantresearch.net/fieldnotes http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~sdesilva On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 10:49 AM, Manuel Spínola <mspinol...@gmail.com>wrote: > Dear Jane, > > That is a topic that have interested me for a long time. I teach something > of this in my classes to master students in wildlife management and > conservation here in Costa Rica. I know this is a controversial issue. > > First I recommend these 3 books: > > Scientific Method for Ecological Research. E. David Ford. > > Method in Ecology: Strategies for Conservation. Kristin S. > Shrader-Frechette and Earl D. McCoy > > A Primer on Natural Resource Science. Fred S. Guthery > > > Is necessary to distinguish between statistical and scientific hypothesis. > Statistical hypotheses is about patterns, scientific hypotheses are about > process (they are based on "why" or "how"). > > My experience on this topic tells me that most ecologists do not know the > difference between the 2 kind of hypothesis. > > Like you probably experienced, reviewers like to see hypothesis driven > research on the proposal that you submit but most of the time they do not > know what a true scientific hypothesis is. > > Most research in ecology is not hypothesis driven, even when would like to > see that. Read any paper in ecological journals and see how many of them > are truly hypothesis driven. > > Hypothesis driven research are not always possible and in many instances is > not necessary to have scientific hypothesis, all depend on the context. > Most of the time we are interested in parameter estimation on how much a > factor or covariable influence a parameter of interest. Besides, If you are > going to do hypothesis driven research you need to work with multiple > hypothesis (Chamberlin). > > Falsification is the contribution of Karl Popper to the > Hypothetic-Deductive method. It has nothing to do with statistics or > statistical hypothesis. > > The hypothetic-deductive method has been considered as "the scientific > method", however not many people know how it works. The > hypothetic-deductive method is inductive and not deductive like the > namesuggest. > > There is no a superior approach to obtain scientific knowledge. > > There are much more on this topic but I would like to see other opinions. > > Best, > > Manuel Spínola > > > > On 27/02/2011 11:44 p.m., Jane Shevtsov wrote: > >> Fellow Ecologgers, >> >> Lately, I've been thinking a lot about the role of hypothesis testing >> (both the statistical and falsificationist varieties) in biology in >> general and ecology in particular. Before saying anything, I want to >> ask the forum a few questions. >> 1. What do you think of the current emphasis on hypothesis-driven >> research? Does it help you do better science? Is it crowding out other >> approaches? >> 2. Have you ever had a grant proposal or publication declined because >> of an absent or unclear hypothesis? >> 3. Have you ever recommended that someone else's grant proposal or >> publication be declined for that reason? Was it the main reason? >> >> I look forward to hearing what people have to say. >> >> Jane Shevtsov >> >> > > -- > *Manuel Spínola, Ph.D.* > Instituto Internacional en Conservación y Manejo de Vida Silvestre > Universidad Nacional > Apartado 1350-3000 > Heredia > COSTA RICA > mspin...@una.ac.cr > mspinol...@gmail.com > Teléfono: (506) 2277-3598 > Fax: (506) 2237-7036 > Personal website: Lobito de río < > https://sites.google.com/site/lobitoderio/> > Institutional website: ICOMVIS <http://www.icomvis.una.ac.cr/> >
