Hi I think (?) the authors of the original paper did not say that it was the number of complex math eqns in a paper, but the density found on the pages. Was it OK to put one complex math eqn per page? They mentioned it seemed to be OK if all of the complex math eqns were put in the appendix. Opposite results (conclusions?) were found for theoretical papers. How were the papers chosen? how were the cut-offs for low, medium, high density decided? were the papers chosen randomly or by first looking at the highest number of citations (which means looking at a subset etc.). There is a question again of correlation vs. causeation. I don't think they were talking about complex models but complex math equations (possibly but not necessarily including complex models). By the way complex meaning what?
Ling Huang Sacramento City College --- On Sun, 11/18/12, Wayne Tyson <[email protected]> wrote: From: Wayne Tyson <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology and Equations Re: [ECOLOG-L] New blog post- the use of complex equations decreases the chance that a paper will be cited To: [email protected] Date: Sunday, November 18, 2012, 7:56 AM Ecolog: "Shifting our emphasis in modeling from point estimates to sets or ranges as is done in risk assessment would go a long way to answering many questions." --Malcolm McCallum That's considered by a lot of folks to be, well, heresy. But I agree with Malcolm. That does not mean that I would grant him a doctorate in Heresy, though. --WT Sometimes its not the exact number that matters, its the trend. --Malcolm McCallum Abskerloutely! (Well, maybe not, but it might be closer than farther from the truth.) --WT Using models in this way can reveal a lot about trends and what is possible and what is not possible. --Malcolm McCallum Yes, but I need to learn more about the possible/not possible part. --WT If we can eliminate what is possible at the onset, we can follow up with point estimating models for our specific circumstance which interests s. --Malcolm McCallum Ditto here. I may need an example, like a theoretical foundation and a specific example to clear my fog . . . --WT Jumping right to point estimates may be a fools game though, because your answer may actually be an impossible scenario." --Malcolm McCallum I might (almost) rest my case here . . . --WT WT ----- Original Message ----- From: "malcolm McCallum" <[email protected]> To: "Wayne Tyson" <[email protected]> Cc: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2012 6:07 AM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology and Equations Re: [ECOLOG-L] New blog post- the use of complex equations decreases the chance that a paper will be cited Ecology is not reduced to mathematics. It is described using mathematics. That is the nature of models. The fact that it is complex does not mean their is no mathematical basis. It just means that the mathematics are very complex. Further, dissecting the mathematical complexities in extereme detail may have few applications. This is why generalized models are used instead of very specific ones. A model that works using point estimates (a single number) is either right or wrong. A model that uses sets as predictors or results or both can be accurate, inaccurate, precise or imprecise. Shifting our emphasis in modeling from point estimates to sets or ranges as is done in risk assessment would go a long way to answering many questions. Sometimes its not the exact number that matters, its the trend. Using models in this way can reveal a lot about trends and what is possible and what is not possible. If we can eliminate what is possible at the onset, we can follow up with point estimating models for our specific circumstance which interests us. Jumping right to point estimates may be a fools game though, because your answer may actually be an impossible scenario. Unfortunately, almost everythign we do is try to find THE NUMBER, instead of THE BALLPARK ESTIMATE. There is an old saying "Close enough for government work!" Well, it turns out that close is more often fine than not. For example, does it really matter if a physician tells you that you have a week to 10 days to live, or if he tells you you have 8.23 days to live? The outcome is pretty much the same isn't it? Its the same way with mathematical modeling of ecological systems and environmental problems. Malcolm On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:47 PM, Wayne Tyson <[email protected]> wrote: > Ecolog: > > Leonard's comments may well get him burned at the stake, but an honest > discussion of his points would well-advised. > > I suggest that ecology as a phenomenon is far too complex to be reduced to > mathematics, but a certain amount of counting, even arithmetic, and, where > truly applicable, complex mathematics, when, and only when, it is actually > relevant to reality. Numbers have limitations, just like general > observations do. Still, I do not suggest throwing the mathematics baby out > with the bathwater, only when mathematics are nothing more than bathwater, > to put it politely. As the little book "Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics" > says . . . > > I strongly suspect (but have no statistical analysis to "prove"), that there > is an unfortunate trend toward numerical bs, largely because ecology has > long been derided by the "harder sciences," resulting in a fit of > overcompensation--"if it takes mathematics to get 'respect,' we'll give 'em > mathematics." Professors and committees expect complex equations, even > algorithms from students if the student expects to "get any respect," > graduate, or receive a degree. > > Is it not ironic that a perceived need for credibility might translate into > actions that undermine, nay, ultimately trash that credibility. > > How much about ecology can be understood without mathematics, and then, how > complex need that mathematics be to explain and understand what is going on > in the endlessly-changing processes of life interactions? What do we know? > What don't we know? How do we tell the difference? Is mathematics up to the > job? Does some kind of metamathematics remain to be discovered or developed? > > WT > > PS: > I have suggested that fuzzy logic/mathematics might be useful tools for > examining complex relationships like those found in ecology ( > http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol5/iss2/art5/ ), but any logic or device > that brings better understanding of ecosystem processes might prove > adequate. Ecosystem functions may be infinitely more complex than, say, > weather, and nobody has more than a fuzzy handle on that. > > > "Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex... It takes a > touch of genius - and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction." > --Albert Einstein > > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Neahga Leonard" > <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, November 16, 2012 8:51 AM > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] New blog post- the use of complex equations > decreases the chance that a paper will be cited > > > Interesting. That article validates a feeling I've had for a long while. > > Communication both amongst scientists and between scientists and the rest > of the population is an important issue that needs to be addressed. As > scientists our primary purpose is to explain to others what we learn about > our surroundings. Learning without passing the information on doesn't (in > my opinion) accomplish much and does not add to the repository of knowledge > we all draw upon to move to the next step in learning. > > Within the sciences there seems to be a trend, one that begins in school > and is perpetuated in the professional world, of demonstrating one's > intelligence by being almost incomprehensibly complex. This does few > people any good as it can drive even those very interested in what your > topic is away from the subject. > > Part of this may be due to the genuine complexity of the subjects we look > at and our desire to capture as much of that intricacy as we can. This is > an admirable goal, but we must keep in mind that most other people have not > looked into our particular subject deeply enough to appreciate the fulness > of what we see and that they may not have the time to do so. > > Also, we tend to forget that our most important audience is not other > scientists, but the population at large. Many non-scientists are extremely > curious about the knowledge scientists have to offer, but, even if those > people can access the information (raising the issue of the criminal > expense of scientific papers and journals), what we find is usually not > presented in a way that anyone other than a fellow specialist can > understand it. > > Einstein said, “If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it > well enough”. Maybe we as a profession should meditate upon this. Our > goal, after all, is to explain to others. > > Neahga Leonard > > > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 5:47 AM, David Shiffman > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Hello, all! >> >> I wanted to let you know about a new blog post I've written that may be of >> interest. >> >> A recent PNAS paper showed that papers including a high density of complex >> equations are less likely to be cited than papers with fewer equations. >> Their conclusion was that many scientists appear to be unfamiliar with >> complex mathematics. This paper prompted 4 replies in the latest issue of >> PNAS. >> >> I've summarized all the sides in a blog post, and invited the authors of >> each of the papers and replies to participate in a discussion with my >> blog's readers. Given that many of you use complex mathematics in your >> research, I thought that this might interest you. >> >> Please feel free to join the discussion on the blog either by sharing your >> opinion or by responding to my readers' questions. >> >> The post can be found here: >> >> http://www.southernfriedscience.com/?p=13943 >> >> Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. >> >> Sincerely, >> >> -- >> >> *David Shiffman* >> *Ph.D. Student, Research Assistant,* >> Abess Center for Ecosystem Science and Policy <http://www.cesp.miami.edu/> >> R.J. Dunlap Marine Conservation Program <http://rjd.miami.edu/> >> >> [image: RJD] >> >> *e: *[email protected] | *p: *412.915.2309 >> *a: *4600 Rickenbacker Cswy, Miami, Florida, 33149 >> *t: *@WhySharksMatter <http://twitter.com/#!/WhySharksMatter> | *b: >> *Southern >> Fried Science Blog <http://www.southernfriedscience.com/> >> > > > > -- > Neahga Leonard > > *There is not just a whole world to explore, there is a whole universe to > explore, perhaps more than one.* > http://writingfornature.wordpress.com/ > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 10.0.1427 / Virus Database: 2441/5398 - Release Date: 11/16/12 -- Malcolm L. McCallum Department of Molecular Biology and Biochemistry School of Biological Sciences University of Missouri at Kansas City Managing Editor, Herpetological Conservation and Biology "Peer pressure is designed to contain anyone with a sense of drive" - Allan Nation 1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea" W.S. Gilbert 1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss, and pollution. 2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction MAY help restore populations. 2022: Soylent Green is People! The Seven Blunders of the World (Mohandas Gandhi) Wealth w/o work Pleasure w/o conscience Knowledge w/o character Commerce w/o morality Science w/o humanity Worship w/o sacrifice Politics w/o principle Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1427 / Virus Database: 2441/5403 - Release Date: 11/18/12
