Joe, Actually your point is well taken and I am interested in your opinions even if I don't agree. Some terms have become so embedded in our common usage that they may be inappropriate for use in a scientific context. Forest health I am sure is linked in our minds to our concepts of own health. The question to me really is, if the term is being used everyday, and being misused by some elements of the forest industry, should we devise a different term that won't be used to better fit the concept, or try to redefine the existing term, the term already in the public awareness to something that better fits the concept. I will acknowledge that perhaps the term forest health is not ideal because of the baggage of the term "health" in everyday use, but I think fixing it is a better path than making up a new term.
Ed "Two roads diverged in a yellow wood, And sorry I could not travel both. " Robert Frost (1874–1963). Mountain Interval. 1920. ----- Original Message ----- From: Joseph Zorzin To: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 8:49 PM Subject: [ENTS] Re: Rendezvous Report No, not necessarily, but when the term has a common every day use- as the term "health" does- especially having to do with our own health, which has to do with survival against the Grim Reaper- the images brought to mind can easily make the term abusable, like "family values" has been abused by the Republicans. Finding a new word for the concept, which will not carry so much baggage, will help free the essential term we're really thinking about, from that baggage. Health is a faulty descriptive word for ecosystems and their components, not that I really care all that much, and not that anybody would care what I think. But I'm convinced part of the reason the term is abused is because it's not a good term to be used for a scientific concept. But, I'll bow to the scientists in the audience if they can come up with useful definitions of "forest health" that will succeed in defeating those dark forces who misuse the term and who so far have won the battle. Such victory will be the final proof. Go for it! Joe ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lee Frelich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 6:08 PM Subject: [ENTS] Re: Rendezvous Report Ed, Joe, Gary: I agree with Ed that scientists should not necessarily reject a term because it is abused by industry. Regarding the amendment proposed about genetic diversity, yes we could add that and also make the point that different baselines may be relevant (i.e. other than pre-European settlement). Lee At 04:05 PM 11/5/2008, you wrote: >Joe, > >The world expressed as a series of equations is an engineering concept not >a scientific one. In order to be valid we must know all things about >every variable of the proposition. Since we do not know, and perhaps can >not know all things about every variable in a complex system, then our >scientific understanding will be limited to only the most simple of >things. That is one of the great failures of modern science, perhaps >driven by our ability to manipulate numbers so well by computer, is the >drive to quantify everything and to simply ignore things that can't be >readily quantified. There is often the opinion that a bad quantification >is better than no numbers at all. That is not true, if the the bad models >resulting from bad quantification lead you to the wrong conclusions. We >need to categorize things iteratively, but the arbitrary assignment of >numbers to poorly understood phenomena doesn't help. Scientific >understanding is based upon a logic structure that may contain equations, >but does not need to be numerical to be scientific. Requiring a concept >be an equation with may quantifiable variables limits the ability to >investigate or to even understand many natural phenomena. Mathematical >formulas and equations are a tool of scientific investigation, but are not >themselves science, no more than a shovel is the same thing as a hole in >the ground. > >Ed > >"Two roads diverged in a yellow wood, And sorry I could not travel both. " >Robert Frost (1874–1963). Mountain Interval. 1920. >----- Original Message ----- >From: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Joseph Zorzin >To: <mailto:[email protected]>[email protected] >Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 4:18 PM >Subject: [ENTS] Re: Rendezvous Report > >Joe >PS: to me, the concept is an equation with many variables- each variable >must be quantifiable including values not yet in the marketplace- while >social and political values also plugged into the equation must be >transparent. > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Eastern Native Tree Society http://www.nativetreesociety.org You are subscribed to the Google Groups "ENTSTrees" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
