Joe, I do not believe that measuring everything or assigning everything a number is always the best way to examine a problem. A more inclusive approach that has some terms that are not explicitly defined - the fuzzy-wuzzy stuff you are denigrating - are more useful than a gross simplification that only includes those elements you can quantify. As I said before I am not opposed to measurement, quantification, and modeling in general, it is an invaluable investigative tool. It is that I do not believe that is the best or even the most appropriate methodology in many cases. It is only a one aspect and one approach to investigating a problem that is being considered. Mathematics is not science, it is a tool used by science. Sometimes that single approach is enough, sometimes it is not. I am happy to discuss these ideas with you politely. It likely will turn out that neither of us will convince the other and we still will disagree. I am interested in your ideas, and am willing to be convicted that I am mistaken. You have a great deal of field and practical experience that I lack, and I do respect that knowledge. I would however, encourage you to post complete thoughts in complete paragraphs rather than inserting sniping comments within my posts directed at partial argument fragments rather than the complete thoughts I present.
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 8:56 PM Subject: [ENTS] Re: Forest Health ----- Original Message ----- From: "Edward Frank" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "ENTS Google" <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 8:21 PM Subject: [ENTS] Forest Health ENTS, Just because you can measure some aspect of a phenomena does not mean that you understand it. Just like being able to measure the height of a tree does not mean you understand everything about forest ecology. You can not ignore processes and characteristics simply because you do not know how to quantify them or how to fit them into your equation or model. I am all for measuring things, trying to quantify things, and developing formulas and models, but there needs to a reality check with respect to how well they things actually represent the real-world ********** And no better way to find out how close they represent the "real-world" than by measuring them. <G> On a more specific point, I am not convinced that a single one-size-fits-all definition of forest health is practical or even advisable given the diverse nature of various forest ecosystems. ********** Then what scientists to is develop an array of terms. Or, a great scientist would come up with such an advanced theory- with an advanced model, that it could indeed cover the variations- nobody ever thought that a model could explain the relationship between energy and matter the way Einstein did with E=MC squared- that covers a lot of territory. If a simple quantifiable equation is developed, you know it will be misapplied to forests or situations where its application is not appropriate. ********** Then it must be a NOT simple, but quantifiable series of equations which have a relationship to each other based in truth. All I'm saying is that a fuzzy-wuzzy definition of forest health serves no purpose- it does help advance our understanding of what we really mean by the term- which can then be used by policy makers wisely and not abused. Anyways, glad to see that I've stirred up a vigorous discussion. <G> Ed Frank ----- Original Message ----- From: Edward Frank To: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 5:05 PM Subject: [ENTS] Re: Rendezvous Report 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: Joseph Zorzin To: [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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
