Re: [ECOLOG-L] Hypothesis testing in ecology
I've been meaning to comment here too. When I teach statistics, my goal is to give the graduate students a toolbox if you will, of useful ways to test ideas. More complex statistics comes later. In teaching, I use the idea of testing hypotheses, with a very important caveat. Both, null and alternative hypotheses have to be biologically sensible and biologically possible. I know I find many published papers that gloss over the null, but it turns out, on deeper inspection, that it was not a possibility and so refuting it was unavoidable. Apply that idea, that the null also must be reasonable, logical and possible, and you may find that many null hypotheses are none of those. Jim On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 13:13, Kevin Mueller kem...@psu.edu wrote: If we iteratively modify our hypotheses through the process of data collection, data analysis, or manuscript preparation, how different is this process from observational or exploratory research? It is, of course, different to some debatable extent. Regardless, I think Paul's comments shed light on the reality that there is a large gray area between the extremes of purely observational studies and purely hypothesis driven studies (which his 2005 paper apparently documents). Given this, I find the explicit or underlying claims of superiority made by proponents of hypothesis driven research to ring false (despite some of the strong benefits of hypothesis testing that Paul and others have made clear). I find such claims ironic since the result of many observational or exploratory studies is, gasp, a hypothesis. Finally, regardless of the language we use to reference hypotheses in our introductions, I ask: Is it always beneficial to cloak studies that are somewhat exploratory behind a veil of singlular hypothesis testing? Or might we also sometimes gain and share insights by making the process of data exploration and hypothesis testing/modification more apparent in our manuscripts? To be clear, my comments are more in response to a general narrow-mindedness that I've observed among some natural scientists, not to any particular post or 'poster' in this recent thread (i.e. I found Paul's post insightful and not especially narrow-minded). Kevin Mueller On Mar 9, 2011, at 11:00 PM, Paul Grogan wrote: Furthermore, often during the data interpretation or write-up stage, additional reflection on the processes of experimentation and evaluation of the data may indicate to the scientist (or to a manuscript reviewer) that the test did not reflect the hypothesis as well as originally thought. In such cases, further refinement or editing of the hypothesis statement should be made so that the final research output – the peer-reviewed publication disseminating the new knowledge – is as accurate and accessible to others as possible. As a result, I usually finish my manuscript Introduction sections with: “We used our data to test the following hypotheses” (rather than “We tested the following hypotheses... which gives the impression of great foresight on the part of the author).
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Climate Change Data
Wayne, isn't somewhat of a trick question? I mean, in science, we have a tough time saying that anything except the trivial is unequivocal. Also, is it even theoretically possible to unequivocally demonstrate a difference in climate due to natural or to human causes? Especially when they are operating simultaneously. And, as for prediction, I have yet to see models that based on the past do well at predicting the present, in both, natural and human dominated systems. However, there are plenty of data with plants and animals showing trends that are consistent with climate change, and also, a considerable amount of good logic supports anthropogenic climate change. What more could a realistic person want? Cheers, Jim On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 18:42, Wayne Tyson landr...@cox.net wrote: Hi all, Can anyone tell me or direct me to a source that can tell me unequivocally and quantitatively what the direct and indirect effects of human influence are and are projected to be compared to the background or natural influences with respect to global temperature changes and predicted states? Is there any information on the conditions of life in the past which match those states and their probable causes? WT - Original Message - From: Sudhir Raj Shrestha sudhir_...@yahoo.com To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 11:35 AM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Climate Change Data Hi Steve, In addition to Ben's comprehensive list, I will suggest you to look at NOAA's new (still prototype, we are working on it) climate portal. www.climate.gov Thanks, Sudhir Shrestha --- On Tue, 3/15/11, Benjamin White bgwh...@umd.edu wrote: From: Benjamin White bgwh...@umd.edu Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Climate Change Data To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Date: Tuesday, March 15, 2011, 6:17 PM Steve, Contrary to adopting the approach of utilizing dumbed-down on-line climate tutorials, I find that the easiest way to initially engage interested parties is to refer them to summaries for decision makers and to content-rich web sites. Here you will often find scientific or policy organizations' bottom line ref. findings, data and methods. Consider, perhaps, some climate findings, reports and resources from: - a summary of global environment, including climate: http://www.unep.org/geo/geo4/media/GEO4%20SDM_launch.pdf (GEO5 will soon be out and it is my personal expectation that climate change will be cast in a slightly different light) - http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml#1 and http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_synthesis_report.htm - Geenhouse gas, etc. data: http://unfccc.int/ghg_data/items/3800.php - CCSP provides an umbrella for US data data on climate change: http://www.climatescience.gov/default.php (e.g. http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap4-2/final-report/default..htm ) - CIESIN and SEDAC provide a wealth of material, particular on the human dimensions of climate change e.g. the Geographic Distribution of Climate Change Vulnerability. A review of their site is will definitely stimulate discussion: http://www.ciesin.columbia.edu/index.html Some selected readings from the IPCC4 report, along with figures, etc. should be a good place to start. There are always developments in the realm of climate science that are worth consideration (for example, modeling the influence of grassroots climate change mitigation efforts). A review of the some of the contemporary articles in Nature, Science, New Scientist (their ask a climate scientist blog is really cool: http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2010/12/ask-a-climate-scientist.html) etc. will likely provide material for a significantly enriched discussion. You are correct to be wary of data or findings from organizations which lack scientific objectivity. ***I am sure other people on the list will be able to add to the suggested sites above. Cheers, --Ben White Original message Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 22:01:40 -0400 From: Steven Roes steven.roe...@houghton.edu Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Climate Change Data To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Hi All, I'm preparing to teach few days on climate change to my high school living environment students. We are nearing the conclusion of our ecology unit, and they've been soaking up the material like sponges--I've been incredibly happy to see thier progress as an entire group. I'm working on researching for these few days climate change, and I'm in need of trustworthy data with some discussion that, ideally, my students can understand. If necessary, I can work to translate any discussion to more appropriate language. Could any of you point me in the direction of where to find non-biased information on the issue of climate change and rising CO2 levels that is worthy of presenting? Thanks in advance for your help, Steve
[ECOLOG-L] New articles on Journal of Pollination Ecology - JPE
Dear Colleagues, I am pleased to inform you that two new articles have been published in the Journal of Pollination Ecology and are ready for free download: J Poll Ecol 2011, 3(1) Typology in pollination biology: Lessons from an historical critique by Waser, Nickolas; Ollerton, Jeff Erhardt, Andreas J Poll Ecol 2011, 3(2) Pollination ecology in the 21st Century: Key questions for future research by Mayer, Carolin; Adler, Lynn; Armbruster, W. Scott; Dafni, Amots; Eardley, Connal; Huang, Shuang-Quan; Kevan, Peter G.; Ollerton, Jeff; Packer, Laurence; Ssymank, Axel; Stout, Jane C. Potts, Simon G. Go to www.pollinationecology.org http://www.pollinationecology.org enjoy reading! Sorry for crossposting, Carolin -- Dr Carolin Mayer Editor-in-chief Journal of Pollination Ecology www.pollinationecology.org
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Climate Change Data
James and Ecolog: No, it's not a trick question, it's an honest plea for better, more convincing information about quantification of the direct and indirect effects of anthropogenic causes of climate change. The public at large has an even tougher time sorting out the scientific sheep from the goats, on this and other issues in science. It may be a tough question, but there's nothing tricky about it. The plenitude of data is the problem, not the solution. The problem is credibility of good science in the eyes and minds of the public. Scientists tend to come off as elitist, patronizing snobs who decry the dumbing-down of we, the unwashed (if not unclean) through the only media to which we have access, e.g., TV and the Internet. Scientists sit on their hands and let these media get by with incredible distortions of science. I have tried to raise these issues to the scientific community, only to hear a deafening silence, or at best, diversionary mumbling about how we should accept scientific conclusions uncritically. The minute we ask critical questions (some say this is the root of science), we get condescension and the doors to further enquiry are slammed shut in our faces. With all due respect to climate change, for example, we, the unscientific, dumbed-down rabble who dare to enquire beyond unconditional faith in accepting what we are told by science are immediately classified as deniers (we of little faith) if we question the dictum of the day. We know a straw-man fallacy when we're hit with one, whether or not we can articulate it. This adversely affects the credibility of science in general and the subset in question in particular. We do not, for example, question whether or not there IS an anthropogenic factor in climate change phenomena, we just want to be able to start at the generalizations and follow a clear trail of the supporting chain of evidence as far as we care to. The scientific conclusions get all mixed up with each other, and we're trying to sort out the well-founded from the unfounded. Are, for example, we being switchgrassed into submitting to a wholesale acceptance of renewable fuels and biofuels and carbon credits, or are these THE solution to switching off our apps? Is our concern that the part of science we are allowed to see is leading us down a gardening path where we destroy more and more complex, diverse ecosystems to plant (and presumably irrigate, fertilize, and maintain) switchgrass or corn or soybeans until now common species are forced onto the endangered species list and habitats are homogenized? So if you mean by trick that you see more than meets the eye, I would have to (just did) say aye, I agree. In fact, I don't see how a brief, direct, simple, singular question or two could possibly be interpreted as tricky--unless we are so used to obfuscatory convolutions that we become suspicious of said questions. What I hoped for is a simple, direct answer that reflects an as honest and complete an answer to the question as possible from those who have already analyzed the data as possible--i.e. with as little equivocation as possible. I had hoped to get individual responses that would demonstrate the hypothesis that the world climate is going to hell in a handbasket because of human activity and that it wouldn't boil or freeze if humans just stopped (just what?). While I am very grateful for those who took the time to send links and references, I had hoped for a simply-stated conclusion along with that support, I must conclude, in agreement with James, that . . . there are plenty of data with plants and animals showing trends that are consistent with climate change, and also, a considerable amount of good logic supports anthropogenic climate change, I do not agree with his statement (What more could a realistic person want?). A realistic (scientific?) person wants conclusions based on sound analysis supported by solid data (or as solid as possible, revealing the amount of slop or fudge at the outset). For the very reason Roper cites, absolutely firm conclusions without any envelope of uncertainty is ipso facto suspicious. That's where the questioning, not the denying, comes from. James' question is a reasonable one; I tried to avoid elaboration in my perhaps-too-brief initial post, but I was not trying to be tricky. I hope this helps to clarify what seems to me (for the moment) any doubts about any hidden agendas. I am not a climate-change denier, I fully understand that there is an anthropogenic effect on the climate--I just don't know whether the science to date over- or under-estimates that effect, and conversely, how much other factors influence potential outcomes. follow-up questions: What do we need to know that we don't know? Or do we know everything we need to know? What are the solutions? What are the effects of those solutions on ecosystems? How can scientists increase public confidence
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Best source for gridded radiation data?
I don't know if this helps, but WorldClim has some interesting GIS layers. http://www.worldclim.org/download Neahga Leonard On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Jonathan Greenberg greenb...@ucdavis.eduwrote: Folks: I'm trying to hunt down daily or monthly gridded radiation data at 4km or better resolution for North America (and, preferably, the world). At least a 10 year record would be preferable (the longer the better). What products would you all suggest (and why?) Any responses I get I'll summarize and repost. Thanks! --j -- Jonathan A. Greenberg, PhD Assistant Project Scientist Center for Spatial Technologies and Remote Sensing (CSTARS) Department of Land, Air and Water Resources University of California, Davis One Shields Avenue Davis, CA 95616 Phone: 415-763-5476 AIM: jgrn307, MSN: jgrn...@hotmail.com, Gchat: jgrn307
[ECOLOG-L] Postdoctoral Position in Forest Soils
A Postdoctoral Research Associate position in Forest Soils is available at the University of Maine. The position is supported by National Science Foundation funding and will emphasize the use of stable isotope tracer techniques to evaluate nitrogen biogeochemistry at a long-term experimental paired forest watershed study site. The Postdoctoral Research Associate will be part of a collaborative team of soil scientists, stream ecologists, geochemists, and microbiologists. Studies will investigate nitrogen cycling through vegetation, litter, soils, soil solutions and streams in a reference watershed and an adjacent watershed that has been subjected to 22+ years of experimental acidification and nitrogen enrichment. Collaborators directly involved with this project represent the Department of Plant, Soil and Environmental Sciences, School of Biology and Ecology, Department of Earth Sciences, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, the Climate Change Institute, and the USDA Forest Service. The successful candidate must have an earned PhD in forest soils, ecology, biogeochemistry, or related discipline. Strong interpersonal and communication skills, and the ability to work effectively with a wide range of constituencies, are required. Experience in both field and laboratory research, and in the application of stable isotope tracer techniques in ecological research, are highly desirable. The position includes heavy lifting at times, up to 40 lbs. The ability to develop manuscripts and proposals, deliver presentations, travel, normally requiring a valid driver’s license, are fundamental to this position. The initial appointment is for one year, with a maximum duration of 3 years. Finalists for this position must complete necessary background checks. The proposed salary range is $35-40,000. Review of applications begins April 15, 2011 and will continue until a suitable pool of applicants is found. The full job description can be found at http://jobs.umaine.edu/. Please send a cover letter, CV, and the names and contact information for three referees to: Dr. Ivan J. Fernandez University of Maine 5722 Deering Hall – Room 1 Orono, ME 04469-5722 Tel: 207-581-2932 Fax: 207-581-2999 iva...@maine.edu
[ECOLOG-L] Graduate Assistantships in Forest Soils
Graduate Research Assistantships in Forest Soils – PhD/MS: Position responsibilities will be to conduct research on the biogeochemistry of northern forested watersheds related to a changing chemical and physical climate. Several positions are available related to a new project using stable isotopes to study nitrogen cycling, and ongoing studies of watershed biogeochemistry, recovery from acidification, and phenology. Students interested in pursuing a PhD are preferred, although highly qualified MS students may apply. Positions are available starting in the summer of 2011. Qualifications: BS/BA and/or MS in appropriate discipline (e.g. soil science, ecology, forestry, environmental science, or related field), strong commitment to career in related subject matter, experience with demanding field research, and excellent laboratory skills. To apply: Interested applicants are encouraged to send a letter of interest (prior accomplishments, research experience and interests, future career goals), a CV, transcripts, and GRE scores. Details about the graduate admissions process at The University of Maine can be found at The Graduate School web site (http://www.umaine.edu/graduate/). Send information to: Dr. Ivan J. Fernandez University of Maine 5722 Deering Hall – Room 1 Orono, ME 04469-5722 Tel: 207-581-2932 Fax: 207-581-2999 iva...@maine.edu
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Climate Change Data
Wayne, Whether it's a trick question or not depends, of course, on the details. However, if you really want information about the direct and indirect effects of anthropogenic causes of climate change you could not do better than to start with the 4th IPCC report. This is freely available to anyone with internet access at http://www.ipcc.ch/ It represents the output of the largest scientific collaboration in history. Each volume is prefaced by a summary for policy-makers which is purposely designed to be accessible to non-specialists. Most policy-makers are not, after all, scientists. As you know, one of the essential aspects of any scientific endeavor, especially one with serious policy implications, is uncertainty. Another advantage of the IPCC reports is that they have developed the most explicit quantification of uncertainty for such a large body of scientific work that has ever been attempted. The disadvantage of that approach is that they tend to be slanted towards underestimating effects rather than overestimating them. So, read it as a conservative assessment. Hal Caswell On Mar 20, 2011, at 8:20 PM, Wayne Tyson wrote: James and Ecolog: No, it's not a trick question, it's an honest plea for better, more convincing information about quantification of the direct and indirect effects of anthropogenic causes of climate change. The public at large has an even tougher time sorting out the scientific sheep from the goats, on this and other issues in science. It may be a tough question, but there's nothing tricky about it. The plenitude of data is the problem, not the solution. The problem is credibility of good science in the eyes and minds of the public. Scientists tend to come off as elitist, patronizing snobs who decry the dumbing-down of we, the unwashed (if not unclean) through the only media to which we have access, e.g., TV and the Internet. Scientists sit on their hands and let these media get by with incredible distortions of science. I have tried to raise these issues to the scientific community, only to hear a deafening silence, or at best, diversionary mumbling about how we should accept scientific conclusions uncritically. The minute we ask critical questions (some say this is the root of science), we get condescension and the doors to further enquiry are slammed shut in our faces. With all due respect to climate change, for example, we, the unscientific, dumbed-down rabble who dare to enquire beyond unconditional faith in accepting what we are told by science are immediately classified as deniers (we of little faith) if we question the dictum of the day. We know a straw-man fallacy when we're hit with one, whether or not we can articulate it. This adversely affects the credibility of science in general and the subset in question in particular. We do not, for example, question whether or not there IS an anthropogenic factor in climate change phenomena, we just want to be able to start at the generalizations and follow a clear trail of the supporting chain of evidence as far as we care to. The scientific conclusions get all mixed up with each other, and we're trying to sort out the well-founded from the unfounded. Are, for example, we being switchgrassed into submitting to a wholesale acceptance of renewable fuels and biofuels and carbon credits, or are these THE solution to switching off our apps? Is our concern that the part of science we are allowed to see is leading us down a gardening path where we destroy more and more complex, diverse ecosystems to plant (and presumably irrigate, fertilize, and maintain) switchgrass or corn or soybeans until now common species are forced onto the endangered species list and habitats are homogenized? So if you mean by trick that you see more than meets the eye, I would have to (just did) say aye, I agree. In fact, I don't see how a brief, direct, simple, singular question or two could possibly be interpreted as tricky--unless we are so used to obfuscatory convolutions that we become suspicious of said questions. What I hoped for is a simple, direct answer that reflects an as honest and complete an answer to the question as possible from those who have already analyzed the data as possible--i.e. with as little equivocation as possible. I had hoped to get individual responses that would demonstrate the hypothesis that the world climate is going to hell in a handbasket because of human activity and that it wouldn't boil or freeze if humans just stopped (just what?). While I am very grateful for those who took the time to send links and references, I had hoped for a simply-stated conclusion along with that support, I must conclude, in agreement with James, that . . . there are plenty of data with plants and animals showing trends that are consistent with climate change, and also, a considerable amount of good logic
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Climate Change Data
Wayne Tyson wrote: The problem is credibility of good science in the eyes and minds of the public. The public is used to hearing rather wildly conflicting information about climate change from the scientific community. In 1974 some claimed that global cooling was a looming problem: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html More recently there have been accusations of fraud: On Oct. 6, 2010 Harold Lewis, emeritus professor of physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara wrote this: http://calderup.wordpress.com/2010/10/10/hal-lewis-quits-aps/ For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow [American Physical Society] all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society. It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. Paul Cherubini
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Climate Change Data
In the face of uncertainty with potential consequences of great magnitude, the precautionary approach should rule. Under this approach it is safer and more prudent to take effective action to counter climate change than it is to take no action and risk its effects. The costs of taking action are high, but there are also benefits (cleaner air and healthier oceans, for example). The costs of not taking action are potentially catastrophic. Our ancestors will enjoy an improved world and thank us for taking action even if they determine we were wrong. Our surviving ancestors will condemn us if we took no action and this proved to be wrong. I know, this is rhetoric and not science, but I have frequently had to deal with decision making in the face of scientific uncertainty and this is the approach I finally learned to apply or recommend. Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist Tigard, OR 97223 -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Hal Caswell Sent: Sunday, 20 March, 2011 15:12 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Climate Change Data Wayne, Whether it's a trick question or not depends, of course, on the details. However, if you really want information about the direct and indirect effects of anthropogenic causes of climate change you could not do better than to start with the 4th IPCC report. This is freely available to anyone with internet access at http://www.ipcc.ch/ It represents the output of the largest scientific collaboration in history. Each volume is prefaced by a summary for policy-makers which is purposely designed to be accessible to non-specialists. Most policy-makers are not, after all, scientists. As you know, one of the essential aspects of any scientific endeavor, especially one with serious policy implications, is uncertainty. Another advantage of the IPCC reports is that they have developed the most explicit quantification of uncertainty for such a large body of scientific work that has ever been attempted. The disadvantage of that approach is that they tend to be slanted towards underestimating effects rather than overestimating them. So, read it as a conservative assessment. Hal Caswell On Mar 20, 2011, at 8:20 PM, Wayne Tyson wrote: James and Ecolog: No, it's not a trick question, it's an honest plea for better, more convincing information about quantification of the direct and indirect effects of anthropogenic causes of climate change. The public at large has an even tougher time sorting out the scientific sheep from the goats, on this and other issues in science. It may be a tough question, but there's nothing tricky about it. The plenitude of data is the problem, not the solution. The problem is credibility of good science in the eyes and minds of the public. Scientists tend to come off as elitist, patronizing snobs who decry the dumbing-down of we, the unwashed (if not unclean) through the only media to which we have access, e.g., TV and the Internet. Scientists sit on their hands and let these media get by with incredible distortions of science. I have tried to raise these issues to the scientific community, only to hear a deafening silence, or at best, diversionary mumbling about how we should accept scientific conclusions uncritically. The minute we ask critical questions (some say this is the root of science), we get condescension and the doors to further enquiry are slammed shut in our faces. With all due respect to climate change, for example, we, the unscientific, dumbed-down rabble who dare to enquire beyond unconditional faith in accepting what we are told by science are immediately classified as deniers (we of little faith) if we question the dictum of the day. We know a straw-man fallacy when we're hit with one, whether or not we can articulate it. This adversely affects the credibility of science in general and the subset in question in particular. We do not, for example, question whether or not there IS an anthropogenic factor in climate change phenomena, we just want to be able to start at the generalizations and follow a clear trail of the supporting chain of evidence as far as we care to. The scientific conclusions get all mixed up with each other, and we're trying to sort out the well-founded from the unfounded. Are, for example, we being switchgrassed into submitting to a wholesale acceptance of renewable fuels and biofuels and carbon credits, or are these THE solution to switching off our apps? Is our concern that the part of science we are allowed to see is leading us down a gardening path where we destroy more and more complex, diverse ecosystems to plant (and presumably irrigate, fertilize, and maintain) switchgrass or corn or soybeans until now common species are forced onto the endangered species list and habitats are homogenized? So if you mean by trick that you see more than meets the eye, I would have to (just
Re: [ECOLOG-L] suggested text for a symbiosis course?
Her research and books look very interesting, but I have been a little hesitant because some scientists (including some well-respected ones I know personally and have high regard for) hold her in utter disdain over the PNAS communication she sponsored on the hypothesis that caterpillars evolved from onychophornas by hybridogenesis. Of course, just because I respect these scientists doesn't mean they are right about everything. What do people on this list think of this controversy? A different but related perspective is in the book _Compositional Evolution: The Impact of Sex, Symbiosis, and Modularity on the Gradualist Theory of Evolution_ http://amzn.to/eawM0b by the computer scientist Richard Watson. This is very theoretical and definitely not appropriate for a theory-laden course. I mentioned this book to a highly regarded mathematical population geneticist--I think I had told him all of two sentences about it--and he told me that if it was by a computer scientist I should put it out of my mind and stay as far away from it as possible. Again, I was taken aback by this very dismissive attitude by a senior scientist. --Ruchira On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 12:29 PM, John Cozza jco...@bio.miami.edu wrote: I would recommend Acquiring Genomes by Lynn Margulis. Although it does not aspire to be a textbook of symbioses, it does present some cool examples of microbial symbionts, and focuses on the role of such symbioses in speciation and evolution. It's written clearly and for a general audience. As a bonus, Dr. Margulis' impressive knowledge of historical and current symbiosis research, including some controversial theories, gives a wonderful feel for the process of science. Published in 2002, it's already a little out of date (!), but still thought provoking and useful. John P.S. if you or anybody uses this book with students I would be very interested in hearing about the outcome. I'm surprised that someone more knowledgeable than I hasn't already responded to this post. I'm in the midst of reading Angela Douglas's _The Symbiotic Habit_ http://amzn.to/gIhu9L though off the top of my head, I think it might be a bit heavy going for a senior-level course . --Ruchira On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 7:42 AM, David Inouye ino...@umd.edu wrote: Next fall I am going to start up a senior-level course in symbiosis, which I will mostly teach from my skewed perspective as a biochemist, but which I realize has very patchy coverage in that regard. I will probably hand out papers to the students from the original literature, but I was hoping that there might be a book or two that would be helpful - although a fast look did not find much. So, if any of the folks on your listserv has a favorite they'd like to point me to, I'd appreciate it. Many thanks Skip _ Sidney K. Pierce, Ph. D. Emeritus Professor of Biology, University of Maryland And Professor of Biology Department of Biology University of South Florida 4202 E. Fowler Ave., SCA 110 Tampa, FL 33620 email: pie...@usf.edu Phone: office %28813%29%20974-4494(813) 974-4494 Lab %28813%29%20974-8159(813) 974-8159 Web- http://biology.usf.edu/ib/faculty/spierce/
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Hypothesis testing in ecology
Well-put! It would be great if people (particularly reviewers) always kept this in mind. --Ruchira On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 7:57 AM, James J. Roper jjro...@gmail.com wrote: I've been meaning to comment here too. When I teach statistics, my goal is to give the graduate students a toolbox if you will, of useful ways to test ideas. More complex statistics comes later. In teaching, I use the idea of testing hypotheses, with a very important caveat. Both, null and alternative hypotheses have to be biologically sensible and biologically possible. I know I find many published papers that gloss over the null, but it turns out, on deeper inspection, that it was not a possibility and so refuting it was unavoidable. Apply that idea, that the null also must be reasonable, logical and possible, and you may find that many null hypotheses are none of those. Jim On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 13:13, Kevin Mueller kem...@psu.edu wrote: If we iteratively modify our hypotheses through the process of data collection, data analysis, or manuscript preparation, how different is this process from observational or exploratory research? It is, of course, different to some debatable extent. Regardless, I think Paul's comments shed light on the reality that there is a large gray area between the extremes of purely observational studies and purely hypothesis driven studies (which his 2005 paper apparently documents). Given this, I find the explicit or underlying claims of superiority made by proponents of hypothesis driven research to ring false (despite some of the strong benefits of hypothesis testing that Paul and others have made clear). I find such claims ironic since the result of many observational or exploratory studies is, gasp, a hypothesis. Finally, regardless of the language we use to reference hypotheses in our introductions, I ask: Is it always beneficial to cloak studies that are somewhat exploratory behind a veil of singlular hypothesis testing? Or might we also sometimes gain and share insights by making the process of data exploration and hypothesis testing/modification more apparent in our manuscripts? To be clear, my comments are more in response to a general narrow-mindedness that I've observed among some natural scientists, not to any particular post or 'poster' in this recent thread (i.e. I found Paul's post insightful and not especially narrow-minded). Kevin Mueller On Mar 9, 2011, at 11:00 PM, Paul Grogan wrote: Furthermore, often during the data interpretation or write-up stage, additional reflection on the processes of experimentation and evaluation of the data may indicate to the scientist (or to a manuscript reviewer) that the test did not reflect the hypothesis as well as originally thought. In such cases, further refinement or editing of the hypothesis statement should be made so that the final research output – the peer-reviewed publication disseminating the new knowledge – is as accurate and accessible to others as possible. As a result, I usually finish my manuscript Introduction sections with: “We used our data to test the following hypotheses” (rather than “We tested the following hypotheses... which gives the impression of great foresight on the part of the author).
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Climate Change Data
Thanks for offering repeatedly debunked claims here. It helps if your data is up-to-date. The physicist who resigned the APS should have boned up on his atmospheric physics before resigning. The physics underpinning anthropogenic climate change is nearly 200 years old -- and it is as well proven as the fact that gravity will pull you toward the ground surface if you walk off the roof of a five-story building. That physics works quite well if anyone bothered to look at atmospheres of other planets, and if anyone tried to figure out what Earth's temperature would be without the natural greenhouse effect. Only a fool would expect greenhouse warming to suddenly stop working because we're changing chemical concentrations in the atmosphere. Dave On 3/20/2011 6:02 PM, Paul Cherubini wrote: Wayne Tyson wrote: The problem is credibility of good science in the eyes and minds of the public. The public is used to hearing rather wildly conflicting information about climate change from the scientific community. In 1974 some claimed that global cooling was a looming problem: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html More recently there have been accusations of fraud: On Oct. 6, 2010 Harold Lewis, emeritus professor of physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara wrote this: http://calderup.wordpress.com/2010/10/10/hal-lewis-quits-aps/ For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow [American Physical Society] all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society. It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. Paul Cherubini -- -- David M. Lawrence| Home: (804) 559-9786 7471 Brook Way Court | Fax: (804) 559-9787 Mechanicsville, VA 23111 | Email: d...@fuzzo.com USA | http: http://fuzzo.com -- All drains lead to the ocean. -- Gill, Finding Nemo We have met the enemy and he is us. -- Pogo No trespassing 4/17 of a haiku -- Richard Brautigan
