Re: [ECOLOG-L] Question Ecology Natural History etc Re: [ECOLOG-L] Hypothesis Testing in Ecology
I'll buy that, David. I do think that folks on the list are sometimes a little more concerned about definitions and differences, lumpers and dividers, than I am typically am. Folks may have noticed that, about 1/2-way into my post, it started petering out as I realized that there *was* a lot of similarity. Still, there is enough difference to warrant a different term, for me. However, I definitely agree with David's point about the evolution of our science. I agree that the development of technology and knowledge allow us to study things in different ways or more closely than we could have studied them tens, if not hundreds, of years ago. If folks agreed to amend the natural history definition to include and their interactions with the environment, I'd buy that. However, it sounds like many folks already include that, implicitly. Cheers, Marcus Marcus Ricci, M.S., CPESC 1301 Monroe Avenue Charleston, IL 61920 email: spotted_blueathotmail.com A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise. -- Aldo Leopold -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of David L. McNeely Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 10:57 AM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Question Ecology Natural History etc Re: [ECOLOG-L] Hypothesis Testing in Ecology Marcus, with due respect, and I do respect your opinion and contributions: You are simply pointing out the evolution of our science, which now probes more deeply into the nature of nature than did those who did its work in earlier centuries. We evolved from describing the objects in nature to investigating how those objects interact with other parts of nature. It is still the study of nature and natural objects -- just additional things about them. A turtle's life history IS a part of how it interacts with environment. Ecology (or the less fancy name natural history) studies that. Maybe a different way of looking at it than yours, but still legitimate. I'm also not trying to say we should abandon the term ecology in favor of the older term natural history, though that would be intellectually defensible. It would also be nice if the general public could understand what our science is about, rather than confusing it with environmental activism (a legitimate endeavor in its own right). But enough of all this. The important thing is to know about turtles, including how turtles live and function, how other things relate to them, and how they contribute to the overall state of nature. Too many people don't care. mcneely Marcus Ricci spotted_b...@hotmail.com wrote: I'd like to add my $0.02 because I disagree that ecology is simply a dressing up of natural history. Although I value natural history and historians, they are not studying the same things as ecologists. According to my Dictionary of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics, natural history is the study of nature, natural objects and natural phenomena. Ecology is the study of the *interrelationships* between living organisms and their environment (my emphasis). So, the former is the study of a subject or phenomena, the latter is the study of *how the subject interacts and relates to its environment.* Some may consider this the same definition, some may consider it parsing essentially the same definition. I consider them different definitions: one *focuses* on the turtle itself, what it eats, where it lives, how it reproduces. The other *focuses* on the place in the web that the turtle occupies, how its consumption of food or production of offspring effects the other occupants of its food web - either predators or competitors - and how the web would respond if a turtle population exploded or disappeared. Perhaps a little simplistic, but analogies work for me when definitions get too stickily close, which I will be the first to agree that these 2 do, when you start looking at them closely. Cheers, Marcus Marcus Ricci, M.S., CPESC Lake Decatur Watershed Specialist, Macon County SWCD 1301 Monroe Avenue Charleston, IL 61920 email: spotted_blueathotmail.com A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise. -- Aldo Leopold -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Wayne Tyson Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2011 3:21 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Question Ecology Natural History etc Re: [ECOLOG-L] Hypothesis Testing in Ecology Thanks, David. Now I don't have to toss all my Darwin stuff into the dustbin. WT PS: David or others: Can you suggest any shortcuts to the best possible understanding of the pre-contact state
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Question Ecology Natural History etc Re: [ECOLOG-L] Hypothesis Testing in Ecology
I'd like to add my $0.02 because I disagree that ecology is simply a dressing up of natural history. Although I value natural history and historians, they are not studying the same things as ecologists. According to my Dictionary of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics, natural history is the study of nature, natural objects and natural phenomena. Ecology is the study of the *interrelationships* between living organisms and their environment (my emphasis). So, the former is the study of a subject or phenomena, the latter is the study of *how the subject interacts and relates to its environment.* Some may consider this the same definition, some may consider it parsing essentially the same definition. I consider them different definitions: one *focuses* on the turtle itself, what it eats, where it lives, how it reproduces. The other *focuses* on the place in the web that the turtle occupies, how its consumption of food or production of offspring effects the other occupants of its food web - either predators or competitors - and how the web would respond if a turtle population exploded or disappeared. Perhaps a little simplistic, but analogies work for me when definitions get too stickily close, which I will be the first to agree that these 2 do, when you start looking at them closely. Cheers, Marcus Marcus Ricci, M.S., CPESC Lake Decatur Watershed Specialist, Macon County SWCD 1301 Monroe Avenue Charleston, IL 61920 email: spotted_blueathotmail.com A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise. -- Aldo Leopold -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Wayne Tyson Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2011 3:21 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Question Ecology Natural History etc Re: [ECOLOG-L] Hypothesis Testing in Ecology Thanks, David. Now I don't have to toss all my Darwin stuff into the dustbin. WT PS: David or others: Can you suggest any shortcuts to the best possible understanding of the pre-contact state of fishes and other aquatic/marine organisms/ecosystems in the New World (although I'm really interested in California, specifically coastal southern California streams and rivers)? I'm also interested in the best possible estimates of watersheds and stream hydrology for that period/region. Works that contrast the pre- and post-contact states and trends would do most of my work for me, which, given my increasing level of laziness, would be most welcome. For example, I am positing that some streams that are today intermittent or dependent upon urban runoff are quite different from their pre-contact states--some flowed all year, and hosted salmonid runs. (Ethnographic and historical [anecdotal] information [observations] references would be interesting, if not provable. A somewhat aside: Given the popularity of computer models, I'm wondering if any reconstruction of pre-contact climate and hydrology might have been done or in the works . . . It would seem that a program that could do this might be applicable anywhere. - Original Message - From: mcnee...@cox.net To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU; Wayne Tyson landr...@cox.net Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2011 10:27 AM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Question Ecology Natural History etc Re: [ECOLOG-L] Hypothesis Testing in Ecology Wayne Tyson landr...@cox.net wrote: Ecolog: What specifically distinguishes natural history from ecology? Wayne, Ernst Haeckel coined the term which became our modern term ecology. You probably knew this. Haeckel mistook the root of biological science, natural history, for one of its branches, ecology. Ever since, we have had this conundrum. Ecology is natural history dressed up to look better for those who have difficulty accepting that science is old and was effective in the old days. For those who have some sniffing hang-up about being natural historians, there is no more honorable, nor more interesting, endeavor than trying to figure out how nature works. And one doesn't have to be arrogant, or attempt to dismiss other's efforts, to do it effectively. David McNeely, fish ecologist (ie., natural historian) - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3477 - Release Date: 03/02/11
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Education vs Indoctrination Can sustainability be sustained? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Managing the social aspects of ecosystem management - LfS portal update
the integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise. -- Aldo Leopold Marcus Ricci, M.S. 1301 Monroe Avenue Charleston, IL 61920 email: spotted_blueathotmail.com Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 22:56:27 -0700 From: landr...@cox.net Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Education vs Indoctrination Can sustainability be sustained? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Managing the social aspects of ecosystem management - LfS portal update To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Marcus and Forum: I'm having a bit of trouble, as I always do, with implications. It seems to me that Ricci's questions/implications are answered in my initial post, but I will make a stab at trying to interpret him as well as I can. I hope he will correct any misinterpretations. Because sustainability is an important matter, it seems to me important that the term is clear and unambiguous rather than muddy and ambiguous. As Aney has pointed out, there are a number of definitions that are different, ambiguous. It would seem useful to me that the definitions of Ricci, Aney, and others would be given careful consideration by the subscribers of this forum, and the clearest definitions be popularized. If ambiguous definitions are popularized, the important matter could be reduced to, for example, a greenwashing slogan used to humbug others into believing, for example, that a destructive activity that results in a trend toward the increasing degradation of the resource or any other resource is sustainable. I have no idea what I said that led Ricci to believe that I was implying that production of a resource and communication mechanism such as this website [is] a bad thing? Or a non-useful thing? I hope he will clear that up for me. I am also baffled by the implication that clarity of definition equals technical jargon. I am asking for clarification precisely because I have seen the term used as a smokescreen, snow-job, and sales pitch for actions, products, studies, etc. that don't seem to meet the definition that Ricci and others cite. What I am trying to find out is how to separate the wheat from the chaff. I don't understand how a proliferation, of mainstream definitions that run counter to the valid one, can be honest. Honest usage is not a problem; fraudulent usage is, and the distinction between the two will help keep those who honestly feel they are doing the right thing recognized when they are being humbugged. As to the implications about the site that just reminded me to ask the question (it has been around for a while), I made it quite clear in the original post that it had nothing to do with the post about the site or the site itself. Marcus, it will be a big help if you cite the part of my post that prompted your comment; that will help me make better connections between what you are referring to and what I wrote. WT PS: I regret the following error in the original post: . . . how the terms is defined . . .. The singular, term is correct. - Original Message - From: Marcus Ricci spotted_b...@hotmail.com To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 8:20 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Education vs Indoctrination Can sustainability be sustained? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Managing the social aspects of ecosystem management - LfS portal update Wayne, I will first answer your questions, and then ask you why you are asking them. Sustainability IS an important matter, and a crucial one. If we are not living in a sustainable manner, however you define it, we will eventually deplete our resources and be left in a very bad state. But what do you hope to gain by asking the list-members to define the term as precisely as possible? You will more than likely get several tens of answers, probably all differing from each other either minutely or substantially. Yes, this may indicate that the term has become more than what it used to mean - for me, it means consuming less than is produced, and not resulting in the net depletion of non-renewable constituent resources - but does that make the production of a resource and communication mechanism such as this website a bad thing? Or a non-useful thing? Yes, I think it's possible that sustainability has become a much more frequently-used term by the general populace and, as such, is likely to get used by people to reflect _their_ particular definition of what they believe sustainability means. If only a few specialists in a very restricted academic or technical field ever use a particular term, it remains very precisely defined, and we laypeople probably end up referring to it as their jargon. As a term becomes more mainstream and used by many millions of people, who work in many different fields and also apply the term to aspects of their non-professional life, I believe that it will inevitably come
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Education vs Indoctrination Can sustainability be sustained? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Managing the social aspects of ecosystem management - LfS portal update
Wayne, I will first answer your questions, and then ask you why you are asking them. Sustainability IS an important matter, and a crucial one. If we are not living in a sustainable manner, however you define it, we will eventually deplete our resources and be left in a very bad state. But what do you hope to gain by asking the list-members to define the term as precisely as possible? You will more than likely get several tens of answers, probably all differing from each other either minutely or substantially. Yes, this may indicate that the term has become more than what it used to mean - for me, it means consuming less than is produced, and not resulting in the net depletion of non-renewable constituent resources - but does that make the production of a resource and communication mechanism such as this website a bad thing? Or a non-useful thing? Yes, I think it's possible that sustainability has become a much more frequently-used term by the general populace and, as such, is likely to get used by people to reflect _their_ particular definition of what they believe sustainability means. If only a few specialists in a very restricted academic or technical field ever use a particular term, it remains very precisely defined, and we laypeople probably end up referring to it as their jargon. As a term becomes more mainstream and used by many millions of people, who work in many different fields and also apply the term to aspects of their non-professional life, I believe that it will inevitably come to mean more things to more people and, understandably, loses those nice, precise definitions and moves from technical jargon to everyday verbiage. Like conservative. Or ecological. I also believe that, even if a term becomes harder to pin down, it is important for people to use it, if it embodies what they honestly feel reflects what they are trying to get across to people. They should, though, be prepared and willing to clarify what they are referring to and how they are using the term, just as different fields explain how they are using variable, or significant, or adaptable. Don't be scared of using a term just because it has gotten some fuzzy edges. And, for Pete's sake, don't be afraid of working together with the people that use the term the way you do AND with the people who use it differently. I took a quick look at the Learning for Sustainability website and it looks like it has some pretty good resources. It may have a little more social science than what many folks are comfortable with, especially when compared to quantitative, economically-precise cost of ecological services discussions, but it may be very useful to others interested in working with _people and society_. Greenly (oops...), Marcus -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of Wayne Tyson Sent: Monday, July 20, 2009 10:42 AM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Education vs Indoctrination Can sustainability be sustained? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Managing the social aspects of ecosystem management - LfS portal update Ecolog Forum: I am using this post as a springboard to ask you all whether or not you consider this an important matter, much less a crucial subject for consideration. To maintain a bias-free mental posture, I have not visited any of the sites. Therefore, these comments are not about the content of those sites, nor are they about the email itself; it merely reminded me of the issue. I would like your opinions about whether or not you have had similar thoughts or whether or not you find the subject disagreeable to think about or discuss, or otherwise unworthy of your time. In asking, Is sustainability sustainable? I have a multi-faceted concern--that while sustainability is a valid term in some sense, it, like ecology and many other perfectly good terms, has lost its discriminatory value in communication, technology, and science through overuse, misuse, and overgeneralization. Do you believe this to be the case? In any case, would you please define the term as precisely as possible? If there are alternative definitions, would you please define them too? If you believe that there is no question about the definition, that the definition is so well understood that there can be no dispute about how the terms is defined and used that asking those questions is unnecessary, would you please so indicate? Respectfully submitted, WT - Original Message - From: Will Allen w...@learningforsustainability.net To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Monday, July 20, 2009 12:44 AM Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Managing the social aspects of ecosystem management - LfS portal update The Learning for Sustainability site - http://learningforsustainability.net - brings together resources to help us address and manage the social and capacity building aspects of ecosystem management and other sustainability issues.
[ECOLOG-L] posting-etiquette appreciation RE: [ECOLOG-L] Fellowsh ip - Texas Research Inst itute for Environmental Studies
Thank you to all of the job/internship/position post-ers that include the location of the position in the subject line of the post. I, for one, appreciate it; it helps me quickly focus on positions available in my neck of the woods. Greenly, Marcus Marcus Ricci, M.S. 1301 Monroe Avenue Charleston, IL 61920 personal: spotted_b...@hotmail.com The last word in ignorance is the man who says of an animal or plant: What good is it? If the land mechanism as a whole is good, then every part is good, whether we understand it or not. If the biota, in the course of aeons, has built something we like but do not understand, then who but a fool would discard seemingly useless parts? To keep every cog and wheel is the first precaution of intelligent tinkering. -- Aldo Leopold, Sand County Almanac and Sketches from Here and There, 1946 -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of Hargrave, Chad Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 12:20 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Postdoctoral Research Fellowship Texas Research Inst itute for Environmental Studies Postdoctoral Research Fellowship Texas Research Institute for Environmental Studies Texas Research Institute for Environmental Studies Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, Texas Position Summary: The Texas Research Institute for Environmental Studies (TRIES) is searching for a highly motivated and talented research scientist with an expertise in Environmental Toxicology. The candidates research program may focus on either aquatic or terrestrial systems. A state-of-the-art and professionally staffed Analytical Laboratory is available to assist in chemical and analytical analyses to fully facilitate the candidates research productivity. The candidate also will be expected to write and submit grants to external funding agencies and make strong attempts to acquire additional research funding. The successful candidate will be expected to interact with a highly reputable research faculty and graduate program within the Department of Biological Sciences at Sam Houston State University. Both graduate and undergraduate students will be available for assistance in the candidates research program with the option to formally train and mentor graduate students. Qualifications: Ph.D. in Biology, Zoology, or related fields with specialization in Toxicology, Endocrinology, or Ecology Demonstrated oral and written communication skills Demonstrated ability to work independently Record of publication in scholarly journals Demonstrated research interests which compliment the TRIES mission Appointment: This fulltime 12-month appointment is eligible for health insurance benefits and participation in a state retirement program with a competitive salary range of $38,000 - $45,000 depending on experience and qualifications. Application Procedure: Send an application packet including a letter of intent describing qualifications, a current research statement and CV including a list of references with full contact information, at least three reprints or copies of your publications, and three letters of reference to Dr. William I. Lutterschmidt (Director), Texas Research Institute for Environmental Studies, Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, Texas 77341-2506. This material (except reference letters) may be submitted electronically in a single PDF e-mailed to tr...@shsu.edu. Review of applications will begin March 15, 2009 and continue until filled. Starting date is August 2009. Applicants are required to complete three employment forms (The State of Texas Application for Employment, the Applicant Questionnaire, and the Applicant Statistical Data Sheet) which maybe downloaded from and submitted directly to the Department of Human Resources (www.shsu.edu/~hrd_www/employment/staff/) at SHSU, an EEO/AAP employer. ! Questions regarding this position or the application process may be emailed to lutterschm...@shsu.edumailto:lutterschm...@shsu.edu.
Re: FW: Be more willing to get a bloody nose in defense of reality!
a lurker responds. i think a letter of policy statement coming from ESA is a good idea. i think that it could be done, respectfully, stating that 1) the two fields - science and religion - are fundamentally different, one based on theory and fact grounded by (usually) physical evidence, and the other based primarily on faith in a supreme being of some sort, and that 2) the two should not attempt to resolve/explain each others' questions. if the religionists would be willing to not discredit/disrepect what scientists are trying to do, in our arena of public schools - explain the workings of the universe through OUR ideology - would scientists be willing to let religionists do what they want to do, if kept in their arena of churches/synagogues/worship houses and parochial schools: explain the workings of the universe through their god? greenly, marcus Marcus Ricci, M.S. Urban Conservation Specialist Lucas Soil Water Conservation District 130-A West Dudley Street Maumee, OH 43537 419-893-1966 phone, 419-893-3131 fax work: [EMAIL PROTECTED] personal: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The last word in ignorance is the man who says of an animal or plant: What good is it? If the land mechanism as a whole is good, then every part is good, whether we understand it or not. If the biota, in the course of aeons, has built something we like but do not understand, then who but a fool would discard seemingly useless parts? To keep every cog and wheel is the first precaution of intelligent tinkering. -- Aldo Leopold, Sand County Almanac and Sketches from Here and There, 1946 -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jim Sparks Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2007 5:22 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: FW: Be more willing to get a bloody nose in defense of reality! Okay, this is a good start. What I would suggest is that the ESA field a letter responding to IJCR by stating in, layman's terms, the critical difference between science and religion and why its important not to get confused and why IJCR is a threat to science and possibly even the democratic process since it threatens our national perception of reality. I would be happy to produce a draft if a few ESA members would be interested in helping me with the draft. I or someone else with a PhD and some clout can basically re-iterate SJ Gould's arguments. Jim Sparks On 5/5/07, adam herbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: not sure how far to take your metaphor about trouble down lower. but my point is that religion and science will always argue until there's realization that they are each different states of consciousness. the non-validative, salutary truths of religions need not argue with the sensorimotor, empirical sensory truths of the sciencesbut they do in the United States, as J. Sparks said are destined to be antagonistic because other Western societies do not share the problem we have of using mythology to construct a national paradigm. both science religion seem not to recognize the futility of trying to meet nonmaterial needs (objective constancy spiritual/moral, respectively) by controling material resources. to the degree that both institutionalized religion science employ a politco-navigational compass bent on a dominant instrumental relationship with Nature, I wouldn't be suprised that they don't find more to agree about as their hegemony is replaced by an attitude of respect and communication. Adam Herbert recycling reward consumption - William McDonough -- Forwarded message -- From: Richard Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: May 4, 2007 9:13 PM Subject: FW: Be more willing to get a bloody nose in defense of reality! To: adam herbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] I see where you're trying to make trouble down lower? -- *From:* Mammalian Biology [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Jim Sparks *Sent:* Friday, May 04, 2007 2:35 AM *To:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] *Subject:* Be more willing to get a bloody nose in defense of reality! It is not true that science and religion are destined to be antagonistic because other Western societies do not share the problem we have of using mythology to construct a national paradigm. We, as educators, have been far too willing to cop out. Of Western nations, only Turkey is more backwater than us. With comparable literacy rates, we should at least be not far behind the UK. We need to buck up, put up our dukes, and be more willing to get a bloody nose in defense of reality. Sincerely, Jim Sparks Acceptance of Evolution as fact: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/bigphotos/21329204.html On 5/3/07, adam herbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: the ultra-reductionistic out is to accept that religion science will ALWAYS argue because one is based on faith and one is based on fact...why argue? you're using different eyes
