Re: [ECOLOG-L] Hypothesis Testing in Ecology: Precision is what makes it valuable
Hi Kevin, this is great. Here's a link to a PDF of the article I wrote in the British Ecological Society journal http://post.queensu.ca/~groganp/Hypotheses%20in%20Ecology2foradobe.pdf. Figure 1 in particular may help in making more clear what I mean by iterative, and how one cycle feeds into other larger cycles that ultimately yields a product - a published piece of new knowledge (that could I think be derived from 'observational' or 'exploratory' research as you put it)...and ultimately that new knowledge leads to further new hypotheses. Cheers, Paul Paul Grogan Plant and Ecosystem Ecologist Dept. of Biology, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario K7L 3N6, Canada. Phone: (613) 533 6152.Fax: (613) 533 6617. http://post.queensu.ca/~groganp/
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Hypothesis Testing in Ecology: Precision is what makes it valuable
Honorable Ecolog Forum: At the risk of repeating and repeating myself, I am once again going to cast my good sense and caution to the winds and confess that I have operated most of my life on the proposition that one (I) must go with the roughest guess that gets the job done (is demonstrably relevant) rather than endlessly confess that no (precise) conclusion could be reached, so more research (funding) will be needed before taking any conclusion seriously (if provisionally). I have also relied upon Raymond Gilmore's dictum that The suspension of judgment is the highest exercise in intellectual discipline. I have the gut feeling that intellectual enquiry that generates new understanding (screw knowledge) would not stand a snowball's chance in Hell of getting funding, largely because those with the purse strings are highly unlikely to take chances on something chancy. I would like to be wrong about this, and look forward to clear evidence which refutes this assertion/hypothesis. I strongly suspect that the proliferation of that elephant in the oikos, that dominant nest parasite, the yellow-bellied grantsucker, has just about wiped out that timid, hapless tinkerer, the wide-eyed naivete who keeps on the move, randomly meandering without direction. Still, how large a breeding population of unpopulars is necessary to maintain its viability? Or is it the result of a mutant gene that keeps popping up despite being edged out again and again? Is insecurity a problem? If so, will it be cured with Greek notation and infinite decimal points? How many variables can any research design handle? How many are there? It's relevance all the way down, and something like successive approximation all the way up. Or something like that? To clarify: This is not to deny the utility of hypotheses or statistics with in the realm of their relevance; it is only to suggest that they may not be the be-all and end-all of ecology. I can't prove any of this. I still stand in awe of Nature. Just not of committees. WT PS: I feel sorry for students who expected to succeed in ecology (let them eat MBA's [unfortunately they have to have them too]). But hey, they're getting something that might come in handy--adaptiveness and resilience, and the sexiest intellectual pursuit out there. - Original Message - From: Martin Meiss mme...@gmail.com To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 3:32 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Hypothesis Testing in Ecology: Precision is what makes it valuable Paul Grogan has stated very elegantly the case for a well formulated hypothesis, but I wish point out another aspect of the matter. People who are prospecting for iron will pass right over gold without seeing it. This is more than just a metaphor; it reflects how the human mind seems to work. That iterative process of refining the hypothesis can also be seen as selectively excluding opportunities for novel observations and discoveries. In a sense, one becomes progressively less open-minded. I don't mean that in the common pejorative sense, but I think it shows how there is still room for the researcher who naively makes observations and gathers data without specifically looking for anything in particular. Martin Meiss 2011/3/9 Paul Grogan grog...@queensu.ca Hi, I am fascinated by the varying use of hypotheses in ecology, and have been following the recent emails with great interest. All scientific research must presumably share a common goal to reach the highest attainable levels of precision in explicitly articulating the research focus, and the ensuing research results. For me, precise research hypotheses are the most effective means of achieving this goal. The most important components of an hypothesis are that it is novel and contains a testable prediction – An hypothesis is “a supposition made as a starting point for further investigation from known facts”. The process of initial hypothesis generation, literature review, methodological considerations, and further refinement (or even replacement) of the hypothesis is iterative, and may pass through several cycles before a novel, testable and precise hypothesis is reached. The efficiency of the subsequent processes of experimentation (or other approaches to testing such as modelling or surveying), data analyses, and write-up, is markedly enhanced by the a priori development of a clearly stated and focussed research hypothesis. 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
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Hypothesis Testing in Ecology: Precision is what makes it valuable
Hi, I am fascinated by the varying use of hypotheses in ecology, and have been following the recent emails with great interest. All scientific research must presumably share a common goal to reach the highest attainable levels of precision in explicitly articulating the research focus, and the ensuing research results. For me, precise research hypotheses are the most effective means of achieving this goal. The most important components of an hypothesis are that it is novel and contains a testable prediction An hypothesis is a supposition made as a starting point for further investigation from known facts. The process of initial hypothesis generation, literature review, methodological considerations, and further refinement (or even replacement) of the hypothesis is iterative, and may pass through several cycles before a novel, testable and precise hypothesis is reached. The efficiency of the subsequent processes of experimentation (or other approaches to testing such as modelling or surveying), data analyses, and write-up, is markedly enhanced by the a priori development of a clearly stated and focussed research hypothesis. 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). I published results of a survey of ecological journals in 2005 which suggested that (in order of decreasing specificity and detail) only ~40% of papers contained explicit hypotheses, ~15% had questions, 25% had objectives, and the remainder had aims. Clearly not all ecologists are in agreement on the effectiveness of hypotheses. As suggested above, I agree with Manuels recent comment that questions, no matter how precise, are not the same as hypotheses (because the predictive element in the latter forces the researcher to APPLY the current knowledge). I also agree with Jane Shetsov in her comments yesterday that hypothesis-oriented research does not have to involve modern statistics, because scientific hypothesis-testing is not the same as statistical null hypothesis testing. The latter didactic approach may be useful to some ecologists, but multiple working hypotheses are more common in ecology. Furthermore, the next higher level putting ones questions and results in a meaningful ecological context is at least as important. This is the level that I try to work at. In any event, at whatever level they are used, what is most important is that the development and use of explicit hypotheses compels the researcher to be PRECISE in thought and language, and to focus on generating NEW knowledge It is the process that is most important. Paul Grogan (Dept. of Biology, Queen's University, Ontario, Canada)
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Hypothesis Testing in Ecology: Precision is what makes it valuable
Paul Grogan has stated very elegantly the case for a well formulated hypothesis, but I wish point out another aspect of the matter. People who are prospecting for iron will pass right over gold without seeing it. This is more than just a metaphor; it reflects how the human mind seems to work. That iterative process of refining the hypothesis can also be seen as selectively excluding opportunities for novel observations and discoveries. In a sense, one becomes progressively less open-minded. I don't mean that in the common pejorative sense, but I think it shows how there is still room for the researcher who naively makes observations and gathers data without specifically looking for anything in particular. Martin Meiss 2011/3/9 Paul Grogan grog...@queensu.ca Hi, I am fascinated by the varying use of hypotheses in ecology, and have been following the recent emails with great interest. All scientific research must presumably share a common goal to reach the highest attainable levels of precision in explicitly articulating the research focus, and the ensuing research results. For me, precise research hypotheses are the most effective means of achieving this goal. The most important components of an hypothesis are that it is novel and contains a testable prediction – An hypothesis is “a supposition made as a starting point for further investigation from known facts”. The process of initial hypothesis generation, literature review, methodological considerations, and further refinement (or even replacement) of the hypothesis is iterative, and may pass through several cycles before a novel, testable and precise hypothesis is reached. The efficiency of the subsequent processes of experimentation (or other approaches to testing such as modelling or surveying), data analyses, and write-up, is markedly enhanced by the a priori development of a clearly stated and focussed research hypothesis. 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). I published results of a survey of ecological journals in 2005 which suggested that (in order of decreasing specificity and detail) only ~40% of papers contained explicit ‘hypotheses’, ~15% had ‘questions’, 25% had ‘objectives’, and the remainder had ‘aims’. Clearly not all ecologists are in agreement on the effectiveness of hypotheses. As suggested above, I agree with Manuel’s recent comment that ‘questions’, no matter how precise, are not the same as hypotheses (because the predictive element in the latter forces the researcher to APPLY the current knowledge). I also agree with Jane Shetsov in her comments yesterday that “hypothesis-oriented research does not have to involve “modern statistics”, because scientific hypothesis-testing is not the same as statistical null hypothesis testing”. The latter didactic approach may be useful to some ecologists, but multiple working hypotheses are more common in ecology. Furthermore, the next higher level – putting one’s questions and results in a meaningful ecological context is at least as important. This is the level that I try to work at. In any event, at whatever level they are used, what is most important is that the development and use of explicit hypotheses compels the researcher to be PRECISE in thought and language, and to focus on generating NEW knowledge – It is the process that is most important. Paul Grogan (Dept. of Biology, Queen's University, Ontario, Canada)
