't understand
> (or at least can't articulate) the basic mechanisms of evolution" their
> fault or the fault of the scientific establishment?
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -
> From: "David L. McNeely"
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, May 28, 2011 6:21
Wayne Tyson wrote:
> Is the fact that a "huge percentage of our population don't understand (or at
> least can't articulate) the basic mechanisms of evolution" their fault or the
> fault of the scientific establishment?
>
If the "science establishment" is responsible for (1) the conflic
tion don't understand (or
at least can't articulate) the basic mechanisms of evolution" their fault or
the fault of the scientific establishment?
- Original Message -
From: "David L. McNeely"
To:
Sent: Saturday, May 28, 2011 6:21 AM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-
ich have been developed in this rough way, though variable under different
conditions, all answer to the same principles--and a certain amount of
"dumb" but consistent luck.
Of course, the course of water is only one aspect, but a key one.
WT
----- Original Message -
From: "Mar
"David L. McNeely" wrote:
> Jason Hernandez wrote:
> > The problem is that "people" (meaning laypersons from the point of view of
> > the particular scientific discipline) do not actually read *scientific*
> > literature on it. How often have we seen -- in books about horticulture,
Jason Hernandez wrote:
> The problem is that "people" (meaning laypersons from the point of view of
> the particular scientific discipline) do not actually read *scientific*
> literature on it. How often have we seen -- in books about horticulture,
> landscape architecture, and so on --
When you consider the timing of observations of root position relative to
available water, the situation can be even more confusing. When conditions
in the soil are favorable to do so (say, during a rainy season) roots may
grow deep, passing through soil that will later not support the growth of
The problem is that "people" (meaning laypersons from the point of view of the
particular scientific discipline) do not actually read *scientific* literature
on it. How often have we seen -- in books about horticulture, landscape
architecture, and so on -- that willows should not be planted nea
our
critical evaluation of the current exhibit on human evolution turns up
anything interesting.
WT
- Original Message -
From: "Martin Meiss"
To:
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2011 2:16 PM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Plant roots matter Re: [ECOLOG-L] Communication
Science to Public
Martin Meiss wrote:
> While we're on the topic of the public being exposed to junk science,
> consider these other common areas of misconception: Most of us were taught
> a misleading version of how the greenhouse affect is purported to work, and
> most people cannot explain the concept of
While we're on the topic of the public being exposed to junk science,
consider these other common areas of misconception: Most of us were taught
a misleading version of how the greenhouse affect is purported to work, and
most people cannot explain the concept of relative humidity without straying
Wayne Tyson wrote:
> (stuff cut) Most people don't have any idea what a moisture gradient is, but
> are they well- or ill-informed by science writing that implies or states
> outright that roots can detect water and seek it out; that is, that roots can
> grow through almost anything, no m
d, and an understand of plant-soil water relations is
essential. Yes, this is an anecdote. I have others, and they all answer to the
same fundamental principles.
- Original Message -----
From:
To: ; "Wayne Tyson"
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 6:10 PM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Plant
ner?
If that is what your explanation says these folks believe, then they are
simply wrong. there must be a water gradient. If they understand that there
must be a water gradient, and that only if the container is leaking would the
roots "find" the water, then ok, and no more explanati
ight be said, but I am
looking for the best possible statement that can be readily understood by
anyone (or at least not mislead by it).
WT
----- Original Message -----
From:
To: ; "Wayne Tyson"
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 6:22 AM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Plant roots matter Re: [EC
Wayne, I think the notions that have been expressed on the list represent
semantic differences rather than differences in understanding how roots
function. I think that those who have written accept the following:
Roots are hydrotropic, but the hydrotropism acts along a gradient, and acts
over
Honorable Ecolog Forum:
What does it matter, for the advancement of science and ecology in
particular, whether or not the root of the matter is resolved such that the
state of knowledge in this matter is articulated with clarity to the public
and those who inform the public (such as science wr
17 matches
Mail list logo
