If you think Darwin's comment overstates the case, I recommend Michael Ghiselin's book, The Triumph of the Darwinian Method. He tested alternate hypotheses regularly as he gathered his observations. He did gather much information about many things and collected widely on many areas (e.g. coral reef formation), but his successes were conscious of a method that led to new insights. This view resonates with the Resetarits comment about which proposals in areas of biodiversity focused on collecting are most likely to get funded.
Anthony Joern Professor of Biology & Co-Director, Institute for Grassland Studies Kansas State University -----Original Message----- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Jane Shevtsov Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 2:43 AM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Hypothesis Testing in Ecology Darwin's comment is indeed famous, but let's not forget that it was made in a private letter in the context of defending the theory of evolution by natural selection. For that reason, it may well overstate the case. I'm no expert on Darwin, but I'm willing to guess (hypothesize?) that a good fraction of his observations of worms, barnacles, and South America were not initially made to support or refute any view, although they may well have been used that way later. Can anyone speak to this? Jane Shevtsov On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 6:51 AM, Hal Caswell <hcasw...@whoi.edu> wrote: > People seem to be struggling over how to understand the value of observational research in the context of hypothesis-oriented discussions. One missing fact is that hypothesis-oriented research does not have to involve modern statistics, because scientific hypothesis-testing is not the same as statistical null hypothesis testing. Im surprised that no one has quoted Darwins perceptive comment about observational research (an activity in which he was an acknowledged master): "How odd it is that anyone should not see that all observation must be for or against some view if it is to be of any service! > > > (see http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-3257 for the entire letter, to H. Fawcett, 18 Sept. 1861) > > Hal Caswell > > On Mar 8, 2011, at 8:49 AM, Martin Meiss wrote: > >> I am amazed by Pat Swain's statements implying that unless a program of work >> includes formal hypothesis testing, it's not even research. ("...I think >> that pure survey of a property for species (making a list of all the species >> of some taxonomic group) encountered isn't research...", "...some of the >> projects that I rejected as not being research might well have been fundable >> ...")This appears to be defining the word research in a way I have never >> seen or heard before. Does this mean that none of the scientific work that >> was done before the rise of modern statistics was not research? Where the >> people doing that work also not really scientists? And whatever happened to >> library research? >> Martin >> >> 2011/3/7 Wayne Tyson <landr...@cox.net> >> >>> Honorable Forum: >>> >>> Re: "I think these general surveys are valuable, but they don't overtly >>> involve hypotheses and testing. However, it can and does include >>> assumptions/hypotheses; as one of the posters on the topic pointed out there >>> are always assumptions made. One doesn't walk every square inch of a site, >>> rather picks areas (from aerials, maps, knowledge, observations when out >>> there) places that are most likely to be different/interesting (have rare >>> things)." --Pat Swain (Monday, March 07, 2011 6:03 AM) >>> >>> I don't want to appear to jump to conclusions, so I would be interested in >>> Swain's expansions upon this issue. I wonder if Pat would have funded a >>> survey which was based upon random sampling/mapping that would provide a >>> baseline dataset and provide another level of scrutiny of the >>> different/interesting as well as an opportunity to discover that which one's >>> present state of knowledge might otherwise overlook. >>> >>> Please describe the theoretical foundation for "walking" the site rather >>> than randomly sampling it, and how one approaches gaining knowledge of a >>> site without a (statistically) valid inventory. >>> >>> WT >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Swain, Pat (FWE)" < >>> pat.sw...@state.ma.us> >>> >>> To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU> >>> Sent: Monday, March 07, 2011 6:03 AM >>> >>> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Hypothesis Testing in Ecology >>> >>> >>> Ecolog-L, >>>> >>>> Way back when the question about hypothesis testing in ecology was first >>>> posed to the group, one of the questions was whether anyone had rejected >>>> projects or grant proposals for lack of hypotheses. The discussion has gone >>>> on while I thought about posting a response to that, but with Jane >>>> Shevtsov's prodding, I offer the following thoughts on hypothesis testing >>>> and research. >>>> >>>> For some years I was on a committee to review and select graduate student >>>> research proposals for grant support for a regional botanical organization >>>> at the same time that I was involved in evaluating proposals for small >>>> contracts from my office which is focused on rare species and uncommon >>>> natural communities in the state. (I stress the research grants vs. >>>> contracts; and I am no longer on the committee which no doubt has different >>>> biases from mine, and my office doesn't have money for small contracts like >>>> we used to). >>>> >>>> On the grad research committee, I was far more likely to approve proposals >>>> for consideration if a hypothesis was stated, and I tended to veto projects >>>> that didn't do that. For example, I think that pure survey of a property for >>>> species (making a list of all the species of some taxonomic group) >>>> encountered isn't research, but such a project can be developed and proposed >>>> in ways that has research in it (effects of land use history, recreation, >>>> management...). If a student wanted to inventory a property as a research >>>> project, as someone funding grants I wanted the reasons given for why that >>>> property is worth the effort and what will be done with the results. I >>>> recall one otherwise quite good proposal I didn't consider because it just >>>> said that the property was interesting and the nonprofit owning it should >>>> know what was on it. I wanted to be shown what assumptions are being made >>>> (those should be stated as hypotheses to be tested in a proposal for a >>>> research grant), predictions! >>>> of where differences might be and why and expectations that post >>>> inventory analyses would be undertaken. >>>> >>>> However, some of the projects that I rejected as not being research might >>>> well have been fundable (I think some were) by my office where we want to >>>> know what rare species are in particular places, and what is rare. We have >>>> funded contracts for surveys for particular taxonomic groups in general as >>>> well others focused on rare species/natural communities along rivers, on >>>> particular properties, and so on. I think these general surveys are >>>> valuable, but they don't overtly involve hypotheses and testing. However, it >>>> can and does include assumptions/hypotheses; as one of the posters on the >>>> topic pointed out there are always assumptions made. One doesn't walk every >>>> square inch of a site, rather picks areas (from aerials, maps, knowledge, >>>> observations when out there) places that are most likely to be >>>> different/interesting (have rare things). >>>> >>>> So my thinking back when I was on the grad research committee was that for >>>> an inventory to be research and worth funding with a grant, the proposal had >>>> to clearly state hypotheses to be tested, and better, to discuss (yes, in >>>> only 2 pages) underlying assumptions going into the project. Maybe some of >>>> what I was after was an overt awareness of the questions and assumptions >>>> involved in setting up the project. And some idea of expected analysis of >>>> the results. >>>> >>>> My convoluted discussion summarizes to 'yes, I rejected proposals that >>>> didn't have hypotheses stated'. >>>> >>>> >>>> Pat >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------- >>>> Patricia Swain, Ph.D. >>>> Community Ecologist >>>> Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program >>>> Massachusetts Division of Fisheries & Wildlife >>>> 1 Rabbit Hill Road >>>> Westborough, MA 01581 >>>> 508-389-6352 fax 508-389-7891 >>>> http://www.nhesp.org >>>> >>>> >>>> ----- >>>> No virus found in this message. >>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >>>> Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3487 - Release Date: 03/07/11 >>>> >>>> >> > > Hal Caswell > Senior Scientist > Biology Department MS-34 > Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution > Woods Hole MA 02543 > USA > > +1-508-289-2751 > > hcasw...@whoi.edu > > http://www.whoi.edu/hpb/Site.do?id=1030 > -- ------------- Jane Shevtsov Ecology Ph.D. candidate, University of Georgia co-founder, <www.worldbeyondborders.org> Check out my blog, <http://perceivingwholes.blogspot.com>Perceiving Wholes "In the long run, education intended to produce a molecular geneticist, a systems ecologist, or an immunologist is inferior, both for the individual and for society, than that intended to produce a broadly educated person who has also written a dissertation." --John Janovy, Jr., "On Becoming a Biologist"
