Is it not true that in attempting to say something about environmental influence on barnacle biology, Darwin realized he did not know enough about barnacles to use them as a model for his theories? Thus arose one of the most famous and definitive studies of any time about the morphology and biology of a large taxon.
At least an old story makes that claim. mcneely ---- Jane Shevtsov <jane....@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. I’m surprised that no one > > has quoted Darwin’s 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" -- David McNeely
