List,

I am curious what people think of this.

http://www.wired.com/2014/09/information-theory-hold-key-quantifying-nature/

>From the article:

MaxEnt is based on principles of simplicity and consistency, but it has 
additional assumptions baked into it, starting with the fact that researchers 
must choose just a few variables to feed into the procedure. In 2008, when 
Harte first considered the idea, he decided to try it out using the size of an 
area, the number of species there, the number of individuals, and the total 
metabolic rate of all those organisms. He didnt pick these characteristics at 
random; he had an inkling, from reading work on metabolic theory, that these 
had promise for describing biological systems. In some cases, they do very well.

The simplification of a complex ecosystem into just a handful of variables has 
fueled criticisms of MaxEnt, because it assumes that those numbers and whatever 
processes generate them are the only things shaping the environment. In 
essence, it generates predictions of biodiversity without taking into account 
how that diversity arises. It implies that the details many ecologists focus on 
might not matter if you want to understand the larger patterns of an ecosystem. 
Harte said he usually gets two responses: Youve opened up a whole new theory, 
and youre an idiot, because we all know that mechanism matters in ecology.


Other extrapolation methods are mentioned in the article that I am also curious 
about.

John



_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Reply via email to