Science Scientific Uncertainty What does scientific uncertainty mean--exactly?
Honorable Forum: I am heartened to learn by the number and quality of the responses to the Op-Ed piece questioning NSTA's rejection of the movie, An Inconvenient Truth, for distribution to classrooms. It is apparent that some very high-quality minds do read at least some posts and take the time to comment and engage in intelligent discussion. The subject of my post, while perhaps stimulated by the central issue of that discussion (global warming), is more simple-minded. Am I wrong, or is science, by its very nature, uncertain? I'm thinking of the significant and powerful segment of the nation (if not the world) that seems to think that a scientific certainty is required to validate anything (e.g. global warming). It appears that, while perhaps not specifically making a big deal out of the question this time, the Supreme Court's majority probably would, were I qualified to speak before them, throw me out on my ear. The eleven states and sympathetic organizations that are now before that august body, trying to force the EPA to regulate CO emissions, must swim against the tide of that thinking, overtly stated or merely existing in the minds of those whose purpose in life is to manipulate others, gain and preserve authority, etc. Political leaders seem fond of invoking the lack of scientific uncertainty just about any time they find it inconvenient to act on just about anything. What does scientific uncertainty mean--exactly? WT
Re: Science Scientific Uncertainty What does scientific uncertainty mean--exactly?
It is almost axiomatic that nothing can be proven, so any scientific result is uncertain. Any observation can be explained by saying that the observer is simply an artifical brain being fed neural impulses by students in some incredibly advanced neurocybernetics lab. You cannot even prove your own existence. I agree with Wayne that this makes it difficult to get the general public to follow scientific advice. The only solution I can see is to educate a more sophisticated public. Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: Wayne Tyson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 4:52 AM Subject: Science Scientific Uncertainty What does scientific uncertainty mean--exactly? Am I wrong, or is science, by its very nature, uncertain?
Re: NSTA's response to OpEd
To the climate change debaters, I have been following this thread and have noticed that most post make the assumption that the public is ignorant about the subject of climate change and global warming. Fortuitously, we yesterday had a seminar on that very same topic here at NOAA by Dr. Jon Krosnick from Stanford University. His research on public awareness and understanding of these topics prove this assumption wrong, they both are high. It also demonstrated that the reason why the public is not as concerned as the scientific community would like them to be has nothing to do with their level of awareness and understanding. I strongly encourage those interested in the topic to seek out his work. Felix -- Felix A. Martinez, Ph.D. NOAA/NOS/NCCOS Center for Sponsored Coastal Ocean Research N/SCI2, SSMC4 Rm. 8326ph: 301-713-3338 x153 1305 East-West Hwy. fax: 301-713-4044 Silver Spring, MD 20910 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Note: The content of this message does not reflect any position of the U.S. Government or of NOAA unless otherwise specified. The information therein is only for the use of the individuals or entities for which it was intended even if addressed incorrectly. If not the intended recipient, you may not use, copy, disseminate, or distribute the message or its content unless otherwise authorized.
Re: NSTA's response to OpEd
Hi Felix et al., And maybe remember the one part of Al Gores 'Inconvenient Truth' where he is 'analyzing' the discrepancy between public awareness and scientific results: he cites a Science paper (maybe it was some other journal, can't remember that particular part) mentioning that 0% of all scientific articles doubt the existence of global warming, but 53 % of the newspaper articles are citing the scientific uncertainty and hence the latter are distributing doubt! Swen -- Swen Renner (PhD) Conservation Research Center, Smithsonian Institution -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Felix Martinez Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 8:50 AM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: NSTA's response to OpEd To the climate change debaters, I have been following this thread and have noticed that most post make the assumption that the public is ignorant about the subject of climate change and global warming. Fortuitously, we yesterday had a seminar on that very same topic here at NOAA by Dr. Jon Krosnick from Stanford University. His research on public awareness and understanding of these topics prove this assumption wrong, they both are high. It also demonstrated that the reason why the public is not as concerned as the scientific community would like them to be has nothing to do with their level of awareness and understanding. I strongly encourage those interested in the topic to seek out his work. Felix -- Felix A. Martinez, Ph.D. NOAA/NOS/NCCOS Center for Sponsored Coastal Ocean Research N/SCI2, SSMC4 Rm. 8326ph: 301-713-3338 x153 1305 East-West Hwy. fax: 301-713-4044 Silver Spring, MD 20910 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Note: The content of this message does not reflect any position of the U.S. Government or of NOAA unless otherwise specified. The information therein is only for the use of the individuals or entities for which it was intended even if addressed incorrectly. If not the intended recipient, you may not use, copy, disseminate, or distribute the message or its content unless otherwise authorized.
Re: NSTA's response to OpEd
I believe that the public's scientific ignorance (and it is a mighty ignorance!) stems from several factors: 1. only rudimentary requirement of science classes in high school (For example, we were required to take only 2 semesters' worth of science classes: general science I and general science II in high school, and this was about 15 years ago.) 2. general disinterest (There are certain laypeople who derive great enjoyment from reading general and popular science books, but I think it safe to say that the majority of North Americans are either disinterested in continuing scientific, or any other, learning in their spare time, or simply have too many other daily-life-type concerns that occupy their minds/time/energy.) 3. portrayal of science and scientists in the media, including for political use (I think this is the most pervasive and dangerous; most North Americans probably watch network news programs at least once a week if not once a day. If you watch the news, scientists are portrayed pretty much as flip-floppers, ostensibly saying to lower cholesterol, do this and the next week to lower cholesterol, don't do the thing we told you last week, instead do this. A similar situation exists with the climate change debate. News broadcasters don't necessarily have the scientific background to make correct or qualified statements about the results of scientific studies/papers, and they certainly don't have the time to fit much of anything into a 30-second newsbyte.). (I don't read newspapers so I don't know how science scientists fare there). 4. crying wolf (I'm sorry I don't recall who first mentioned this in this thread, but I agree that scientists have been--or have been portrayed as--forecasting doom and gloom for too long. Unless the public sees ready evidence that something negative is occurring and will continue to get worse, they are not likely to pay much mind to such prophecies). 5. apathy (Some people are simply of the mindset that if something does not affect them directly, why should they care? If a mosquito species goes extinct in China, or Brazilian rainforests are cut down, it does not affect them immediately or directly. Along a perhaps-similar vein, some people believe God will rectify everything. I live in the South U.S. and about a year ago I was listening to a popular redneck-type talk show: the people believed honestly that the Earth was given to humans to do as we will, and we cannot destroy it because God has not given us the capacity to do so.) I have NO idea how to change these mindsets. Clearly most people will never be interested in science to the degree we are, and will therefore not have the background knowledge to evaluate scientific arguments properly. And, if only because of political and corporate agendas, scientists will always have differing opinions on encompassing topics such as climate change. The best I can suggest is education and compassion, teaching tolerance for other viewpoints and helping children develop reasoning skills in general. Apologies for the length of this diatribe! Kristina Pendergrass Research Associate, Scott-Ritchey Research Center College of Veterinary Medicine Auburn University, AL 36849 334.844.5574
Re: duplicate publication
Thanks to everyone for your thoughts. The list unanimously concluded No, it is not a publication. I appreciate the chance to rant and the humorous feedback that I received in return. I guess my issue, in the end, speaks more about to what standards we hold our volunteer-driven societies and the differences in expectations that scientists have versus those of managers. Regards Wayne Wayne E. Thogmartin, PhD USGS Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center 2630 Fanta Reed Road La Crosse, WI 54603 608-781-6309 (off) 608-783-6066 (fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.umesc.er.usgs.gov/terrestrial/migratory_birds/bird_conservation.html The contents of this message are mine personally and do not reflect any portion of the US government. A recurrent theme in the history of science is that novel claims conjoined with a paucity of data inevitably attract the attention of statisticians, much in the manner that offal attracts flies. W.M. Schaffer
teaching climate change (was NSTA's response to OpEd)
Maybe that movie wasn't the best method, but what is? An excellent question. In my opinion, the answer is: ethical teachers who are able to present facts to their students without inflaming the issue by injecting politics. Technology transfer is an important part of what scientists do. Publication of straightforward yet understandable literature, press releases (rephrase -- accurate press releases), etc. Look at the National Academy's publication Understanding and Responding to Climate Change. Available at http://www.gcrio.org/orders/ It is an excellent compilation of information, presented in a politically-neutral way. It informs, describes what is known and what is not known, what the risks are, and reasonable ways they can be addressed. The political leaders of tomorrow are the students of today. Education is key. Get them the facts first and let them worry about politics later. I recently presented some research findings at the Wisconsin Governor's Conference on the Environment for high school students throughout the state. The theme was climate change. The keynote speaker turned a lot of the kids off with numerous political tirades. He then went on to proudly proclaim that he dropped out of college to become an environmental activist. Not a good message to give a group of high school students. They are better served to stay in school and become educated. There is a difference between effective activism, and activism that is just plain silly. --- Mark E. Kubiske Research Plant Physiologist USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station Forestry Sciences Lab 5985 Hwy K Rhinelander, WI 54501 Office phone: 715-362-1108 Cell phone: 715-367-5258 Fax: 715-362-1166 email:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Bilodeau, Rebecca -- MFG Rebecca.Bilodeau To @MFGENV.COM ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent by: cc Ecological Society ofSubject America: grants, Re: NSTA's response to OpEd jobs, news [EMAIL PROTECTED] V.UMD.EDU 11/29/2006 05:11 PM Please respond to Bilodeau, Rebecca -- MFG Rebecca.Bilodeau @MFGENV.COM The problem is, the only people who are going to comb through data are scientists. In order for any action to occur, the public and/or their government must be shown the conclusions in a format that they can follow - data tables and lengthy scientific reports won't cut it. Maybe that movie wasn't the best method, but what is? How do Scientists sell their conclusions to the public? Maybe that isn't a scientist's job, so then what is the best method for an activist to convince the public that it is a real issue? How can an activist do that, and still satisfy the scientist's needs for accuracy? Will the public respond to something that isn't sensationalized? Rebecca Bilodeau -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom Mosca III Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 3:49 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] NSTA's response to OpEd Dear David, I am far from scientifically ignorant. My mind wasn't made up until I analysed 50 years of Chesapeake Bay water temperatures and convinced myself that (local) climate was warming. Until then, it was politics as usual. Your usual lay person does not have access to the data to confirm or deny these things. Political games played with science do great harm, and are the real reason
Why is the public not as concerned?
I left out the punch line deliberately more because I am afraid that I will misrepresent the results of Dr. Krosnick's study. But a the request of some here is an attempt to summarize. The public is aware of and understands climate change and global warming. They are also concerned about its implications. However, they are also concerned about things that are of immediacy to their lives, such as having a job, being safe from crime, having access to health care, etc. These issues take precedence over climate change not only because they are of immediate importance, but because they also have concrete solutions that the public understands, perceives can be readily implemented and do not necessarily have a dramatic impact on current lifestyles. The public also sees climate change as an issue that is for government to address, not itself personally. Similar to the lack of interest in voting for the reason that a single vote will not making a difference. Another interesting tidbit was public perception of scientists. People believe that we do know what we are talking about, but they also believe that we are human just as they and can make mistakes in judgment, data uncertainty issues aside. -- Felix A. Martinez, Ph.D. NOAA/NOS/NCCOS Center for Sponsored Coastal Ocean Research N/SCI2, SSMC4 Rm. 8326ph: 301-713-3338 x153 1305 East-West Hwy. fax: 301-713-4044 Silver Spring, MD 20910 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Note: The content of this message does not reflect any position of the U.S. Government or of NOAA unless otherwise specified. The information therein is only for the use of the individuals or entities for which it was intended even if addressed incorrectly. If not the intended recipient, you may not use, copy, disseminate, or distribute the message or its content unless otherwise authorized.
New US DOE Funding Opportunity for Climatic Impacts Research
Dear Investigators, The U.S. Department of Energy=B9s Program for Ecosystem Research has issued a solicitation for new experimental research to develop a better scientific understanding of potential effects of climatic change on U.S. terrestrial ecosystems and their component organisms. Research should focus on the following question, directed at terrestrial vascular plants or animals in the United States:=20 Do temperature increases projected by coupled atmosphere-ocean general circulation models for the coming 100 years have the potential to affect = the abundance and/or geographic distribution of plant or animal species in th= e United States, and if so, to what extent? Research should be based on experimental manipulations of temperature in th= e field and/or the laboratory and directed at understanding cause-and-effect relationships between temperature change and the abundance and/or geographi= c distribution of terrestrial vascular plants or animals in the United States= . Proposed research should not rely on correlations between presently observe= d temperature gradients or changes and the observed abundance or distribution of plant or animal species. High risk research having the potential to rapidly advance the field is encouraged. A required preapplication is due January 5, 2007. A copy of the full solicitation can also be accessed and downloade via http://per.ornl.gov/PERsolicitations.html. Paul J. Hanson, Ph.D., PER Chief Scientist Environmental Sciences Division Oak Ridge National Laboratory Bethel Valley Road, Building 1062 Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6422 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: 1-865-574-5361 Fax: 1-865-576-9939
Global Climate Change and NSTA and the Movie
There have been some interesting observations over the past week on this matter. I hope that some of our citizens in the US are not ignorant of science, as many of them have been my students over the past 40 years and if they are ignorant, then perhaps I have done my job properly. There does seem to be a lot of interest in both Global Climate Change and in the movie. We showed the movie in Plymouth, NH, on two nights at the local Congregational Church (Thursday and Sunday) and had about 250 people each night. We also followed the movie with a discussion and although not all of the people stayed, a number did and we had a great discussion. NH has also had a very active group from the Carbon Coalition and I believe a number of towns in NH and Vermont will be voting on a variety of measures come this next town meeting cycle. Perhaps NH and Vermont are different from the rest of the US because of our reliance on local town government for most decision making processes, but that type of government surely requires more knowledgeable citizens than some of the other states where the decisions are many levels away from the people. As to whether the NSTA should have accepted the movie and distributed to the teachers, seems to be a mute question. Why doesn't David simply buy the mailing labels and ship it out directly to the teachers. We got An Inconvient Truth from an organization that essentially did just that. While on the topic of documentary films, I would offer the suggestion that readers of this list might watch Who killed the electric car? If you like Roger Moore movies, you should find this movie thought provoking. Why would GM destroy all of its electric cars after California did away with the ZEV mandate? Perhaps the car was too good for the car makers. Larry -- Larry T. Spencer, Professor Emeritus of Biology Plymouth State University This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
Graduate Research Assistanships (M.S.)
Graduate Research Assistantships, Center of Excellence for Ecosystem Studies (CEES), Murray State University. Two assistantships to begin August 2007. Qualifications: B.S. in biology, ecology, or related discipline. Previous experience with field and laboratory experiments highly desirable. Responsibilities: conduct research on a) effects of invasive aquatic plants on wetland communities with Dr. Kate He ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) or b) conservation biology/evolutionary ecology of amphibians with Dr. Howard Whiteman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]), while completing an M.S. degree in Water Science (http://www.murraystate.edu/qacd/cos/crr/crr_education.html). Stipend: $12,000 per year. To Apply: Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] for application forms. Deadline: January 15, 2007. Women and minorities are encouraged to apply. Murray State University is an equal education and employment opportunity, M/F/D, AA employer.
Re: Why is the public not as concerned?
For a summary and the results of Jon Krosnick's study, see http://environment.stanford.edu/news/environreport.pdf Carol Boggs At 08:51 AM 11/30/2006, Felix Martinez wrote: I left out the punch line deliberately more because I am afraid that I will misrepresent the results of Dr. Krosnick's study. But a the request of some here is an attempt to summarize. The public is aware of and understands climate change and global warming. They are also concerned about its implications. However, they are also concerned about things that are of immediacy to their lives, such as having a job, being safe from crime, having access to health care, etc. These issues take precedence over climate change not only because they are of immediate importance, but because they also have concrete solutions that the public understands, perceives can be readily implemented and do not necessarily have a dramatic impact on current lifestyles. The public also sees climate change as an issue that is for government to address, not itself personally. Similar to the lack of interest in voting for the reason that a single vote will not making a difference. Another interesting tidbit was public perception of scientists. People believe that we do know what we are talking about, but they also believe that we are human just as they and can make mistakes in judgment, data uncertainty issues aside. -- Felix A. Martinez, Ph.D. NOAA/NOS/NCCOS Center for Sponsored Coastal Ocean Research N/SCI2, SSMC4 Rm. 8326ph: 301-713-3338 x153 1305 East-West Hwy. fax: 301-713-4044 Silver Spring, MD 20910 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Note: The content of this message does not reflect any position of the U.S. Government or of NOAA unless otherwise specified. The information therein is only for the use of the individuals or entities for which it was intended even if addressed incorrectly. If not the intended recipient, you may not use, copy, disseminate, or distribute the message or its content unless otherwise authorized.
EstimateS Software
I am attempting to use this software for the first time and could use some help setting up my input file. It is not clear to me how to use my dataset in the same way as the examples in User's Guide. Perhaps I need to reconfigure my dataset? Use different software? I am attempting to determine actual species richness from nine sample plots (microplots) taken from each of 37 macroplots.I have raw species richness numbers for each macroplot. I have already calculated Shannon's Entropy and the Effective Number of Species and would now like to evaluate and compare other diversity estimators. Any advice would be greatly appreciated! Patricia B. Orth Research Associate CEMML, Colorado State University, 1490 Campus Delivery, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1490
GLOBES IGERT Fellowship at Univ. of Notre Dame
Dear Colleagues, Team GLOBES invites you to learn more about a pioneering initiative and fellowship opportunity at the University of Notre Dame. GLOBES is a new, interdisciplinary Ph.D. program studying Global Linkages of Biology, the Environment, and Society. Launched by funding from an IGERT (Integrated Graduate Education, Research and Traineeship) grant from the National Science Foundation, GLOBES offers a number of unique interdisciplinary classes, symposium, conferences, and research and education activities of both national and international scope mentored by faculty from across the College of Science, the College of Arts and Letters, and the Law School. The central theme of GLOBES research projects is that environmental degradation in the form of habitat destruction, biodiversity loss, water pollution, and the spread of invasive species and infectious disease has interrelated causes and feedbacks that are both biological and social in nature. To address these problems requires the coordinated effort of biological and social scientists working in concert with experts in public policy and the law. Students who have a strong interest in team-based interdisciplinary studies and research are encouraged to apply. Fellowships, available to U.S. residents and permanent citizens, include generous yearly stipends, a full waiver of graduate tuition, research and travel funds. Application deadlines for Fall 2007 admission vary depending on the home department of study. Participating departments include Biological Sciences (Jan. 15 deadline), Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry and Biochemistry, Economics and Econometrics, History, Philosophy, History and Philosophy of Science, and Theology. For additional information on application procedures, GLOBES faculty, home Ph.D. departments, research facilities and the University of Notre Dame, visit the GLOBES website at http://globes.nd.edu Kind regards, Jeffrey L. Feder GLOBES Program Director Department of Biological Sciences University of Notre Dame, IN 46556-0369 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: (574) 631-4159 Fax: (574) 631-7413 Website: http://globes.nd.edu
Re: Science Scientific Uncertainty What does scientific uncertainty mean--exactly?
In response to Wayne's message: What exactly are high quality minds? If this isn't meant to be a joke, I would suggest saying something a little less condescending. I do agree, however, that science is by nature uncertain, especially an issue as complex as global warming. In response to Bill Silvert's message: While interesting and amusing, I don't know if this type of sci-fi philosophical argument belongs in scientific debates.
Re: teaching climate change (was NSTA's response to OpEd)
This is a timely thread for me because I just showed an Inconvenient = Truth in my environmental studies course this morning. I beleive it = powerfully conveys the message that people need to be aware of and = there's no more effective way to present the story than through Gore's = well crafted slides, animations and dry humor. Rescuing the frog from = the boiling water is a classic moment and it conveys a very positive and = hopeful vision. What prompted me to respond is the surprising sentiment that has arisen = in this thread that was best summarized by Mark: The political leaders = of tomorrow are the students of today. Education is key. Get them the = facts first and let them worry about politics later. I completely disagree with this statement because there should not be = any separation between environmental issues and politics. The fact is = that they are inseparable. It matters little what the data and = scientists say if politicians and elected leaders do not consider them = as they make legislation. On the other hand, when politicians and = international leaders do heed the warning of data trends and scientists, = amazing results can be had (e.g., the story of banning CFC's).=20 We need more dialogue between politicians and scientists not less. And = we especially need to encourage students to think MORE about = relationships between science, policy and the environment, not less.=20 To paraphrase a famous quote, politics without science is blind and = science without politics is ineffective in changing the world. -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of = Mark E Kubiske Sent: Thu 11/30/2006 10:12 AM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] teaching climate change (was NSTA's response to = OpEd) =20 Maybe that movie wasn't the best method, but what is? An excellent question. In my opinion, the answer is: ethical teachers = who are able to present facts to their students without inflaming the issue = by injecting politics. Technology transfer is an important part of what scientists do. Publication of straightforward yet understandable literature, press releases (rephrase -- accurate press releases), etc. Look at the National Academy's publication Understanding and Responding = to Climate Change. Available at http://www.gcrio.org/orders/ It is an excellent compilation of information, presented in a politically-neutral way. It informs, describes what is known and what = is not known, what the risks are, and reasonable ways they can be = addressed. The political leaders of tomorrow are the students of today. Education = is key. Get them the facts first and let them worry about politics later. I recently presented some research findings at the Wisconsin Governor's Conference on the Environment for high school students throughout the state. The theme was climate change. The keynote speaker turned a lot = of the kids off with numerous political tirades. He then went on to = proudly proclaim that he dropped out of college to become an environmental activist. Not a good message to give a group of high school students. They are better served to stay in school and become educated. There is = a difference between effective activism, and activism that is just plain silly. --- Mark E. Kubiske Research Plant Physiologist USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station Forestry Sciences Lab 5985 Hwy K Rhinelander, WI 54501 Office phone: 715-362-1108 Cell phone: 715-367-5258 Fax: 715-362-1166 email:[EMAIL PROTECTED] = =20 Bilodeau, = =20 Rebecca -- MFG = =20 Rebecca.Bilodeau = To=20 @MFGENV.COM ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU = =20 Sent by: = cc=20 Ecological = =20 Society of= Subject=20 America: grants, Re: NSTA's response to OpEd = =20 jobs, news = =20 [EMAIL PROTECTED] = =20 V.UMD.EDU = =20 = =20 = =20 11/29/2006 05:11= =20 PM = =20 = =20
How to increase public involvement in environment issues (was global climate change)
I recently heard of the Ecologos Institute, a Canadian consortium that has devised a project they call the Universarium (http://www.universarium.net/movie.html) to provide educational entertainment as the first step to converting concern about environmental issues into action on those issues. They have a multi-faceted approach to increasing public involvement, starting with inspiration using entertainment, proceeding to envisioning possible solutions using examples of what's been done elsewhere, and concluding with the formation of action groups to spearhead local initiatives. It seems this could be an interesting approach -- use entertainment (they envision a 3-D visual experience with sound, temperature, and scent) as a readily accessible way to get people interested, then encourage those who wish to become more involved through a well designed, step-by-step process. It addresses some of the concerns discussed on this list -- the need for education, to overcome apathy, to empower people so that they feel their voice matters, and change the way we are currently dealing with environmental issues. And it also keeps the decision-making process (which environment concerns to address, and how) in the hands of local people, rather than having a government agency impose rules nation wide as the first step toward the goal. Does anyone know more about this group / project than what is available on their website? Karen Gerhart, Ph.D. University of California Davis
Re: Why is the public not as concerned?
Thank you for the summary. I an unable to see that Krosnick's work addresses any public understanding of climate change. Instead, it appears to address a vague public sense of environmental health - which includes climate change - and a strong association between one's opinion of environmental health and political affiliation. I don't think you can state that one has an understanding of a subject until you can find that understanding to be independent of any ideology. Karen Claxon - Original Message - From: Carol Boggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 2:06 PM Subject: Re: Why is the public not as concerned? For a summary and the results of Jon Krosnick's study, see http://environment.stanford.edu/news/environreport.pdf Carol Boggs At 08:51 AM 11/30/2006, Felix Martinez wrote: I left out the punch line deliberately more because I am afraid that I will misrepresent the results of Dr. Krosnick's study. But a the request of some here is an attempt to summarize. The public is aware of and understands climate change and global warming. They are also concerned about its implications. However, they are also concerned about things that are of immediacy to their lives, such as having a job, being safe from crime, having access to health care, etc. These issues take precedence over climate change not only because they are of immediate importance, but because they also have concrete solutions that the public understands, perceives can be readily implemented and do not necessarily have a dramatic impact on current lifestyles. The public also sees climate change as an issue that is for government to address, not itself personally. Similar to the lack of interest in voting for the reason that a single vote will not making a difference. Another interesting tidbit was public perception of scientists. People believe that we do know what we are talking about, but they also believe that we are human just as they and can make mistakes in judgment, data uncertainty issues aside. -- Felix A. Martinez, Ph.D. NOAA/NOS/NCCOS Center for Sponsored Coastal Ocean Research N/SCI2, SSMC4 Rm. 8326ph: 301-713-3338 x153 1305 East-West Hwy. fax: 301-713-4044 Silver Spring, MD 20910 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Note: The content of this message does not reflect any position of the U.S. Government or of NOAA unless otherwise specified. The information therein is only for the use of the individuals or entities for which it was intended even if addressed incorrectly. If not the intended recipient, you may not use, copy, disseminate, or distribute the message or its content unless otherwise authorized.
IGERT PhD Traineeship Program at Northern Arizona University
Dear colleagues: Please distribute this information broadly to faculty advisors and potential students. NAU IGERT Program in Integrative Bioscience: Genes to Environment NAU invites applications for six PhD student traineeships at Northern Arizona University for students admitted for the 2007/08 academic year. The purpose of this program is to provide students with instruction and research training focused on linkages between molecular genetics and ecosystem phenomena, with special emphasis on multi-scale modeling approaches. Program graduates will have the skills to address fundamental and applied questions of genetic influences on ecosystem function and response to environmental change. Unique aspects of this program include: 1) multidisciplinary research with a special emphasis on scaling phenomena, 2) inclusion of molecular methodology and applied statistics coursework in all programs of study, 3) seminar courses covering scientific ethics, statistics and modeling, and student research, featuring guest speakers from integrative disciplines, 4) unique internships with community colleges, federal agencies, and Native American high schools to broaden the graduate experience and enhance connections between the research and the broader community. The NAU Integrative Bioscience PhD program will prepare innovative and creative scientists to become leaders in research, science outreach and communication, and environmental problem solving. Fellowship packages will include $30,000/year stipend support for two years, with continued support at more traditional stipend levels. Applicants must concurrently apply to, or already be accepted in, doctoral programs in the Department of Biological Sciences http://www6.nau.edu/biology/http://www6.nau.edu/biology/ or the School of Forestry http://www.for.nau.edu/cms/http://www.for.nau.edu/cms/ at Northern Arizona University. Application deadlines for the 2007/08 academic year will be January 15th, 2007. Applications will consist of 1) standard applications required for Biology or Forestry graduate programs (including three letters of reference) and 2) a 2 page essay on how this program would address your research, educational, and career goals. Please go to http://www6.nau.edu/biology/igert/ or contact us by email and phone for more information: Dr. Catherine Gehring: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED], (928) 523-9158 or Dr. Amy Whipple: [EMAIL PROTECTED], (928)523-8727 Amy V. Whipple Merriam-Powell Center for Environmental Research and Biological Sciences Mail: PO Box 5640 Packages: South Beaver Street BLDG. 21 Room 227 Office: Biology Building (21) Room 429 Northern Arizona University Flagstaff, AZ 86011 Fax: 928-523-8223 Phone:(w) 928-523-8727 (h) 928-714-0409 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.mpcer.nau.edu
Re: Why is the public not as concerned?
At 11:06 AM -0800 11/30/06, Carol Boggs wrote: For a summary and the results of Jon Krosnick's study, see http://environment.stanford.edu/news/environreport.pdf Carol Boggs Also of interest is the earlier Environmental Values and Behaviors: Strategies To Encourage Public Support for Initiatives To Combat Global Warming Deborah L. Rhode, Professor, Stanford Law School and Director, Stanford Center on Ethics With Lee Ross, Stanford Department of Psychology, January 2006 http://environment.stanford.edu/ideas/cccpdocs/RhodeRossPolicyBrief.pdf ZS
Re: Science Scientific Uncertainty What does scientific uncertainty mean--exactly?
Actually the ideas in my posting arose from a physics seminar I took as an undergraduate with R. Bruce Lindsay, a distinguished physicist and also philosopher of science. The argument that we can never know anything absolutely is well accepted in physics where it has led to the understanding that everything is open to question. A good example of this is Newton's Laws of Motion, the most thoroughly validated set of scientific statements ever -- but it turns out not to be correct. I think that in the hard sciences my sci-fi philosophical argument would probably not raise an eyebrow. But I think that Wayne Tyson came closer to the mark when he quoted Jacob Bronowski, The people followed Hitler because he was CERTAIN! Certainty trumps science, even when it is nonsense. The endless conflict between science and religion in the US owes much to the fact that religion offers certainty. April Dianna Kane may not like it, but many of us, when asked Are you absolutely positive that your scientific results are 100% correct? are likely to look down and meekly answer, no. Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: April Dianna Kane [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 7:13 PM Subject: Re: Science Scientific Uncertainty What does scientific uncertainty mean--exactly? In response to Bill Silvert's message: While interesting and amusing, I don't know if this type of sci-fi philosophical argument belongs in scientific debates.
Math/Field Ecology for Grads/Undergrads at Kellogg Biological Station
**Scholarship Support Available** Mathematics and Field Ecology Summer Program 11 June - 27 July 2007 for Undergraduate and Graduate Students at Kellogg Biological Station, Michigan State University http://www.kbs.msu.edu/ELME Kellogg Biological Station (KBS) will once again host the summer program known as ELME, Enhancing Linkages between Mathematics and Ecology. ELME is a course-work based research experience designed for students with an interest in applying mathematics to questions in ecology and evolution. The program is designed for students both with and without formal training in mathematics. Participants in the full program take 3 one week math courses on topics that are relevant to ecology/evolution and then apply these tools in a four-week field ecology/evolution course. Students can enroll in a subset of the ELME courses if that better fits their needs and schedules. Mathematics 1-week courses: Introduction to Theoretical Population Biology - MTH 490.431 Robin E. Snyder, Case Western Reserve University June 11 - June 15 Theoretical Community and Ecosystem Ecology - MTH 490.432 Christopher Klausmeier, Kellogg Biological Station, MSU June 18 - June 22 Maximum Likelihood Analysis in Ecology - MTH 490.433 Kenneth Mulder, Kellogg Biological Station, MSU June 25 - June 29 Ecology 4-week course: Field Ecology and Evolution - ZOL/PLB 440 Gary Mittelbach, Jeff Conner, and Doug Schemske, Kellogg Biological Station, MSU July 2 - July 27 Undergraduate Fellowships ($2500 stipend, plus housing, travel, and tuition) are available for students enrolling in the full ELME program. Graduate scholarships are available for tuition and housing. More information about KBS and the ELME program is available at http://www.kbs.msu.edu/ELME. The application deadline for enrollment and scholarships is 1 March 2007.
Science Education Intellectual discipline Questioning or Believing? Re: [SPAM] Re: NSTA's response to OpEd
Bravo! And there is the idea (perhaps the same as put forth by Robert) that theory means any cockamamie idea that happens to pop into one's head, therefore all theories (or at least the ones one doesn't like) are just cockamamie ideas. This is one of the roots of anti-intellectualism that nurtures belief as opposed to, and as a replacement for, thought. This leads to the belief that any opinion on any subject is just as good as any other, which circles back into a claimed validation of any belief. This leads to the ultimate in self-righteousness, which permits any individual to do or say anything and not be questioned--by others, and certainly not by oneself. One can claim, for example, that intelligent design is just as good as the theory of evolution, and therefore should be given equal weight in, say, the classroom. Perhaps it should--provided that it is not instructed. Evolution should, of course, be subject to the same scrutiny. (I cringe every time someone asks me if I believe in evolution.) But it is the questioning that distinguishes the reasonableness of the hypothesis, and a valid hypotheses will stand the test. Belief systems can only declare, and they are distinguished by the prohibition of questioning, the requirement of adherence to the belief. That is how authoritarians secure and maintain control. Ironically, it appeals to other authoritarian personalities who are the most vulnerable to the suggestion that they need not think, that all questions have been answered. Luckily for human destiny, a certain percentage of us at least vacillate a bit about Authority. I vacillate about whether or not the trend is toward or away from Authority. At the moment, I'm kinda pessimistic. Theories like continental drift, for example, are both built on previous conjectures based on hunches based on observations that, through the crucible of additional observations, questioning, into an integrated whole that gains sufficient strength to be more widely accepted. Throughout this process there is always a significant, if not dominant authoritarian fraction that vigorously resist anything that questions their own presumptions and figuratively or literally try to burn the heretics at the stake. It took about a half-century for continental drift to find its way into the classrooms to any significant degree. Believers always feel threatened by questioning. Integrators (thinkers) always welcome criticism, and happily refute it or accept it as a necessary bit of grit in the theory-polishing process. Well, always is a bit too strong a term, perhaps. I reckon we all fall into one category or the other at times, but as we grow or grow older, we either become increasingly authoritarian or more open to question. One can usually learn more through specifics and principles than from vagueness and generalization. Critical assessment must, by definition, be relevant and specific. Criticism, in the defensive (negative) sense, is characterized by innuendo. Integrators revel in the former and ignore the latter. That is what distinguishes true science from belief systems. By definition, all new thought comes from outliers. Statistically, they are insignificant, and are widely treated as such. That's my theory (or should I say opinion?). (For better or for worse, it was built on the shoulders of others, that I might see farther into the gulf of my ignorance, and be at peace that there are oceans beyond that gulf I shall never see.) If for no other reason than to avoid the charge of hypocrisy, I invite specific, relevant, criticism. WT At 09:53 AM 11/30/2006, Robert Hamilton wrote: One of the biggest stumbling blocks I have to deal with when teaching what is science is the hypothetico-deductive model of a theory presented in far too many science textbooks. I refer specifically to the fool notion that theories start out as some sort of speculation that you develop into an hypothesis, which you then test. If through testing the hypothesis is repeatedly validated it becomes a theory, and if over some stretch of time the theory is consistently validated it becomes a law. We need to use all our powers of persuasion to have this nonsense removed from any and all such textbooks. It should only be referred to as a silly thing once taught! A theory is a scientific explanation; period. The Chromosome Theory of Inheritance. Cell Theory. The Theory of Evolution. These theories explain observed regularities like laws and facts. They are not carved in stone. They are tentative explanations. Cell Theory, in the broad sense at least, continues to evolve, even though no one doubts that all living things are composed of cells...as far as we know! Current theory represents the sate of knowledge that has developed over all previous years involving interactions amongst all interested researchers and commentators over those years. Many of these people are among the
