[ECOLOG-L] EcoTone: Ballistics experts of the bug world
Meet the ballistics experts of the bug world: A quick draw beetle that fires volatile liquids with the pulse of a Tommy Gun, aphids that self-combust at the threat of a predator and a double-pistoled worm that sprays its victim with streams of goo. Of course, these insects are not the only invertebrates carrying chemical artillery-bees are maybe the most famous projectile-launching bugs around. The below insects, however, give a unique look into chemical warfare on a small scale. Read more and comment at http://www.esa.org/esablog/research/ballistics-experts-of-the-bug-world/
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion are we getting off track?
To tickle the ostensible track: I think innumerable and complex interactions comprise each individual person's development and what may influence any certain person to drop a class based on selection of a textbook or other pedagogical approaches is as unique as that person's life. In response to Silvert's post: I don't think the difference is so clear. Moreover, I think it's very fuzzy and awfully generalized to say that contemporary human society is based on scientific observation and reason, and not on faith. I see people spill from churches, synagogues, mosques and bars (what bars! yes, bars.) all the time. I see relatively few people with scientific instruments. I don't dispute that various faith systems have been put to some very malicious uses (Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!) over our histories, but so has so-called science (Manhattan Engineering District; choose any weapons research project, really... certainly arguments can be, have been and are being made that armaments end up saving more lives than would be lost without them... that' not what I'm arguing here.) It's easy - and very emotionally effective (think of the children!) - to make a case against religion by invoking a practice as abominable as forcible human slavery, but I think attributing this to 'religion' in a generalized sense unfairly alleges against plenty of monks, nuns, witches, shamans, priests, preachers and others who would agree that forced human slavery is morally wrong and who might very well describe themselves as religious (in their particular patois). I think it's reciprocally easy to say that 'science' - again, in the same broad, generalized sense - maintains that all humans are fundamentally similar. I've seen scientific studies that group - meaning emphasize differences among - humans based on sundry observable and reasoned characteristics such as arrangement of facial structures and skin pigmentation. I've also seen many religious texts that present meta-emotio-spritual arguments for similarity among all humans - extended to all sentient beings even ! - at a zero-order harmonic level. In my intentionally orotund and bombastic opinion, human beings can hijack just about any well meaning enterprise and put it to nefarious ends just as much as we can nurture, respect and elevate just about any of our undertakings. Influences of people operating in religious context have often contributed to peaceful co-existence, so have some scientists. Sidebar: Gregor Mendel... priest or scientist? Or 'and'? And regarding reactions to mining disasters and deaths, I agree on the tragic aspect, but I also submit that a person could conduct a hybridized religio-empirical investigation into why people died. My research proposal: incorporate studies of ventilation systems, synclinal orogenies, human greed, legislative loopholes, compassion, political wiliness, spiritual valuation of familial place-bases, market-based economic expediency, informational manipulation, returns to investors and re-election. Plus sunshine. To twist a statement: to act greedily and recklessly with human lives on the basis of arguably-incomplete and possibly-politically-slanted empirical observations and for monetary benefit to relatively few people is a sketchy undertaking, in my estimation. I'd also like to put the idea out to this listserv and chrono-synclastic infundibulum (thanks to K.V., Jr. for that one) there that religious-based power hierarchies may have analogs with scientific expert-ism... priests of empiricism? In a respectfully amicable and simultaneously disputatious manner - Brian Chalfant -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of Wayne Tyson Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2010 11:12 AM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion are we getting off track? Bill and Ecolog: This is exactly why I took care in my initial post to emphasize DOGMA. Religion suffers the semantic fate of a lot of terminology; it simultaneously covers everything unscientific and cherry-picks extremes. That is why the discussion took off on an infinite number of tracks, and a value-free observer does well to let it all hang out. Meanwhile, back on the track, the issue is how to best reconcile the fact of dogmatic tendencies in religion tar all philosophy and are not so entirely unknown in science as many inside those ivory towers insist. How, for example, should a science teacher handle the dogmatic student? This is a common and ongoing challenge. While perhaps magnified a bit in the academic context, the nature of this conflict may have roots far deeper into the ways humans have come to interact. It seems that there is, to paraphrase Margaret Mead, conflict enough to go around. She actually said There's love enough to go around. Maybe she was in a rare mood of wishful
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion are we getting off track?
Wayne et al., I think we have gotten a little off-track. After all, if we accept that science is or should be evidence-based, then the putative uses of religion, as well as the number of gods there are in the universe, are not in the purview of science. If a scientist is also superstitious (and by superstitious, I mean believes in things that are not evidence-based and makes choices following those beliefs), then she must recognize that the superstitious part of her is not scientific. I assume that superstitious scientists must compartmentalize their science from their superstitions and the twain shall never meet. If we are going to have a morality discussion here, then we really are going to have to define some common terms first - otherwise we will be like freshmen students asking how we know we are really here. Sincerely, Jim Wayne Tyson wrote on 25-May-10 12:11: Bill and Ecolog: This is exactly why I took care in my initial post to emphasize DOGMA. Religion suffers the semantic fate of a lot of terminology; it simultaneously covers everything unscientific and cherry-picks extremes. That is why the discussion took off on an infinite number of tracks, and a value-free observer does well to let it all hang out. Meanwhile, back on the track, the issue is how to best reconcile the fact of dogmatic tendencies in religion tar all philosophy and are not so entirely unknown in science as many inside those ivory towers insist. How, for example, should a science teacher handle the dogmatic student? This is a common and ongoing challenge. While perhaps magnified a bit in the academic context, the nature of this conflict may have roots far deeper into the ways humans have come to interact. It seems that there is, to paraphrase Margaret Mead, conflict enough to go around. She actually said There's love enough to go around. Maybe she was in a rare mood of wishful thinking, maybe not, but love in the form of ENGAGEMENT might be fertile grounds for the beginning of a reconciliation revolution. One thing seems certain. The present system could use some refinement. WT - Original Message - From: William Silvert cien...@silvert.org To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 2:39 AM Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion are we getting off track? While I have found the animated discussion interesting, I think we are getting away from the original issue of actual conflict between science and religion. This began with a student who dropped science because of the evolution issue, which is (or was) fairly common -- my step-father never could teach his physical anthopology course without getting into a fight with students who believed in creation. One can of course be religious without getting into a bind -- no reason why a scientist cannot go home and pray, attend religious services, and so on. But direct conflicts are only the tip of the iceberg. If we compare our mostly secular modern society with that of the past few centuries or millenia then the difference between a society based on observation and reason, which is basically what science is all about, and one based on religion is clear. Consider for example the matter of race. Even on the fringes of modern society, the people who think that blacks aren't smart enough to be quarterbacks, or the scientific extremes represented by The Bell Curve, there is some awareness of our common ancestry and the essential human nature of non-white races. In the past on the other hand, slavery and genocide were justified by the religious doctrine that only white people have souls, and that humanoids without souls could be treated like animals. Now of course the issue of souls is not one where science and religion are in direct conflict, no scientist can determine whether or not the soul really exists. But the fate and lives of millions of people were determined by whether the religious knowledge that they had no souls took precedence over the scientific evidence that all of the races of man are fundamentally similar. Societies have been shaped by religion, and not always constructively. Serfs were held down not only by armed might but by belief in the divine right of kings -- even today many people believe that hereditary aristocrats are superior to commoners. Whether the priests who accompanied Pizarro went in support of his greedy goals or really just wanted to save souls, they certainly help subjugate the natives. We still see religion as sometimes an obstacle to social development. Consider the frequent mine disasters that have been in the news recently. No doubt many of the widows console themselves with the thought that this was god's will and was foreordained, and that they will meet their husbands in heaven. This is fine, I am all in favour of consoling the sad and alleviating emotional suffering. But there also has to be a scientific investigation into the
[ECOLOG-L] Student Travel Grants
This is just a reminder that applications for the Applied Ecology Section student travel grants to the ESA Annual Meeting in Pittsburgh are due at the end of the month. I will extend the deadline to June 1 since Monday is a holiday for most people. Also, the applications for the SERDP student travel grants are also due June 1. Application materials for both awards are to be sent to me. Scott Roberts Chair, Applied Ecology Section srobe...@cfr.msstate.edu
[ECOLOG-L] Call for Software Bazaar entries open for Conference on Informatics for Phylogenetics, Evolution, and Biodiversity (iEvoBio)
The Call for Software Bazaar entries is now open for the inaugural conference on Informatics for Phylogenetics, Evolution, and Biodiversity (iEvoBio), at http://ievobio.org/ocs/index.php/ievobio/ 2010. See below for instructions. The Software Bazaar features presenters demonstrating their software live on a laptop. At iEvoBio, this session takes the place of a poster session, and will be between 1.5-2 hours in duration. Conference attendees will be able to walk from one demonstration to the next and open a conversation with the presenters. Please also see our FAQ for this information (http://ievobio.org/faq.html#software). The Software Bazaar is part of the interactive afternoon program on the first conference day. Entries should be software aimed at advancing research in phylogenetics, evolution, and biodiversity, and can include interactive visualizations that have been pre-computed (such as SVGs, or Google Earth-compatible KML files). Submissions consist of a title, which will typically be the name of the software (or visualization method) being presented, the URL of a website where more information about the software can be obtained, and the license under which the source code is available. The provided website must contain a link to where the source code (and possibly binaries) can be downloaded. If it is not obvious from the provided website, the submission must describe what the software does. Reviewers will judge whether a submission is within scope of the conference (see above), and need to be able to verify whether the open- source requirement(*) is met. Presenters are expected to bring their own laptops for presentation, and any auxiliary devices necessary (such as a mouse). Power will be available at the presentation tables (110V/60Hz, US-style plugs; international presenters need to bring a suitable adaptor). Please let the organizing committee know as much in advance as possible if you expect to have unusually high demands for wireless network bandwidth. Note that commercial marketing activities are not permitted - presenters wishing to promote commercial or proprietary services or products should contact the Evolution conference about exhibitor space. Review and acceptance of Software Bazaar submissions will be on a rolling basis. The deadline for submission is the morning of the first day of the conference (June 29). As the number of Software Bazaar presentation slots is finite, we cannot guarantee the availability of slots up until the day of the conference. We cannot accept submissions until the open-source requirements are met. We ask all submitters of Software Bazaar presentations to be willing to also serve as reviewers of such, as described above. Softwar Bazaar demonstrations are only 1 of 5 kinds of contributed content that iEvoBio will feature. The other 4 are: 1) Full talks (closed), 2) Lightning talks, 3) Challenge entries, and 4) Birds-of-a- Feather gatherings. The Calls for Challenge entries (http://ievobio.org/challenge.html ) and Lightning Talks (same submission URL as above) remain open, and information on the Birds-of-a-Feather session is forthcoming. More details about the program and guidelines for contributing content are available at http://ievobio.org. You can also find continuous updates on the conference's Twitter feed at http://twitter.com/iEvoBio. iEvoBio is sponsored by the US National Evolutionary Synthesis Center (NESCent) in partnership with the Society of Systematic Biologists (SSB). Additional support has been provided by the Encyclopedia of Life (EOL). The iEvoBio 2010 Organizing Committee: Rod Page (University of Glasgow) Cecile Ane (University of Wisconsin at Madison) Rob Guralnick (University of Colorado at Boulder) Hilmar Lapp (NESCent) Cynthia Parr (Encyclopedia of Life) Michael Sanderson (University of Arizona) (*) iEvoBio and its sponsors are dedicated to promoting the practice and philosophy of Open Source software development (see http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php) and reuse within the research community. For this reason, software to be demonstrated to conference attendees must be licensed with a recognized Open Source License (see http://www.opensource.org/ licenses/), and be available for download, including source code, by a tar/zip file accessed through ftp/http or through a widely used version control system like cvs, Subversion, git, Bazaar, or Mercurial. Authors are advised that non-compliant submissions must be revised to meet the requirement by June 27 at the latest, and in the event that presentation slots run out, precedence is established by the date they are first found in compliance, not the date of submission.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] The Real Point of Research?
A good question, Patrick. Why not apply it to other realms of endeavor? For instance, what is the point of serving others as much as possible? Is this the only way of making the world a better place? Everyone serving everyone else is like everyone doing everyone else's laundry; wouldn't it be just as efficient if everyone did hisher own laundry? If everyone sacrifices for the benefit others, who is left to enjoy the benefits conferred by those sacrifices? Also, you should consider the different forms of service. Increasing the human store of knowledge about the natural world is a form of service. Remember the old saying: Give a man a fish and you've given him a meal. Teach a man how to fish and he will feed his family, have more children, over-exploit the local fish population, make war on his neighbors for their fish, and eventually cause an ecosystem collapse resulting in mass starvation. Or something like that. My point is that there are many forms of service, and many things that masquerade as service, and it is sometimes hard to know what's what. Why not try to find a career that lets you help make the world a better place and also lets you enjoy life while you're at it? Martin M. Meiss 2010/5/26 Patrick Green patrick.gree...@gmail.com Hello All, I am a recent UCLA grad with a B.S. in Ecology, Behavior, and Evolution. I love learning about science and research, and I am especially interested in Vertebrate Morphology. I feel like grad school is the best future for me, but there is one question that always bites me when I think about the future: What is the true point of all this scientific research? I know that without this knowledge there are several important advancements we as humans couldn't have made. I know that fields like conservation and ecology are especially important in terms of mitigating the impact humans have on the environment. However, I am still torn. I come from a background of serving others as much as possible, so to join a field that seems less service-oriented is hard for me. If anyone can help me get over this issue with some kind advice or specific examples, I'd really appreciate it. Feel free to email me personally, unless this issue is something others feel as well. Thanks a lot! Patrick Green -- Patrick Green patrick.gree...@gmail.com (530) 417-2089 2753 Knollwood Dr., Cameron Park, CA 95682
[ECOLOG-L] Summary: caution buying JMP
Dear fellow Ecologgers, Thank you for all of the suggestions on resolving my JMP problem (my computer will run JMP 7, but not JMP 8, JMP won't sell version 7 any more, and I can't open eight years of data analysis because of it). Here is a summary of the suggestions I have gotten. I have also included my responses since each suggestion has been given more than once. 1)Use R instead. – I will begin to do so. Unfortunately, it won’t help me right away, since I need to learn R first. 2)Backdate your computer to pre-expiration date. – This may have worked with earlier versions, but since JMP 7 expired, it needs to be reactivated by connecting to JMP on the internet or having a code emailed to you from their website, so it won't work now. 3)Buy a new version of JMP. – I would be happy to, but the new versions they are selling and that my university has (8 and soon 9) don’t work on my OS and I can’t upgrade without losing a lot of other stuff. 4)Talk to JMP employees. – I did. Repeatedly. They told me to buy a new computer or upgrade my OS, neither option will work for me financially. 5)Transfer everything to another computer with JMP 8 and export everything. – I will do so. It will take weeks. I have a lot of files. Thanks again for your responses. I have gotten many emails about this, and my situation of an older unsupported computer appears to be a problem for a number of people. I have communicated this fact with JMP staff, so hopefully they will work to resolve these issues for future generations of JMP users. For the present, I still recommend not purchasing SAS products. Sincerely, Lis Lisa Castillo Nelis NSF Postdoctoral Fellow Stanford University Gordon Laboratory Department of Biology Gilbert Building, Room 109 371 Serra Mall Stanford, CA 94305-5020
Re: [ECOLOG-L] The Real Point of Research?
Patrick, I think the point of all research is to increase our knowledge of how the natural world works. It's how the information is used that determines whether there are immediate applications of that knowledge or whether it needs to sit and cook for awhile while other research fills in the holes in the story. You make the point of research when you choose your question and plan your projects. But remember, it is a service to our collective knowledge when any new information is gathered and reported. Best wishes, Liane D. Liane Cochran-Stafira, Ph.D. Associate Professor Department of Biological Sciences Saint Xavier University 3700 West 103rd Street Chicago, Illinois 60655 phone: 773-298-3514 fax:773-298-3536 email: coch...@sxu.edu http://faculty.sxu.edu/~cochran/ http://faculty.sxu.edu/~cochran/ From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of Patrick Green Sent: Wed 5/26/2010 1:09 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] The Real Point of Research? Hello All, I am a recent UCLA grad with a B.S. in Ecology, Behavior, and Evolution. I love learning about science and research, and I am especially interested in Vertebrate Morphology. I feel like grad school is the best future for me, but there is one question that always bites me when I think about the future: What is the true point of all this scientific research? I know that without this knowledge there are several important advancements we as humans couldn't have made. I know that fields like conservation and ecology are especially important in terms of mitigating the impact humans have on the environment. However, I am still torn. I come from a background of serving others as much as possible, so to join a field that seems less service-oriented is hard for me. If anyone can help me get over this issue with some kind advice or specific examples, I'd really appreciate it. Feel free to email me personally, unless this issue is something others feel as well. Thanks a lot! Patrick Green -- Patrick Green patrick.gree...@gmail.com (530) 417-2089 2753 Knollwood Dr., Cameron Park, CA 95682
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion are we getting off track?
Jim Roper and Ecolog: The track has proven to have a lot of forks and branches; that doesn't bother me, as I'm in this to learn, not to instruct. It started with evolution and losing a grad student because of his/her religion. As I recall the particular religion wasn't specified, and no other details were given. That keeps the issue simple while opening the door to all sorts of possibilities and interpretations. The issue seemed to be around the conflict between religion and science--or shall we say between disciplined thinking and believing? There seemed to be two choices: Insist upon the primacy and authority of science or insist upon the primacy and authority of religion. Some responses implied that there might be some middle ground, or maybe even some other foundation upon which to build a systematic examination of the nature of the two, with emphasis on finding common ground or at least areas where there was little or no conflict. There were a lot of deviations from this core, such as about fundamentalist or dogmatic notions of religion based on ancient myth, and of scientific evidence that indicate that the literal interpretation of those myths (such as the age of the earth) are quantatively different. This sort of thing tends to produce a standoff based on conclusions rather than engagement on the relative merits. This is a lot like playground politics about my dad can lick your dad, can, can't, ad infinitum. The implied question was something like How do scientists, teachers, and other disciplined thinkers resolve these differences? A lot of opinion, all of it interesting in its own way followed, much of it rooted in examples of religious dogma that oppose concepts of perceiving reality like evolution. It appears that some major organized religions have taken positions that the concept of evolution is not (no longer) considered to be inconsistent with their beliefs. It appears that religion, even organized, dogmatic religion, has made concessions (or seen the light?) to science, and on one of its most fundamental concepts at that. A lot of what attracts people to religion consists of things like brotherhood and other social values--values which a lot of scientists, even atheists share. In the realm of scientific dogma, the social sciences are not considered sciences at all--and indeed, they have not offered a set of laws which can be demonstrated by experiment and reduced to mathematical formulae. Philosophers, and others who attempt to understand why questions are all but stoned by much of those who consider themselves scientists. Let he or she who is without error cast the first stone, eh? Otherwise, a bit of patience with those with whom we disagree might keep us all from throwing the babies out with the bathwater. In spite of spite on both sides, is appears that a trend toward reconciliation is, whether we like it or not, slowly taking place. Is it impossible to agree on, say, the evil of child abuse or the murder of innocents and the ostracism of those who would otherwise be colleagues? WT - Original Message - From: James J Roper jjro...@gmail.com To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 7:54 AM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion are we getting off track? Wayne et al., I think we have gotten a little off-track. After all, if we accept that science is or should be evidence-based, then the putative uses of religion, as well as the number of gods there are in the universe, are not in the purview of science. If a scientist is also superstitious (and by superstitious, I mean believes in things that are not evidence-based and makes choices following those beliefs), then she must recognize that the superstitious part of her is not scientific. I assume that superstitious scientists must compartmentalize their science from their superstitions and the twain shall never meet. If we are going to have a morality discussion here, then we really are going to have to define some common terms first - otherwise we will be like freshmen students asking how we know we are really here. Sincerely, Jim Wayne Tyson wrote on 25-May-10 12:11: Bill and Ecolog: This is exactly why I took care in my initial post to emphasize DOGMA. Religion suffers the semantic fate of a lot of terminology; it simultaneously covers everything unscientific and cherry-picks extremes. That is why the discussion took off on an infinite number of tracks, and a value-free observer does well to let it all hang out. Meanwhile, back on the track, the issue is how to best reconcile the fact of dogmatic tendencies in religion tar all philosophy and are not so entirely unknown in science as many inside those ivory towers insist. How, for example, should a science teacher handle the dogmatic student? This is a common and ongoing challenge. While perhaps magnified a bit in the academic context, the nature of this conflict may have roots far
[ECOLOG-L] Aquatic Species at Risk Internship - Canada
Dear Colleagues, A six-month internship is available through the Canada Federal Public Sector Youth Internship Program to work on aquatic species at risk at the Pacific Biological Station in Nanaimo, British Columbia. Internship Opportunity: Species at Risk Modelling Intern, BC-PS-R62 Description of the internship: Our research program aims to develop and evaluate quantitative modelling approaches for estimating the amount and spatial configuration of habitat necessary to achieve population recovery goals established during the SARA recovery planning process. The intern will work with our team to learn the fundamentals of building four types of spatial population and habitat models. Responsibilities will include working with our team to: • Gather and synthesize data for use in population dynamics models • Analyze data to estimate parameters, and build habitat suitability models in a Geographic Information System (GIS). • Run computer simulations and carry out sensitivity analyses. • Write and test functions in R. • Help prepare reports, presentations, and manuscripts. • The intern will become familiar with the processes of species at risk status assessment, critical habitat identification, and recovery planning. Minimum qualifications and skills required of the candidate: The candidate should have completed an undergraduate degree from a recognized university in biology, ecology, fisheries, or a related field, have a strong academic record and have completed advanced courses in population ecology, population dynamics modelling, landscape ecology, fisheries science, biostatistics, or GIS. Experience with (or motivation to learn) programming in a statistical or modelling language such as R would be a valuable asset. An interest in conservation biology or applied ecology, and an aptitude for quantitative analysis of population or spatial (GIS) data are essential for a successful internship within our research program. Eligibility Criteria: Applicants must be Canadian Citizens or Permanent Residents of Canada, from 15-30 years old, and be able to start on or before 30 July 2010. Full time students, or those who have previously participated in this program are not eligible. To apply for the Species at Risk Modelling Internship (BC-PS-R62): Additional details are posted at: http://25834.vws.magma.ca/yoyipdetails.jsp?lang=enflash=1=enta=98refid=BC-PS-R62. To apply, please forward a cover letter, CV, and copy of post-secondary transcripts to janelle.cur...@dfo-mpo.gc.ca. Applicants will also need to fill out an electronic form available at: https://apply.fpsyip.com/application/?l=en and quote the reference number BC-PS-R62. Review of applications will begin on 5 June 2010. Applications will be accepted until the internship is filled.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] The Real Point of Research?
You raise a very good question, Patrick. As a non-academic wildlife ecologist, I have found that some scientific research helps me do a better job of understanding ecological processes in a way that promotes good decision-making. I frequently find research papers and articles that directly apply to this process in publications such as Ecological Applications, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, Conservation in Practice, and Journal of Wildlife Management. The true point of this scientific research is better decision-making for conserving, managing and protecting species and the systems they depend on. Granted, a lot of scientific research does not produce information that seems to have any degree of applicability. If, as author Chet Raymo writes, knowledge is a finite island in a sea of infinite mystery, then it behooves us to prioritize our research so we are not just tabulating the grains of sand on the beach. There are infinite ways we can do research to extend the beaches of this knowledge island, most of which are of little utilitarian value. We need to extend the beaches of this island in directions that provide useful answers. In effect, you should be looking for service-oriented research opportunities. Engage in conversations with scientists and others engaged in fish and wildlife conservation, ecosystem management, and resource policy making. Find out what they need to know in order to make their efforts more effective. Then design and conduct research that provides answers that carry out this service goal. Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist 9403 SW 74th Ave Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 539-1009 (503) 246-2605 fax -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of Patrick Green Sent: Wednesday, 26 May, 2010 11:10 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] The Real Point of Research? Hello All, I am a recent UCLA grad with a B.S. in Ecology, Behavior, and Evolution. I love learning about science and research, and I am especially interested in Vertebrate Morphology. I feel like grad school is the best future for me, but there is one question that always bites me when I think about the future: What is the true point of all this scientific research? I know that without this knowledge there are several important advancements we as humans couldn't have made. I know that fields like conservation and ecology are especially important in terms of mitigating the impact humans have on the environment. However, I am still torn. I come from a background of serving others as much as possible, so to join a field that seems less service-oriented is hard for me. If anyone can help me get over this issue with some kind advice or specific examples, I'd really appreciate it. Feel free to email me personally, unless this issue is something others feel as well. Thanks a lot! Patrick Green -- Patrick Green patrick.gree...@gmail.com (530) 417-2089 2753 Knollwood Dr., Cameron Park, CA 95682
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion are we getting off track?
I agree with all of you, and I believe that if the originator Hi All, I agree with all of you, and I believe that if the originator of this topic has followed the discussion, he or she now has more information to aid in discussions/exchanges with students. This Topic and entire discussion has been the diverse expression of the same energy seeking equilibrium; Expressed through our different languages(terminology combinations). I agree that for conversation to be most effective, common terms are necessary in the translation process. This has produced the seeming conflict in any discussion, including this one, but all of the conflicts are derivatives of the same root cause expressing across seemingly endless combinations of individuals/processes/systems/life/existence. This is what string, super-string and M-theory seek. Irregardless of what humans use to describe/understand the root cause(discipline, language, terminology, physics, biology, chemistry, sociology, economic, art etc); common terms have been, are and will be effective for the majority of the species in their respective environment. Now humans are approaching a global social environment/relocation/translocation and will require translations from respective local languages to agree on common terminology. This very discussion is a part of that same larger process that has been, is and will be. We all believe versatility/diversity/multiple languages will allow educators to be more effective in their attempts to reconcile the seeming conflicts. Photons, Neutrinos, Up/Down/Charrm/Strange/Top and Bottom Quarks, Gluons, Muons, Gravitons etc...offer reconciliation for quantum mechanics and general relativity. This reconciliation offers great insight into languages, beliefs, lack of belief(actually just a different belief), fitness, atoms, pushing boulders up hills, brick mortar, galaxies, heating tea pots, cellular processes, speciation, stars, sunlight, balancing your checkbook, bubble gum, hormones, mood swings, joy, boredom, daydreams, why surplus young must be produced in excess of that which can survive from one year to the next, carrying capacity, multiple definitions for a species, purpose, computers, literature, music, wars, economies, governments, cloud formation, plasma televisions, selfish genes, American, Irish, Chinese, bad energy, good energy, what goes around comes around, gravitational/electromagnetic/strong and weak forces and everything between. That does not mean we will all see it that way, as is obvious, and it will take a lot of work for even a majority to agree on common terms. The growing human population(s) and the desire for improved living conditions are pressured by a complexity that is hard for anyone to describe, but these ever-changing conditions will select for ever-changing adaptations/derivatives and yes, explanation(s). It is amazing how the inevitable differences provide insight to our similarity! I have thoroughly enjoyed presenting and hearing opinions, and I believe we all agree that having open minds will allow us to communicate/translate more effectively. Respectfully, M. Moore From: James J Roper jjro...@gmail.com To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Wed, May 26, 2010 9:54:15 AM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion are we getting off track? Wayne et al., I think we have gotten a little off-track. After all, if we accept that science is or should be evidence-based, then the putative uses of religion, as well as the number of gods there are in the universe, are not in the purview of science. If a scientist is also superstitious (and by superstitious, I mean believes in things that are not evidence-based and makes choices following those beliefs), then she must recognize that the superstitious part of her is not scientific. I assume that superstitious scientists must compartmentalize their science from their superstitions and the twain shall never meet. If we are going to have a morality discussion here, then we really are going to have to define some common terms first - otherwise we will be like freshmen students asking how we know we are really here. Sincerely, Jim Wayne Tyson wrote on 25-May-10 12:11: Bill and Ecolog: This is exactly why I took care in my initial post to emphasize DOGMA. Religion suffers the semantic fate of a lot of terminology; it simultaneously covers everything unscientific and cherry-picks extremes. That is why the discussion took off on an infinite number of tracks, and a value-free observer does well to let it all hang out. Meanwhile, back on the track, the issue is how to best reconcile the fact of dogmatic tendencies in religion tar all philosophy and are not so entirely unknown in science as many inside those ivory towers insist. How, for example, should a science teacher handle the dogmatic student? This is a common and ongoing challenge. While perhaps
