Apparently as a means of warning our more impressionable readers against the dangers of Spiced Rum and MDMA, taken in conjunction with the works of Milton. . .

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

Obviously, this is the very sole reason why you await the demise of private enterprize. Like "teeth set on edge," you await that moment of sour grapes, wherein you may pounce upon the benighted, the ignorant, the weak, the uneducated, with your utopian nightmare.

:P

Apparently as a means of warning our more impressionable readers against the dangers of Spiced Rum and MDMA, taken in conjunction with the works of Milton. . .

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

Obviously, this is the very sole reason why you await the demise of private enterprize. Like "teeth set on edge," you await that moment of sour grapes, wherein you may pounce upon the benighted, the ignorant, the weak, the uneducated, with your utopian nightmare.

:P

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Apparently as a means of warning our more impressionable readers against the dangers of Spiced Rum and MDMA, taken in conjunction with the works of Milton. . .

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

Obviously, this is the very sole reason why you await the demise of private enterprize. Like "teeth set on edge," you await that moment of sour grapes, wherein you may pounce upon the benighted, the ignorant, the weak, the uneducated, with your utopian nightmare.

:P

Nah, it's all about freedom, really... and the dream of one. Take Edison, for example. Was it the federal government that produced this picture, or simply took it?

Never mind.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Apparently as a means of warning our more impressionable readers against the dangers of Spiced Rum and MDMA, taken in conjunction with the works of Milton. . .

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

Obviously, this is the very sole reason why you await the demise of private enterprize. Like "teeth set on edge," you await that moment of sour grapes, wherein you may pounce upon the benighted, the ignorant, the weak, the uneducated, with your utopian nightmare.

:P

Nah, it's all about freedom, really... and the dream of one. Take Edison, for example. Was it the federal government that produced this picture, or simply took it?

Never mind.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

One does not find the same degree of lying in the green non-peer-reviewed material, but one does find increased sloppiness compared to genuine science.

.

I assume that you are referring to Rachel Carson's The Silent Spring, now found to be riddled with errors.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

One does not find the same degree of lying in the green non-peer-reviewed material, but one does find increased sloppiness compared to genuine science.

.

I assume that you are referring to Rachel Carson's The Silent Spring, now found to be riddled with errors.

Originally Posted by monoghan

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

One does not find the same degree of lying in the green non-peer-reviewed material, but one does find increased sloppiness compared to genuine science.

I assume that you are referring to Rachel Carson's The Silent Spring, now found to be riddled with errors.

I assume you are being facitous in selecting such an early publication, perhaps the seminal work in the field. Was Silent Spring accurate? In part, yes; in part, no. It was above all else a thoroughly developed hypothesis. It couldn't be more than that, since the peer-review process had not been applied to this field previously.

Given the limitations she endured and her untimely death two years after publication, it's a bit much to expect any more from Carson than the book she wrote. Here's a friendly review of the book for those interested.

For balance, if you want to cal it that, here's the most vocal proponent of the other point of view.

Originally Posted by monoghan

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

One does not find the same degree of lying in the green non-peer-reviewed material, but one does find increased sloppiness compared to genuine science.

I assume that you are referring to Rachel Carson's The Silent Spring, now found to be riddled with errors.

I assume you are being facitous in selecting such an early publication, perhaps the seminal work in the field. Was Silent Spring accurate? In part, yes; in part, no. It was above all else a thoroughly developed hypothesis. It couldn't be more than that, since the peer-review process had not been applied to this field previously.

Given the limitations she endured and her untimely death two years after publication, it's a bit much to expect any more from Carson than the book she wrote. Here's a friendly review of the book for those interested.

For balance, if you want to cal it that, here's the most vocal proponent of the other point of view.

="Brian Rush"On the green side, there is less deliberate falsification, but more romantic self-deception.

You recommended The Ecology of Commerce by Paul Hawken.

="Kirkus Review"It's not easy being green but, here, Hawken (Growing a Business, 1987, etc.) proposes a utopian scheme that, for all its good intentions, could make the process even harder. Proceeding from the assumption that the environmental depredations of profit-making enterprises ``are destroying life on earth,'' the author offers grim warnings on the status quo's presumptive perils. Among other vague and unsourced claims, he asserts: ``Given current corporate practices, not one wildlife reserve, wilderness or indigenous culture will survive the global economy.'' Bolstering his worst-case scenario with evidence that's longer on anecdotal vignettes than scientific data, Hawken goes on to present a three-point program in aid of what he calls a ``restorative'' economy. Among other recommendations, he calls for eliminating waste by recycling all resources; mandating the use of solar energy over fossil fuels; and encouraging diversity. Informed by an apparent antipathy toward big business, conspicuous consumption, mass production, and other of capitalism's hallmarks, the Hawken agenda envisions some decidedly radical solutions to the problems of an advanced industrial society. Cases in point range from cutting Fortune 500 companies down to size through imposing controls on markets (which, though effective at setting prices, fail in Hawken's view to reckon costs like pollution); nurturing smaller firms with government-supplied incentives; and levying penalty taxes on, say, farmers who use chemical (as opposed to organic) means of cultivation. Nor does Hawken much care for competition (``expensive and degrading for all involved''), advocating instead an interdependent private sector ``that co- evolves with the natural and human communities it serves.'' High-minded--if sometimes highhanded--prescriptions that will appeal to Hawken's large readership--as well as to, no doubt, Chicken Littles everywhere. -- Copyright ?1993, Kirkus Associates, LP. All rights reserved.

Competition is "expensive and degrading for all involved"?? Wake up and smell the socialist-utopian "romantic self-deception"! My heart may beat to the left of center, but my brain leans right. I'm not going to buy this book.

="Brian Rush"On the green side, there is less deliberate falsification, but more romantic self-deception.

You recommended The Ecology of Commerce by Paul Hawken.

="Kirkus Review"It's not easy being green but, here, Hawken (Growing a Business, 1987, etc.) proposes a utopian scheme that, for all its good intentions, could make the process even harder. Proceeding from the assumption that the environmental depredations of profit-making enterprises ``are destroying life on earth,'' the author offers grim warnings on the status quo's presumptive perils. Among other vague and unsourced claims, he asserts: ``Given current corporate practices, not one wildlife reserve, wilderness or indigenous culture will survive the global economy.'' Bolstering his worst-case scenario with evidence that's longer on anecdotal vignettes than scientific data, Hawken goes on to present a three-point program in aid of what he calls a ``restorative'' economy. Among other recommendations, he calls for eliminating waste by recycling all resources; mandating the use of solar energy over fossil fuels; and encouraging diversity. Informed by an apparent antipathy toward big business, conspicuous consumption, mass production, and other of capitalism's hallmarks, the Hawken agenda envisions some decidedly radical solutions to the problems of an advanced industrial society. Cases in point range from cutting Fortune 500 companies down to size through imposing controls on markets (which, though effective at setting prices, fail in Hawken's view to reckon costs like pollution); nurturing smaller firms with government-supplied incentives; and levying penalty taxes on, say, farmers who use chemical (as opposed to organic) means of cultivation. Nor does Hawken much care for competition (``expensive and degrading for all involved''), advocating instead an interdependent private sector ``that co- evolves with the natural and human communities it serves.'' High-minded--if sometimes highhanded--prescriptions that will appeal to Hawken's large readership--as well as to, no doubt, Chicken Littles everywhere. -- Copyright ?1993, Kirkus Associates, LP. All rights reserved.

Competition is "expensive and degrading for all involved"?? Wake up and smell the socialist-utopian "romantic self-deception"! My heart may beat to the left of center, but my brain leans right. I'm not going to buy this book.

Originally Posted by Suz X

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

On the green side, there is less deliberate falsification, but more romantic self-deception.

You recommended The Ecology of Commerce by Paul Hawken.

Competition is "expensive and degrading for all involved"?? Wake up and smell the socialist-utopian "romantic self-deception"! My heart may beat to the left of center, but my brain leans right. I'm not going to buy this book.

Hmmm. :o

Originally Posted by Suz X

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

On the green side, there is less deliberate falsification, but more romantic self-deception.

You recommended The Ecology of Commerce by Paul Hawken.

Competition is "expensive and degrading for all involved"?? Wake up and smell the socialist-utopian "romantic self-deception"! My heart may beat to the left of center, but my brain leans right. I'm not going to buy this book.

Hmmm. :o

Originally Posted by The Wonk

Just got this in the office e-distribution. :o

PRELIMINARY ANTHRAX FINDINGS AT THE FEDERAL RESERVE

January 15, 2003

Routine, random anthrax testing at the Federal Reserve resulted in a preliminary positive outcome today. This was a field test conducted by the US Post Office and the results will not be confirmed until tomorrow, January 16, 2003.

As a result, the USPS will be conducting further anthrax testing at their V Street Mail Distribution Facility. This facility has been closed today and will continue to be closed until test results are confirmed hopefully on January 16, 2003. The USDA Mail Center located at the South Building will not be receiving any outside mail from the USPS today and will process only in-house mail.
All mail address to FNS Headquarters is processed through the Merrifield Processing Plant in Merrifield, Virginia. The FNS courier will continue to transport in-house government mail during the testing period.

Please be reminded that mail for all Federal agencies is still being irradiated and should be considered safe. Rubber gloves and masks are available in all of our work areas. We will continue to update you as pertinent information is received from the Department, as your safety is our utmost concern.

Floyd A. Wheeler

Homeland Security Coordinator

I wonder if our secretaries will go back to wearing latex gloves when they open the mail? And I was just patting myself on the back for having a nice secure Federal Government job during these days of uncertain economic news. Sigh. :o

Forgot to tell you that my agency later recalled this message. There were no traces of anthrax found in the postal facility. The secretaries dont' have to wear gloves and face masks again when opening mail. Whew!

Originally Posted by The Wonk

Just got this in the office e-distribution. :o

PRELIMINARY ANTHRAX FINDINGS AT THE FEDERAL RESERVE

January 15, 2003

Routine, random anthrax testing at the Federal Reserve resulted in a preliminary positive outcome today. This was a field test conducted by the US Post Office and the results will not be confirmed until tomorrow, January 16, 2003.

As a result, the USPS will be conducting further anthrax testing at their V Street Mail Distribution Facility. This facility has been closed today and will continue to be closed until test results are confirmed hopefully on January 16, 2003. The USDA Mail Center located at the South Building will not be receiving any outside mail from the USPS today and will process only in-house mail.
All mail address to FNS Headquarters is processed through the Merrifield Processing Plant in Merrifield, Virginia. The FNS courier will continue to transport in-house government mail during the testing period.

Please be reminded that mail for all Federal agencies is still being irradiated and should be considered safe. Rubber gloves and masks are available in all of our work areas. We will continue to update you as pertinent information is received from the Department, as your safety is our utmost concern.

Floyd A. Wheeler

Homeland Security Coordinator

I wonder if our secretaries will go back to wearing latex gloves when they open the mail? And I was just patting myself on the back for having a nice secure Federal Government job during these days of uncertain economic news. Sigh. :o

Forgot to tell you that my agency later recalled this message. There were no traces of anthrax found in the postal facility. The secretaries dont' have to wear gloves and face masks again when opening mail. Whew!

Suz X:

Read Natural Capitalism before anything else by Hawkin.

Regarding your head leaning to the right, let me point out a couple of results of the free market for your consideration.

In a competitive system such as a capitalist market, any behavior that provides a competitive advantage will be engaged in, regardless of moral considerations or its intrinsic benefit or harm to society, unless forbidden by law. Those competitors who are too scrupulous or responsible to engage in such behavior will be overwhelmed by their less-scrupulous or less-responsible adversaries.

Without any law at all, a market-driven industrial enterprise will come inexorably to resemble the illegal drug trade, which operates completely outside the law and in which violent and contemptible practices are commonplace. Thugs dominate the drug industry not because of the nature of the product but because no law prevents their doing so. Note the collectively self-destructive nature of this tendency. The whole drug industry would be more profitable if its members behaved themselves better, but it is impossible for them to do this, because any individual who does so makes himself a victim for those who don't.

This is an exact parallel for the persistence of war, despite the fact that all nations would be happier and more prosperous in a peaceful world.

Legitimate business does not descend so far, because laws punish violence and fraud in a business context and so reserve competition for the nonviolent and (somewhat) honest. But that is a difference only of degree. The competitive drive works in many ways to hurt the collective well-being of all business.

It systematically depresses wages and concentrates wealth at the top, thus undermining the consumer market on which all business depends. Higher wages across the board would make all businesses more successful, but any business that acts on this premise individually will put itself at a disadvantage in terms of operating costs, so no one does it.

It exhausts the commons and despoils natural resources, thus undermining business' long-term prosperity. Again, a more responsible approach would benefit everyone, but any single business that unilaterally acts on this premise will hurt its competitiveness.

The free market is not a panacea. It must be banked, controlled, regulated, and its dangers contained, in order for us to reap its benefits -- which do in fact exist. Unregulated capitalism and socialism are extremes; usually extremes are less pragmatically sound than some point in between them.

I find many of Hawkins' prescriptions unrealistic myself. But his books do contain a lot of useful information of a technical nature, regarding technological possibilities and ecological concepts. That's why I recommended them.

Suz X:

Read Natural Capitalism before anything else by Hawkin.

Regarding your head leaning to the right, let me point out a couple of results of the free market for your consideration.

In a competitive system such as a capitalist market, any behavior that provides a competitive advantage will be engaged in, regardless of moral considerations or its intrinsic benefit or harm to society, unless forbidden by law. Those competitors who are too scrupulous or responsible to engage in such behavior will be overwhelmed by their less-scrupulous or less-responsible adversaries.

Without any law at all, a market-driven industrial enterprise will come inexorably to resemble the illegal drug trade, which operates completely outside the law and in which violent and contemptible practices are commonplace. Thugs dominate the drug industry not because of the nature of the product but because no law prevents their doing so. Note the collectively self-destructive nature of this tendency. The whole drug industry would be more profitable if its members behaved themselves better, but it is impossible for them to do this, because any individual who does so makes himself a victim for those who don't.

This is an exact parallel for the persistence of war, despite the fact that all nations would be happier and more prosperous in a peaceful world.

Legitimate business does not descend so far, because laws punish violence and fraud in a business context and so reserve competition for the nonviolent and (somewhat) honest. But that is a difference only of degree. The competitive drive works in many ways to hurt the collective well-being of all business.

It systematically depresses wages and concentrates wealth at the top, thus undermining the consumer market on which all business depends. Higher wages across the board would make all businesses more successful, but any business that acts on this premise individually will put itself at a disadvantage in terms of operating costs, so no one does it.

It exhausts the commons and despoils natural resources, thus undermining business' long-term prosperity. Again, a more responsible approach would benefit everyone, but any single business that unilaterally acts on this premise will hurt its competitiveness.

The free market is not a panacea. It must be banked, controlled, regulated, and its dangers contained, in order for us to reap its benefits -- which do in fact exist. Unregulated capitalism and socialism are extremes; usually extremes are less pragmatically sound than some point in between them.

I find many of Hawkins' prescriptions unrealistic myself. But his books do contain a lot of useful information of a technical nature, regarding technological possibilities and ecological concepts. That's why I recommended them.

Thanks, Brian, for the very accurate presentation on peer review.

I am an ecologist--that is, I am a scientist, who spent years in graduate school studying the science of ecology. That I have to clarify what I mean when I say that I am an ecologist is very telling! It says a lot about how politicized popular discussion of ecological finding has become.

Suz X says that she noticed the shelves on ecology in B&N were fairly bristling with hostility. That is because what is being discussed there is not the science of ecology but rather political views about ecology. These are two different things. That is why Brian and others suggested that Suz X go to the peer-review literatute of the field itself. She can also read popular works by scientists in the field who are interested in informing rather than arguing for a political course of action.

I am going to discuss what science is and what it is not, what the science of ecology entails and how it does and does not relate to politics.

Science is not a search for THE TRUTH. It is rather, one human way of knowing about the world and it functions among other human ways of knowing (like art, literature, economics, etc). Science can be rather simply defined as the study of the physical universe through the use of the scientific method. A scientists asks a question about how the physical world works, develops a hypothesis and then investigates that hypothesis by setting up an experiment with independent and dependent variables, controls and constants. She then takes her raw data and analizes it to see
whether her results confirm her hypothesis or not. This is how working scientists advance our knowledge of the physical world.

Ecology is a field within the biological (life) sciences that is the study of biological interactions at various levels of organization. For example, an ecologist can deal with interactions at the population level, the community level, the ecosystem level or the planetary level (though that last is mighty big!). The biological interactions include competition, yes, but also commensalism, symbiosis, and parasitism, among others. All are important in understanding how life on earth works. Ecology also deals with the many physical and chemical interactions that happen between living organisms and the non-living environment. Thus an ecologist is interested in chemical cycles such as the carbon cycle or (my favorite) the nitrogen cycle and in energy interactions such as food webs (where we learn that most energy is lost to non-usable forms each step up). An ecologist must take into account more than one area in order to understand just a little about what is going on in a specific population, community or ecosystem. It is a humbling field because it is very difficult to do this. For example, when trying to understand something about the ecological role of my research organism, the cryptogamic soil crust (a small symbiotic organism that grows on the desert floor), I had to use what I knew about mycology and bacteriology to identify the organisms (and thus do some taxonomy). I also had to know about the nitrogen cycle and how nitrogen in fixed into amines so that it is available for use in living systems. I also had to look at species interactions within the organism and I was very intersted in the effect of the organism on the soil chemistry and the plants around it. I had 2500 data points at which I looked at several chemical and biological variables. I became very good at SAS, a large statistics program that I used to do data analysis.

The science of ecology is not politicized. The political controversy that surrounds it is about how to use the information that ecologists have produced. If Suz X reads the articles in the peer-review journals (and I recommend that if she does, she pick a question and pursue it that way), she will not find them bristling with hostility. Any controversy in these journals is scientific and centers on how data is gathered and how conclusions are drawn.

Does the study of ecology affect the political views of the scientists involved? Of course it does. It must because when a person spends many years learning to look at the world in a particular way that will affect the way she thinks about things outside her science. For example, I think that much political analysis that I read seems hopelessly simplistic. It does not take into account the many interactions among human beings and between human beings and the larger world. Many political analysts look only at one interaction and how it operates in one small arena over a short period of time and then arrogantly declare that this is somehow the TRUTH and how THINGS ARE. I do not understand how they get so excited about this when there are really exciting things to consider, such as food webs, taxa and systems brimming with energy and change! One thing about specializing in ecology and evolution has taught me is that the way we think THINGS ARE doesn't last but a blink of the eye in the overall scheme of things!

By the way, Suz X, I strongly recommend that you get yourself a good biological dictionary-- each field uses jargon in specific ways to communicate ideas--it will cost you less than $7 at a local college bookstore and less on the web. It is easier to understand why a scientist finds his field exciting (even if you don't agree) when you have cracked the code. Also, I recommend to Suz X (and anyone interested in the science of ecology) that you get a basic ecology textbook so that you understand the basic interactions that ecologists are concerned with and the levels to which they apply them.

Thanks, Brian, for the very accurate presentation on peer review.

I am an ecologist--that is, I am a scientist, who spent years in graduate school studying the science of ecology. That I have to clarify what I mean when I say that I am an ecologist is very telling! It says a lot about how politicized popular discussion of ecological finding has become.

Suz X says that she noticed the shelves on ecology in B&N were fairly bristling with hostility. That is because what is being discussed there is not the science of ecology but rather political views about ecology. These are two different things. That is why Brian and others suggested that Suz X go to the peer-review literatute of the field itself. She can also read popular works by scientists in the field who are interested in informing rather than arguing for a political course of action.

I am going to discuss what science is and what it is not, what the science of ecology entails and how it does and does not relate to politics.

Science is not a search for THE TRUTH. It is rather, one human way of knowing about the world and it functions among other human ways of knowing (like art, literature, economics, etc). Science can be rather simply defined as the study of the physical universe through the use of the scientific method. A scientists asks a question about how the physical world works, develops a hypothesis and then investigates that hypothesis by setting up an experiment with independent and dependent variables, controls and constants. She then takes her raw data and analizes it to see
whether her results confirm her hypothesis or not. This is how working scientists advance our knowledge of the physical world.

Ecology is a field within the biological (life) sciences that is the study of biological interactions at various levels of organization. For example, an ecologist can deal with interactions at the population level, the community level, the ecosystem level or the planetary level (though that last is mighty big!). The biological interactions include competition, yes, but also commensalism, symbiosis, and parasitism, among others. All are important in understanding how life on earth works. Ecology also deals with the many physical and chemical interactions that happen between living organisms and the non-living environment. Thus an ecologist is interested in chemical cycles such as the carbon cycle or (my favorite) the nitrogen cycle and in energy interactions such as food webs (where we learn that most energy is lost to non-usable forms each step up). An ecologist must take into account more than one area in order to understand just a little about what is going on in a specific population, community or ecosystem. It is a humbling field because it is very difficult to do this. For example, when trying to understand something about the ecological role of my research organism, the cryptogamic soil crust (a small symbiotic organism that grows on the desert floor), I had to use what I knew about mycology and bacteriology to identify the organisms (and thus do some taxonomy). I also had to know about the nitrogen cycle and how nitrogen in fixed into amines so that it is available for use in living systems. I also had to look at species interactions within the organism and I was very intersted in the effect of the organism on the soil chemistry and the plants around it. I had 2500 data points at which I looked at several chemical and biological variables. I became very good at SAS, a large statistics program that I used to do data analysis.

The science of ecology is not politicized. The political controversy that surrounds it is about how to use the information that ecologists have produced. If Suz X reads the articles in the peer-review journals (and I recommend that if she does, she pick a question and pursue it that way), she will not find them bristling with hostility. Any controversy in these journals is scientific and centers on how data is gathered and how conclusions are drawn.

Does the study of ecology affect the political views of the scientists involved? Of course it does. It must because when a person spends many years learning to look at the world in a particular way that will affect the way she thinks about things outside her science. For example, I think that much political analysis that I read seems hopelessly simplistic. It does not take into account the many interactions among human beings and between human beings and the larger world. Many political analysts look only at one interaction and how it operates in one small arena over a short period of time and then arrogantly declare that this is somehow the TRUTH and how THINGS ARE. I do not understand how they get so excited about this when there are really exciting things to consider, such as food webs, taxa and systems brimming with energy and change! One thing about specializing in ecology and evolution has taught me is that the way we think THINGS ARE doesn't last but a blink of the eye in the overall scheme of things!

By the way, Suz X, I strongly recommend that you get yourself a good biological dictionary-- each field uses jargon in specific ways to communicate ideas--it will cost you less than $7 at a local college bookstore and less on the web. It is easier to understand why a scientist finds his field exciting (even if you don't agree) when you have cracked the code. Also, I recommend to Suz X (and anyone interested in the science of ecology) that you get a basic ecology textbook so that you understand the basic interactions that ecologists are concerned with and the levels to which they apply them.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Without any law at all, a market-driven industrial enterprise will come inexorably to resemble the illegal drug trade, which operates completely outside the law and in which violent and contemptible practices are commonplace. Thugs dominate the drug industry not because of the nature of the product but because no law prevents their doing so.

i see what you're getting at, but it seems a bit misguided. thugs don't dominate because "no law prevents their doing so"-- there are plenty of laws against their thuggishness. rather, thugs dominate because the entire industry is outlawed, and who in that industry is going to report that they've been wronged by another?

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

The free market is not a panacea. It must be banked, controlled, regulated, and its dangers contained, in order for us to reap its benefits -- which do in fact exist. Unregulated capitalism and socialism are extremes; usually extremes are less pragmatically sound than some point in between them.

absolutely. except i would change the phrase "usually extremes are...." to "extremes are always...."


TK

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Without any law at all, a market-driven industrial enterprise will come inexorably to resemble the illegal drug trade, which operates completely outside the law and in which violent and contemptible practices are commonplace. Thugs dominate the drug industry not because of the nature of the product but because no law prevents their doing so.

i see what you're getting at, but it seems a bit misguided. thugs don't dominate because "no law prevents their doing so"-- there are plenty of laws against their thuggishness. rather, thugs dominate because the entire industry is outlawed, and who in that industry is going to report that they've been wronged by another?

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

The free market is not a panacea. It must be banked, controlled, regulated, and its dangers contained, in order for us to reap its benefits -- which do in fact exist. Unregulated capitalism and socialism are extremes; usually extremes are less pragmatically sound than some point in between them.

absolutely. except i would change the phrase "usually extremes are...." to "extremes are always...."


TK

Originally Posted by elilevin

Thanks, Brian, for the very accurate presentation on peer review.

I am an ecologist--that is, I am a scientist, who spent years in graduate school studying the science of ecology. That I have to clarify what I mean when I say that I am an ecologist is very telling! It says a lot about how politicized popular discussion of ecological finding has become.

Suz X says that she noticed the shelves on ecology in B&N were fairly bristling with hostility. That is because what is being discussed there is not the science of ecology but rather political views about ecology. These are two different things. That is why Brian and others suggested that Suz X go to the peer-review literatute of the field itself. She can also read popular works by scientists in the field who are interested in informing rather than arguing for a political course of action.

I am going to discuss what science is and what it is not, what the science of ecology entails and how it does and does not relate to politics.

Science is not a search for THE TRUTH. It is rather, one human way of knowing about the world and it functions among other human ways of knowing (like art, literature, economics, etc). Science can be rather simply defined as the study of the physical universe through the use of the scientific method. A scientists asks a question about how the physical world works, develops a hypothesis and then investigates that hypothesis by setting up an experiment with independent and dependent variables, controls and constants. She then takes her raw data and analizes it to see
whether her results confirm her hypothesis or not. This is how working scientists advance our knowledge of the physical world.

Ecology is a field within the biological (life) sciences that is the study of biological interactions at various levels of organization. For example, an ecologist can deal with interactions at the population level, the community level, the ecosystem level or the planetary level (though that last is mighty big!). The biological interactions include competition, yes, but also commensalism, symbiosis, and parasitism, among others. All are important in understanding how life on earth works. Ecology also deals with the many physical and chemical interactions that happen between living organisms and the non-living environment. Thus an ecologist is interested in chemical cycles such as the carbon cycle or (my favorite) the nitrogen cycle and in energy interactions such as food webs (where we learn that most energy is lost to non-usable forms each step up). An ecologist must take into account more than one area in order to understand just a little about what is going on in a specific population, community or ecosystem. It is a humbling field because it is very difficult to do this. For example, when trying to understand something about the ecological role of my research organism, the cryptogamic soil crust (a small symbiotic organism that grows on the desert floor), I had to use what I knew about mycology and bacteriology to identify the organisms (and thus do some taxonomy). I also had to know about the nitrogen cycle and how nitrogen in fixed into amines so that it is available for use in living systems. I also had to look at species interactions within the organism and I was very intersted in the effect of the organism on the soil chemistry and the plants around it. I had 2500 data points at which I looked at several chemical and biological variables. I became very good at SAS, a large statistics program that I used to do data analysis.

The science of ecology is not politicized. The political controversy that surrounds it is about how to use the information that ecologists have produced. If Suz X reads the articles in the peer-review journals (and I recommend that if she does, she pick a question and pursue it that way), she will not find them bristling with hostility. Any controversy in these journals is scientific and centers on how data is gathered and how conclusions are drawn.

Does the study of ecology affect the political views of the scientists involved? Of course it does. It must because when a person spends many years learning to look at the world in a particular way that will affect the way she thinks about things outside her science. For example, I think that much political analysis that I read seems hopelessly simplistic. It does not take into account the many interactions among human beings and between human beings and the larger world. Many political analysts look only at one interaction and how it operates in one small arena over a short period of time and then arrogantly declare that this is somehow the TRUTH and how THINGS ARE. I do not understand how they get so excited about this when there are really exciting things to consider, such as food webs, taxa and systems brimming with energy and change! One thing about specializing in ecology and evolution has taught me is that the way we think THINGS ARE doesn't last but a blink of the eye in the overall scheme of things!

Lomborg's hypothesis that warnings issued by environmentalists and scientists are unwarranted, presented in the book rather than in the peer-reviewed literature, has been widely criticized by researchers. But what is the DCSD's authority to tackle what many consider a polemical rather than scientific book?

The DCSD was the first European body to be set up ? by the Danish Research Agency ? to examine issues of scientific misconduct, and it is still unusual in being mandated to consider any complaint about any scientist, or any scientific work, emerging from both the private and public sectors. A look at its guiding principles (see http://www.forsk.dk/eng/index.htm) and its judgement (see http://www.forsk.dk/uvvu/nyt/udtaldebat/bl_decision.htm) confirms that the DCSD has the freedom to assess the case because, arguably, Lomborg presented himself as an academic and his book as a scientific argument. Appropriately enough, the DCSD emphasizes that it is assessing Lomborg's scientific standards, not his conclusions.
The national context of this independent assessment is relevant here. Lomborg was made director of the politically influential Danish Environmental Assessment Institute, founded by the new right-wing government after the 2001 elections, solely on the strength of it. According to its own statutes, the institute must be headed by a scientist of appropriate research experience, whereas Lomborg has little additional experience.

Lomborg's claims in his book are certainly significant and potentially influential. The Danish public, at least, has the right to know whether he is arguing on scientifically rigorous grounds, not least given the influence of his position.

Unfortunately, the DCSD has left itself in a weak position. It did not conduct an independent analysis of the book but relied on published criticisms, especially a controversial selection published by Scientific American. Even to call this judgement's basis a 'meta-analysis' would be too generous: there is, for example, no justification given for the particular selection of published critiques. Furthermore, through a tangled combination of translation and legalese, the committee's judgement characterizes Lomborg as "objectively dishonest" while at the same time stating that they have no evidence for what most people would call dishonesty: deliberate misrepresentation. That subtle, not to say tortuous, distinction has been lost in the media coverage.

There remains a need for rigorous scrutiny of Lomborg's methods, given his prominence, his claims to serious analysis, and the polarized debate surrounding his book. But this episode leaves everyone little wiser, and the waters surrounding Lomborg even muddier.


Nature 421, 195 (2003); doi:10.1038/421195b

More heat, less light on Lomborg


"A Danish committee has picked an appropriate target and misfired."


Peer Review is to be taken with a truckload of salt in these matters as well. And, an ecologist working for the Sierra Club and an ecologist paid by Exxon-Mobil might both be rigorous scientists in their way but the answer often comes before the question in these matters. Scientists like the rest of us are prone to all the human frailties. Even the best map of a system is not the system.

Originally Posted by elilevin

Thanks, Brian, for the very accurate presentation on peer review.

I am an ecologist--that is, I am a scientist, who spent years in graduate school studying the science of ecology. That I have to clarify what I mean when I say that I am an ecologist is very telling! It says a lot about how politicized popular discussion of ecological finding has become.

Suz X says that she noticed the shelves on ecology in B&N were fairly bristling with hostility. That is because what is being discussed there is not the science of ecology but rather political views about ecology. These are two different things. That is why Brian and others suggested that Suz X go to the peer-review literatute of the field itself. She can also read popular works by scientists in the field who are interested in informing rather than arguing for a political course of action.

I am going to discuss what science is and what it is not, what the science of ecology entails and how it does and does not relate to politics.

Science is not a search for THE TRUTH. It is rather, one human way of knowing about the world and it functions among other human ways of knowing (like art, literature, economics, etc). Science can be rather simply defined as the study of the physical universe through the use of the scientific method. A scientists asks a question about how the physical world works, develops a hypothesis and then investigates that hypothesis by setting up an experiment with independent and dependent variables, controls and constants. She then takes her raw data and analizes it to see
whether her results confirm her hypothesis or not. This is how working scientists advance our knowledge of the physical world.

Ecology is a field within the biological (life) sciences that is the study of biological interactions at various levels of organization. For example, an ecologist can deal with interactions at the population level, the community level, the ecosystem level or the planetary level (though that last is mighty big!). The biological interactions include competition, yes, but also commensalism, symbiosis, and parasitism, among others. All are important in understanding how life on earth works. Ecology also deals with the many physical and chemical interactions that happen between living organisms and the non-living environment. Thus an ecologist is interested in chemical cycles such as the carbon cycle or (my favorite) the nitrogen cycle and in energy interactions such as food webs (where we learn that most energy is lost to non-usable forms each step up). An ecologist must take into account more than one area in order to understand just a little about what is going on in a specific population, community or ecosystem. It is a humbling field because it is very difficult to do this. For example, when trying to understand something about the ecological role of my research organism, the cryptogamic soil crust (a small symbiotic organism that grows on the desert floor), I had to use what I knew about mycology and bacteriology to identify the organisms (and thus do some taxonomy). I also had to know about the nitrogen cycle and how nitrogen in fixed into amines so that it is available for use in living systems. I also had to look at species interactions within the organism and I was very intersted in the effect of the organism on the soil chemistry and the plants around it. I had 2500 data points at which I looked at several chemical and biological variables. I became very good at SAS, a large statistics program that I used to do data analysis.

The science of ecology is not politicized. The political controversy that surrounds it is about how to use the information that ecologists have produced. If Suz X reads the articles in the peer-review journals (and I recommend that if she does, she pick a question and pursue it that way), she will not find them bristling with hostility. Any controversy in these journals is scientific and centers on how data is gathered and how conclusions are drawn.

Does the study of ecology affect the political views of the scientists involved? Of course it does. It must because when a person spends many years learning to look at the world in a particular way that will affect the way she thinks about things outside her science. For example, I think that much political analysis that I read seems hopelessly simplistic. It does not take into account the many interactions among human beings and between human beings and the larger world. Many political analysts look only at one interaction and how it operates in one small arena over a short period of time and then arrogantly declare that this is somehow the TRUTH and how THINGS ARE. I do not understand how they get so excited about this when there are really exciting things to consider, such as food webs, taxa and systems brimming with energy and change! One thing about specializing in ecology and evolution has taught me is that the way we think THINGS ARE doesn't last but a blink of the eye in the overall scheme of things!

Lomborg's hypothesis that warnings issued by environmentalists and scientists are unwarranted, presented in the book rather than in the peer-reviewed literature, has been widely criticized by researchers. But what is the DCSD's authority to tackle what many consider a polemical rather than scientific book?

The DCSD was the first European body to be set up ? by the Danish Research Agency ? to examine issues of scientific misconduct, and it is still unusual in being mandated to consider any complaint about any scientist, or any scientific work, emerging from both the private and public sectors. A look at its guiding principles (see http://www.forsk.dk/eng/index.htm) and its judgement (see http://www.forsk.dk/uvvu/nyt/udtaldebat/bl_decision.htm) confirms that the DCSD has the freedom to assess the case because, arguably, Lomborg presented himself as an academic and his book as a scientific argument. Appropriately enough, the DCSD emphasizes that it is assessing Lomborg's scientific standards, not his conclusions.
The national context of this independent assessment is relevant here. Lomborg was made director of the politically influential Danish Environmental Assessment Institute, founded by the new right-wing government after the 2001 elections, solely on the strength of it. According to its own statutes, the institute must be headed by a scientist of appropriate research experience, whereas Lomborg has little additional experience.

Lomborg's claims in his book are certainly significant and potentially influential. The Danish public, at least, has the right to know whether he is arguing on scientifically rigorous grounds, not least given the influence of his position.

Unfortunately, the DCSD has left itself in a weak position. It did not conduct an independent analysis of the book but relied on published criticisms, especially a controversial selection published by Scientific American. Even to call this judgement's basis a 'meta-analysis' would be too generous: there is, for example, no justification given for the particular selection of published critiques. Furthermore, through a tangled combination of translation and legalese, the committee's judgement characterizes Lomborg as "objectively dishonest" while at the same time stating that they have no evidence for what most people would call dishonesty: deliberate misrepresentation. That subtle, not to say tortuous, distinction has been lost in the media coverage.

There remains a need for rigorous scrutiny of Lomborg's methods, given his prominence, his claims to serious analysis, and the polarized debate surrounding his book. But this episode leaves everyone little wiser, and the waters surrounding Lomborg even muddier.


Nature 421, 195 (2003); doi:10.1038/421195b

More heat, less light on Lomborg


"A Danish committee has picked an appropriate target and misfired."


Peer Review is to be taken with a truckload of salt in these matters as well. And, an ecologist working for the Sierra Club and an ecologist paid by Exxon-Mobil might both be rigorous scientists in their way but the answer often comes before the question in these matters. Scientists like the rest of us are prone to all the human frailties. Even the best map of a system is not the system.

A peer reviewer must preserve scholarly integrity by rising above the three deadly sins of
intellectual life: envy, favoritism, and the temptation to plagiarize

What's the verdict on peer review?

The judgment
of colleagues plays a critical part
in how grants are distributed, journal articles are
selected, and careers are formed. Yet this system may
raise ethical dilemmas.

21stC explores how peer review
really works, and how it might work better

By Mr. Tom Abate

A peer reviewer must preserve scholarly integrity by rising above the three deadly sins of
intellectual life: envy, favoritism, and the temptation to plagiarize

What's the verdict on peer review?

The judgment
of colleagues plays a critical part
in how grants are distributed, journal articles are
selected, and careers are formed. Yet this system may
raise ethical dilemmas.

21stC explores how peer review
really works, and how it might work better

By Mr. Tom Abate

Trollking:

i see what you're getting at, but it seems a bit misguided. thugs don't dominate because "no law prevents their doing so"-- there are plenty of laws against their thuggishness. rather, thugs dominate because the entire industry is outlawed, and who in that industry is going to report that they've been wronged by another?

It amounts to the same thing. By trying to outlaw drugs altogether, the state has abrogated any authority to regulate the industry short of outlawing it. Since enforcing the ban on drugs has proven impossible, the net result is that the industry exists and is not regulated, even by basic criminal law.

i would change the phrase "usually extremes are...." to "extremes are always...."

I was being slightly more cautious. Somebody's bound to mention an extreme that is actually justified. 8)