[Coral-List] push for more reliable research in ecology

[David Blakeway]

Dear List,
I'd like to apologise for that post. I just worked myself up because I feel
we've let those old scientists down, Jan Verwey and William Dakin (my 1918
guy).
I hope you can understand, and forgive my behaviour.
At least now the oxygen research is underway, thanks to Altieri et al, and
the new reef geomorphology research also, in Paul Blanchon's team, UNA
Mexico. Discoveries await.
Sincerely,
David

<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
Virus-free.
www.avast.com
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 3:52 PM David Blakeway <
fathom5marineresearch at gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks Doug.
>
> I’m aware that some of the things I’ve said may be offensive. I apologise
> for that. They were not intended as an attack on science or scientists. I
> know that a LOT of thought and effort goes into designing surveys and
> experiments and building ideas, not to mention the teaching, supervising,
> administration etc. It’s a tough, important, job.
>
> But science is not about reality, it’s about creating representations of
> reality, and that’s always going to come with inherent risks of falsity.
> Scientific progress is never an incremental series of linear steps, it’s
> all over the place. It’s easy to get waylaid by dangerous ideas that are
> compelling, and backed by apparent evidence, but false. These ideas have
> negative quality; they can set a field back for decades.
>
> I’ll give an example from my field of reef geomorphology. The details are
> arcane and would take time to explain, so I’ll shortcut: when reefs were
> first investigated (by white Europeans) in the early nineteenth century,
> their forms were attributed to primarily to process A, which is a
> reasonable proposition and one which I believe is correct. Late in the 19
> th century, information came to light which made process B a distinct
> possibility. Process B was proposed in the 1940s and elaborated in the
> 1950s and 1970s. When the issue was tested by reef coring in the 1980s and
> 90s, process B was falsified. Since then, articles supporting either A or B
> have been regularly published, the latest supporting B in 2020. What is
> happening? I’m really not sure, but I believe that, if I presented some
> reef images to you and asked you how those patterns formed, process A would
> immediately come to mind.
>
> The sad thing about all this is that an article published in 1918 had
> already addressed the issue and concluded (paraphrasing) ‘these forms look
> like process B but are more likely to be process A, for reason c. Reason c
> being a very excellent reason.
>
> If the simple logic of the 1918 message had been taken to heart, we never
> would have had to bumble through this whole (ongoing) mess. This is
> science, and we all have to accept that it could be our science, especially
> if we haven’t read any 19th and 20th century literature lately.
> Admittedly, that 1918 article was in a very obscure journal, but it was
> there. More importantly, the logic embodied in the article was always there
> in the reefs.
>
>
>
> Do I think more than half coral reef science is false? – well I cringe
> from that thought because it seems insulting to reef scientists. But that
> feeling is about people, not ideas. The ideas have to be up for
> investigation. So I would answer ‘I don’t know. Which ideas are critical?
> Have they been adequately tested?’ Yes, synchronous spawning occurs and yes
> there are craters on the moon. And when highly competent people build
> logical ideas based on those facts, using explicit methodology, and the
> ideas withstand testing, I believe them. But they are still just ideas. I’m
> grateful when people point out my mistakes. Even though it’s a bitter pill,
> it’s much better than continuing down the wrong road. And if the
> interaction is done right, it can be wonderful. Don Kinsey told me that in
> his early career a competitor emerged, Steve Smith. But instead of
> competing they joined forces, produced some pretty awesome science, and had
> a good time doing it. I really dislike seeing nasty comments and rebuttals.
> It’s unseemly and can lead to long-term harm, especially to students in the
> respective labs who may have had nothing to do with the original argument.
> Those authors should speak to each other before the comment appears out of
> the blue. As Doug & I did, now we are comrades. With respect to this issue,
> I have wondered whether I should contact André Droxler about our ‘Darwin
> was wrong’ thread. We (especially I) were quite critical behind his back.
> The thing is, I’m pretty sure if I met André we’d get along great, have a
> beer and a snorkel, err I mean a snorkel and a beer. Maybe I should do it.
> It’s pretty crazy when people end up disliking each other just because they
> share a common interest.
>
> Conspiracy theories are also ideas, up for testing. The conspiracy theory
> that the earth was created in seven days I don’t spend much time on. The
> conspiracy theory that Facebook is selling data to the highest bidder, and
> those data may be used to identify and track people that might rebel
> against a regime, well I don’t spend much time on that either, but I think
> it’s better than the seven-day thing.
>
>
>
> I share your concern about the credibility of science being damaged by
> trumped up claims of falsity. Ioannidis’ article was actually criticised
> far more for its attention-seeking title than its content. And ‘Darwin was
> wrong’ had become a constant internet meme well before the Droxler & Jorry
> article. Although virtually none of the ‘Darwin was wrong’ claims have any
> substance, they still have the potential to discredit science, a point made
> by Bob Buddemeir early in that thread. However, these are shallow claims
> and easily dismissed, in theory at least. I think there may be a greater
> risk to our credibility, which I’ll outline below.
>
>
>
> Thanks for digging up the data on numbers of scientists. That 0.23 does
> seem too low. It certainly won’t get you tenure anywhere. Even I can hit
> that target. Say there’s 200 scientists in a research field and each writes
> three papers per year (we can forget the multi-author aspect as it cancels
> out). Add some papers from your other fields of interest, some stats
> papers, some technical documents, and you already need to read two papers
> per day to keep up. That’s difficult, especially when there’s little direct
> gain from reading a paper compared to authoring one. In fact I think
> there’s very little reading happening. I see plenty of subtle clues
> supporting this, and one not-so-subtle clue: I don’t even read many myself!
> I’ve downloaded hundreds of papers, because they interest me, and then
> haven’t read them!
>
>
>
> I want to return to the Hirsch 2005 paper here, because I don’t think that
> one’s being read either. Virtually everything I see about it, praise and
> criticism, is focused entirely on the sweet little nutshell, the index
> itself (the concept ripped from Eddington). The Wikipedia h-index page, for
> example, lists eight criticisms but they are all derived *from* the
> index, there are no criticisms about the derivation *of* the index. Now,
> we can argue about the importance of the index, and we have, but just the
> fact that it’s in everyday use among scientists means that it has become
> *some* sort of credible scientific icon. And, therefore, that if it were
> shown to have no logical basis, well, I reckon we have our pants down.
>
> In fact, what I believe, and this needs to be checked by someone better at
> logic than me, is that it is a complete logical mess: it bootstraps it’s
> own axiom from circular reasoning applied to a hopelessly biased sample.
> And is totally vulnerable to attack if someone outside academia starts
> investigating. Not a malevolent person, just a *seeker*. I’d like to meet
> the seeker, but I think we should be doing the job ourselves.
>
> I’ll look dumb if I’m wrong of course, but I don’t mind that, because I
> think there’s significant credibility at stake if I’m right. And I think
> this whole issue is very symptomatic. Nobody’s investigating axioms. We’re
> all expounding on what we think, not investigating why we think what we
> think, not looking back, just not being good scientists.
>
> The seeker would be a f*****g good scientist.
>

<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
Virus-free.
www.avast.com
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>