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

[Douglas Fenner]

David,
    Pardon me for my late response, but I don't think you have anything to
apologize for.  Raising important issues is itself important, and we should
be willing to consider other viewpoints and criticism of science.
    On further reflection, I think you were on a better track that I
initially thought.
    One view of science is that almost all theories and hypotheses are
wrong, and our job is to amass evidence that disproves hypotheses and
theories (since finding something they predict proves they are wrong as
stated, while finding something they predict is true does not prove
the hypothesis correct, it just provides a bit of support).  Indeed, the
history of science surely documents many theories and hypotheses that
correctly predicted some things, but in time exceptions were found which
show that as stated, the theory was not correct.  As brilliant as Newton
was, if you calculate the motions of bodies at high speed, they don't
follow his equations.  They follow those of special relativity.  Likewise,
there are lots of situations in which the theory of natural selection does
not predict the evidence, but other theories like sexual selection (also a
theory of Darwin's), or genetic drift, or punctuated evolution, or the
selfish gene.  In that sense, Darwin was wrong, though he didn't explicitly
state that natural selection worked in those situations.  The largest
barrier reefs are on continental shelves, not volcanoes, and some atolls
are not on top of volcanoes.  Though many are and they started as fringing
reefs and became barrier reefs then atolls as he predicted.  On the other
hand, many measurements and empirical results and observations are broadly
correct.  Of course, the accuracy of measurements has increased with time
and ingenuity.  In that sense, previous measurements were "wrong."  All
part of the progress of science.  None of our answers are probably final,
all will be improved on, or replaced with better in time, often retaining
the old as a result in a particular situation.  And at times, our whole
view of things changes greatly or reverses in a scientific revolution, like
plate tectonics in geology.  Then it is even more obvious that the old
theory was wrong.
      So I appear to be convincing myself that in a sense you were right.
grin.  Enjoy.
      But surely thinking about some big issues from time to time is a good
thing, isn't it?  I knew nothing of the criticism you pointed to, now I'm a
bit better educated.  That's a good thing I think.
     Cheers,  Doug

On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 2:09 AM David Blakeway via Coral-List <
coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov> wrote:

> 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>
> _______________________________________________
> Coral-List mailing list
> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> https://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list