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

[Dennis Hubbard]

Let's just write this off as zeal and move on. I've been guilty of worse
and I assume folks have uast chalked it up to dedication.

Denny

On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 8:03 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



-- 
Dennis Hubbard - Emeritus Professor: Dept of Geology-Oberlin College
Oberlin OH 44074
(440) 935-4014

* "When you get on the wrong train.... every stop is the wrong stop"*
 Benjamin Stein: "*Ludes, A Ballad of the Drug and the Dream*"