"Ned misses an important point, that statistical models don't give you any idea what to measure. They simply tell you how to do what you are planning to do anyway in a way that might give statistically meaningful results. They do not have any underlying natural structure."--Bill
This is in fact part of the point I was attempting to make in regards to your mention of those doing naturalistic research. Such research does not necessarily require, or in many cases allow, a rigorous articulation of what is being asked. This can be contrasted with researchers attempting to exploit a neighbor statistician to analyze data collected in the absence of an initial appreciation of how a question was being asked and how that question fits into broader theory. I'd also think it goes without saying that the statistical model you're testing, that is the independent variables (i.e. the causal factors) and how they relate to the dependent variables needs to be based on biology, an understanding of the system you're interested in and theory. An absence of such would certainly be characterized as bad science. Ned Dochtermann ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ned Dochtermann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Bill Silvert'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 4:23 PM Subject: RE: "Hamerstrom science" (deliberate non-use of statistical analysis) > Generally however those concerned, after the fact, about the rigor of > their statistics (or lack thereof) are not reporting naturalistic > observations but attempting to hammer their round data pegs into the > square holes of already established theory. > > If your concern is naturalistic observation, you don't have to have > too much concern about whether or not you've properly articulated (or > understand) the underlying statistical model you're testing. > > Ned Dochtermann -----Original Message----- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Silvert Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 4:29 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: "Hamerstrom science" (deliberate non-use of statistical analysis) Although Mike doesn't use the term, this is a nicely put statement of the message that modellers have been trying to get across for eons, that one should model a system before doing the field work in order to design the experiments optimally. Too often I have had people approach me with masses of data, but without the critical information that is needed to understand the system. On the other hand, if one only carries out field work to test pre-existing ideas, how can you discover anything new? One of the greatest scientific events of the past century was the discovery of ecosystems based on chemosynthesis rather than photosynthesis, but this was just the result of sending down a ROV and had nothing to do with hypothesis testing. And Darwin did not set out to test evolution, he joined the Beagle as a field naturalist and developed his theory from his observations. I suspect that these and other major scientific developments would not pass the rigorous tests of "correct science". Bill Silvert
