The best scientific method (Bayesian form of H-D)

When SIMON LEVIN SAID TO BRAD MCFALL, "that is too philosophical" both of us were under contract with CORNELL UNIVERSITY. It was not just this one guy but other profs were demuring and I was in a bind. I did not expect Simon of all the profs to be the first to demur. But IT WAS TOO philosophical for him becuase he was an applied mathmatician moving over to biology and doing a GREAT job at getting ecologists to see the value of and use models in their work. This work was not unknown to my Grandfather whose Collegue Benton co-authored a Conservation Biology book before Simon began publishing in American Naturalist or there abouts but admitted did not use the most adavanced tools and techniques applicable. I merely tried in the sense of the increasing discussion on the Cornell Campus between group theorists and fundamental particle physicists to inject a little "PURE MATH" and I chose incidence geometry becuase I was not insterested in ADAM's rib but if there was a correlation of anatomy from the rib of a snake( vs a lizard) thru its common musculature to scalation patterns that were known or thought to be nonadaptative but used for classification or at least known to vary with temperature and geography but I was not being essentialist or topological as Mayr accused this philosophy of. In fact, Simon, chose to co-author with Kaufmann on more applied numerical techniques rather than picking the "fight" I did with Will Provine when it came time to exapt the apt adaptation but as far as what you are after SIMON is interested in Bayesianism if it can be applied however I was aware of Cross-Level EFFECTS which GOULD cearly indicates are biological and real while SIMON simply thought all this not be what the ECOLOGISTS were talking about was NOT something he was interested in. His PROBLEM was that he had already agreed to work on my project. My problem was that the content was specified generally in a group project report but no one, not even WILL PROVINE, was willing or able to coordinated the parts so I started to and this not any mental issue caused the breach, statistics on it or no...I was also privy to some information directly from Kuhn to Richard Boyd which I rejected rather rightly or wrongly but Williams couldnt find the credit in that decision I BRAD MCFALL had to make because the bio profs were eating hamburgers and icecream in Feynman's quip about diversity at Cornell. Sorry to be so personal. I try to dig a little into you table of info here to speak mor onto your topic but even IT information architecheture could be invoked at this school across what I have said today. XML wont work and the MSWEB taxonomies will only help for some consistency but nature has its own GOD.

quote:

---

Here's my rant. Most "scientists" are just using science as a hidey-hole from having to deal with God, and will block any effort to do or report such a study.

---

How arrogant of you....and wrong.Science doesn't deal with God because it isn't set up to deal with anything supernatural.Science does not deny or confim the supernatural; science ignores the supernatural.Science deals with naturalistic explanations for naturalistic phenomena.Your implication that most scientists are "hiding" from anything is arrogant, insulting, and actually serves to illuminate your own insecurity and discomfort with people not believing exactly as you do.

quote:

---

They are the ones who don't care how much the afflicted suffer.

---

More completely unfounded, bigoted ignorance. [quote] It really scares you that people don't believe as you do, doesn't it? Otherwise, why would you express such vitriol/

---

"Evolution is a 'theory', just like gravity. If you don't like it, go jump off a bridge."

Oh, good lord. More of the "evidence but not proof" malarkey.When you actually have evidence of something, I'll pay attention. But there's no more reason to pay attention to what you have then there is to pay attention to the guy who has evidence for but not of the government plot to put a chip in his head.

If "evidence of" has a plausibility near 1, then how is it that "evidence for" raises the plausibility a measurable degree. If you're already near 1, how much nearer can you get?More to the point, "evidence of" and "evidence for" do not have distinctly unique definitions. It's governed almost entirely by context. Here's some correct usage that turns your "definitions" on their heads: You're becoming Clinton-esque in seeking distinctions to bail you out of your quandry, but the definitions are irrelevant - you have no objective evidence for demons. Even if we use your definitions, you have neither "evidence of" nor "evidence for".--Percy

Brad McFall,The energy to do science is basically subjective, a desire for certain pleasures, or a fear of certain hurts. Some of the pleasures include the "AHA" experience, or the satisfaction of seeing a easily missed pattern in nature, or getting an "Attaboy" from someone you respect. But, as we know from history, both personal and published, desiring pleasures has a dark side which can muddy up life, including the life of science. The trick is to get the pleasure without the mud.Now, sophisticated techniques, especially mathmatical technigues, are impressive, generating some of the pleasures noted above. But the dark side, to me at least, is getting so deep into them that I neglect their real purpose, to enrich the data base, and ultimately, our total human experience. It's like sports. Yeah, a great professional performance makes me cheer. But, when the athlete goes on to be a jerk, somehow their great prowess sours, an least to me a spectator. I guess the other athletes still enjoy playing with them.So, in working with really brilliant math minds, I always keep asking for predictions about unknown patterns or experimental outcomes. From what I have seen, there is so much we don't know about ecology, so many many variables entering into the error term in an unknown way, that it is easy to enter into mathematical overkill. Simple math often predicts justs as well as complex mathematical structures, so we invoke a sort of Occham's razor and stay with the simplist math that gets today's job done. H-D methodology will eventually get you to theories that require more sophisticated mathmatical modelling.When I was doing this, I was very conscious that I was boring both the mathematicians and the naturalists, who were very sophisticated in their respective areas of expertise. But who were failing to find patterns or predictions in the data base we all were exposed to. It annoyed them to have me finding remarkable correlations in nature, based on "simplistic" math and the "crude" data sources. I recall taking MacArthur and R. Levins' two simplistic early math models of niche packing, which made simple but opposing predictions of which species were lost going from rich to poor communities, based on whether the resources were discrete or continuous. I tested the predictions using Christmas Bird Count data, and found patterns in the distribution and abundance of birds that had never before been noticed. All simple and crude, but the patterns were real, and eventually confirmed. Created, I thought, a job for some sophisticated math modellers and subtle naturalists.What I am saying is this: the deep joy of understanding marvelously complex, rich math arguments has a place with other mathmaticians, as math. To bring it into science, especially H-D science, however, stay as simple as possible, to generate predictions about whatever data can be gathered. Trust that you will get attaboys from non-math types, that your math colleagues will scorn. Trust that your much more sophisticated skills helped you find the simple tools that worked. Trust that, down the road, as the theory developes, you will actually find yourself challenged with a mathmatical puzzle the solution of which will amaze your once-scornful math colleagues.Stephen

Ya know, Stephen, I agree with most of what you wrote in this post. Being mathematically challenged as I am (I subscribe to an aphorism that one of my ecology professors often used 25 years ago: "For an ecologist, life is too short to understand calculus."), I find it difficult to follow a lot of the deep mathematical theory used today in ecology. I keep waiting for the simpler math models that will explain the data and allow predictions. OTOH, in our field we have to give tremendous credit to MacArthur and Wilson for providing the math that turned the science of ecology from a pure descriptive science to one with a solid theoretical foundation. Even if I can't follow all the math in their seminal book, "Theory of Island Biogeography" (which contains more abstruse mathematics than some physics texts), I can see how they made their predictions, and how the predictions have in many cases been borne out. The Equilibrium Theory may (as others have maintained) be incomplete, but it was a damn sight better than anything that had come before.I think that anyone that can come up with a simpler way of expressing ecological theory in mathematical terms that does what ETIB did would be able to write their own ticket in the field.

quote:

---

I always keep asking for predictions about unknown patterns or experimental outcomes. From what I have seen, there is so much we don't know about ecology, so many many variables entering into the error term in an unknown way, that it is easy to enter into mathematical overkill.

---

This is very true for many sciences besides ecology. Trying to model the internal actions of simple polyatomic atoms can be very complex, if one is looking for outcomes. And the problem is degree of variables, or perhaps it would be better stated as "inputs".You have to know quite a bit about the system, and then quite a bit about how to factor in all of the inputs allowed to a system.This is of course how Chaos theory came about, but then you'd still have to move from the theoretical models you develop, to knowing (measuring) the starting inputs of an ecological system to figure out what possible outcomes you'd have.It is very tough, and I'd wager it'll be a long time before a major tool of ecologists in the field will be calculators (to figure definite outcomes of a population).

quote:

---

Simple math often predicts justs as well as complex mathematical structures, so we invoke a sort of Occham's razor and stay with the simplist math that gets today's job done. H-D methodology will eventually get you to theories that require more sophisticated mathmatical modelling.

---

How you moved from that earlier assessment to this latter one I have no idea. Okay, if simple formulas get you answers, it is not necessary to use the more lengthy ones.But that says nothing about BSH-D allowing you to jump to conclusions regarding existence of demons and gods, in order to accept evidence which would not otherwise be allowed just so you can back up your preconceived notions.A circle may be simple, but that does not mean occam's razor allows for circular reasoning.And I have to point out that the simplest explanation for cargo cults and the actions of the aztecs, were mistaken ascriptions of characteristics... not demon possession.This does not require any preconceived notions or entities at all. It comes from recognizing that we ourselves can make mistakes in judgement. Unless every mistake we make is due to demon possession?So for example, taken from another thread, I don't understand the difference between hairtypes in various races and ascribe characteristics I think are correct, but am later proven incorrect. That means I was demon possessed?If not in that case, then why must I be if I make a similar mistake in ascribing supernatural characteristics to something I do not yet understand?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Oh my, have you been following this thread, or any other threads in which Steve has been posting.In this post he is trying not just to argue for simpler mathematical formulas, but a simplification of scientific research methodology, such that he can a priori assume demons and gods, and specific characteristics of demons and gods (like farts are signs of a demon leaving, and dark matter/energy are demons) in order to make any experiment he wants (and ignore counterevidence) so as to support his initial assumption.I find this last post of his especially amusing as he hails simple math, and yet he has gone on at length about the validity of Bible Code studies (which requires involved mathematical techniques).This guy goes back and forth so much it's like watching a ping pong game. One of my favorites is when in one thread he tells me that regular science is so bad (and boring) because it uses double blind techniques, then in another thread I find him backing up a study he wanted to support saying that it had been conducted "double blind". So is double blind good or bad?Is complex math good or bad?Is Occam's razor good or bad?Which way is the wind blowing this minute?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

S.You assert, When someone jumps off of a bridge, and moves in space to the, say, river below, tell me:Were they drawn to the river by a rubber-band like force contracting and drawing them down? (Newton's theory), orWere they traveling inertially through space, following the straight line, which happened to be bent so that it led to the river below? (Einstein's theory), orWere they pushed towards the river by Ether-pressure, generated because there was more ether on the outside of them and the river, then there was between them and the river? (Zero-point energy theory)And you, do you exist in your present form because:You were created by Someone, to accomplish some of Their goals, by artificial selection and genetic engineering, (Theory of Creation) or,You are an accident of matter, that purposesly obeys certain physical and chemical laws, such that accidental reproductive entities occurred and whenever the accidents produced more reproductive units, they increased, until here you are. (Theory of Evolution)?S.PS, I understand that it is the policy of this form to discourage unsupported assertions. Since you present no authority for your other remarks, it seems best for me to ignore them.

Yeah, I've seen the weathervane blowing back and forth, and noted especially your very strong arguments against what Stephen has put forth. In my defense, I tend to agree with the post to which I replied. And in fact Stephen (assuming he's the Fretwell he claims to be) was at one time a very promising scientist. His book, "Population in a Seasonal Environment", is an early "touchstone" in modern ecology. So he was a scientist at one point.In spite of his insults to me - based on which I have developed a marked distaste for continuing any discussion of HD or his other outre beliefs - there is a possibility that I might learn something from him if he can be engaged in the one area where he has proven credentials.Think of it as an opportunity to discuss gravity with Newton. After all, following publishing "Principia", Newton wasted the entire rest of his life writing execrable biblical exegeses on the book of Daniel. Just 'cause a scientist was brilliant in the beginning doesn't make the latter part of his life necessarily either illuminating or even rational...

If our Fretwell once wrote Population in a Seasonal Environment, then he has suffered some terrible brain injury or disease. And if our Fretwell isn't that Fretwell, then he's doing a miserable job imitating a former scientist.--Percy

Hi, Stephen!You're falsely arguing through analogy. Analogies are only valid to clarify one's points. The mere ability to draw analogies, which can be done with anything whether fact or fiction, lends no credence to one's viewpoint. You're arguing like a preacher, not a scientist.Your ideas fail because they have no objective evidence. All your evidence is anecdotal (personal stories, the Bible) and unreplicated, or sometimes suspect (Wirth's study) or unscientific (Loehr's study).Regarding replication, I've never seen a more clear statement of this requirement in regard to scientific results than this from today's CNN website titled Scientists create two new elements: Your putting the cart before the horse by insisting that the existence of demons be considered confirmed before there is any evidence of the phenomena. Even worse, you haven't even given the phenomena a scientific description. Do some science, Steven, by thinking scientifically and getting some evidence.By the way, you seem to be evading the H-D isn't what it used to be according to Stephen ben Yeshua thread. Message 12, please.--Percy

I am wondering about this evasion as well. He continues to bring up H-D in other posts yet fails to address a thread that is an open invitation to explain why he claims to adhere to Popper but says things that are in absolute contradiction to H-D.

It sounds like you have done a commendable job. But notice that you said TWO SPEICES- I really DONT think it can be kept this simple for then we WILL have the difference of Dakwins and Gould on INTERPRETING DARWIN. I had simply tried to think about the speices as a set of colection locality points but the trend has been despite your advances to promote the statistical refinements only. It may be that we need another philosopher like Sewell Wright to use results such as you OBSERVED to point out that refernece to collectable data is the mistake iteslef. I have already been able to use the simple difference of pure math cardinal and ordinal numbers to change the way I, BSM, evidentiate data but this does not mean that I can cause others to think this way. Stuart Kaufmann UNLIKE Simon Levin did not disuade me from this application of actual infinity. The world has more Levin than Kaufmanna's for any "infinite phenotype" of MacArthur. I think that data division is causing the problem (genotype and phenotype) so you WERE able to get results the others wernt even looking for. Congrats. It reminded me of a simple Model Levin wanted done about a line of plants and a bunch of insects. Yes there are results but the issue is more about why cant the theoretical biology do more than 4 yellow SerBelloni 60s-70s conference titles and kaufmann being the lone man out motivated by blinking lights. NO!!! --you are correct these diodes are not birds counted. Technology is part of the problem as much as it will be used in the solution.Thanks for your reply it really is nice to finally find things to read I thought I would have been seeing more of years ago.

Quetzal,Please forgive my insults to you. They were inexcusable.Stephen