tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3164804243040726299.post2891372705146865200..comments2024-03-19T06:40:22.220-04:00Comments on The EEB & Flow: Reinventing the ecological wheel – why do we do it?Marc Cadottehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08335319636148357534noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3164804243040726299.post-2090398419972211562013-02-06T20:02:13.604-05:002013-02-06T20:02:13.604-05:00This is a great discussion - I'm glad I found ...This is a great discussion - I'm glad I found this post! <br />As Anonymous has pointed out, when I did my undergrad degree, it was constantly impressed on us to cite 'recent' literature (i.e. last 10-20 years), unless it was some seminal work. I still come across many who think this.<br /><br />I don't agree this is always true - mostly because one of the most thrilling parts of research is tracing things back to their original source! Scientists are ultimately detectives, after all! :)<br /><br />Caroline's 2 questions (foundation lit being incomplete or education/practice being the problem) are valid. We can't do anything about the first one, but we can do something about the second. I've written quite a few posts about how I think the education system affects science - I think it is something that really needs to be addressed (in some countries more than others!)<br /><br />I just read an article about how 'doing research' means 'googling' for much of the younger generation today - anyone who teaches or marks assignments can tell you that! Maybe there is an opportunity for curricula to spend just as much time on the foundation literature and history of current theories and concepts (as compulsory, not elective courses) as on practical skills and new developments? They are complementary bodies of knowledge, not mutually exclusive. <br /><br />And I agree with Hans, multidisciplinary knowledge is also valuable - most of the 'great' scientists were 'multi-professionals', and you could argue that the reason they had such an impact on history and science today, is because they had such a breadth of knowledge and skills! Good research doesn't happen in a knowledge vacuum :) <br /> Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3164804243040726299.post-58601714790692242782013-01-28T18:12:17.390-05:002013-01-28T18:12:17.390-05:00Hi Caroline, Marc,
Thanks for the great ideas in ...Hi Caroline, Marc,<br /><br />Thanks for the great ideas in this post. I've proposed an alternative point of view here: http://timotheepoisot.fr/2013/01/28/introductions-reinventing-ecological-wheel/. My main point is that perhaps, the increasing rhythm of publications, and the way we structure our introductions, make it appear as if we were always trying to re-invent the wheel. I'd love to read your ideas on this point as well!Tim Poisothttp://timotheepoisot.fr/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3164804243040726299.post-4981134296363752872013-01-25T11:41:39.394-05:002013-01-25T11:41:39.394-05:00I agree with this, and it is a little puzzling in ...I agree with this, and it is a little puzzling in some ways. Just because a paper was published more recently should not mean that it has greater value, rather citations should be ranked according to: 1) appropriateness; and 2) precedence -giving priority to older papers that first addressed a particular question. But I would guess that the focus on journal 'importance' (heavily weighted to impact factors that are calculated using citations from the previous 2 years) has resulted in shift towards valuing the newest and latest.Marc Cadottehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08335319636148357534noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3164804243040726299.post-70797589724376128352013-01-25T11:19:21.647-05:002013-01-25T11:19:21.647-05:00I'm a young researcher who does read and cite ...I'm a young researcher who does read and cite the "classic" literature on a topic. However, recently I have been surprised to receive several reviewer comments along the lines of "There are many more recent papers that could be used to support this point instead of citing outdated literature." Seems to me that there is a subset of ecology that doesn't see any value in foundational papers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3164804243040726299.post-27164750560885156322013-01-10T03:16:18.617-05:002013-01-10T03:16:18.617-05:00Literature is not theory. Empirical work is not th...Literature is not theory. Empirical work is not the same as familiarity with nature. And the three laws of mechanics are extraordinarily simple and yet are the foundations of all physicis (quantum mechanics too). Of course from basic facts to every ramification of theory there is a long way to go. But consider for instance Chesson; he did not the so much repeated (and rather boring) complain about the scarce realism of Volterra model; he went beyond, and proposed the storage model 8and others) but the storage model is build on the foundations of Volterra'sHans Castorphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05016989070891441042noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3164804243040726299.post-73455655026404112782013-01-09T09:18:10.410-05:002013-01-09T09:18:10.410-05:00Hi Hans - I think that you're getting at a que...Hi Hans - I think that you're getting at a question we have blogged about before here, which is the tension between empirical (hands-on) and theoretical research. And there is definitely something to that, but even if people are just going out and "rediscovering" facts about nature, they should be aware that multiple people have already discovered and written about those facts. And if "nature" were so simple that we can go and discern the important aspects of it, there would be no need for ecology, in all its complexity. But yes! we should all go outside more often :)<br /><br />Jeremy - I would be the old, pessimistic one. Marc is still willfully optimistic about the future of ecology ;) Even if we've discovered everything we need to know in ecology (hopefully not?), we haven't put it together yet into a useful framework. Given limitations on funding, it seems like rediscovering or restating old ideas is still a poor use of our time. Caroline Tuckerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09319215430054509345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3164804243040726299.post-72484638872571673322013-01-09T02:49:02.000-05:002013-01-09T02:49:02.000-05:00I'm afraid that it is not a problem of familia...I'm afraid that it is not a problem of familiarity with literature, but of familiarity with nature. McArthur, for instance, was not only a mathematician, but also a good ornithologist and a careful observer. Every now and then we get out of the office and turn to nature, and "rediscover" a few basic facts that are known as the "foundations" of ecology. But of course the latter approach is methodologically flawed and logically inconsistent.Hans Castorphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05016989070891441042noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3164804243040726299.post-300409061637650112013-01-07T20:18:29.292-05:002013-01-07T20:18:29.292-05:00Great question. Certainly there are specific ideas...Great question. Certainly there are specific ideas that have been rediscovered many times. Apparent competition is one, as Bob Holt himself has always been careful to point out. <br /><br />More broadly, I suspect "reinvention" is often in the eye of the beholder. The stereotype of old scientists is that they always think that everything the youngsters are doing these days was known long ago. While the stereotype of the youngsters is that this just shows that the oldsters are out of touch with the details of modern work. Probably the "truth" (if there is one) is a mix of both. There probably aren't any *really* fundamentally new ideas left to be discovered in ecology--no scope for a future ecological Darwin. But that doesn't mean the work of the science is done, any more than evolutionary biology was finished by Darwin. <br /><br />So in suggesting that ecologists often just put old wine in new bottles, you two are writing like much older people! ;-)Jeremy Foxhttp://dynamicecology.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.com