Also this week:
randomized controlled trials rigorously contorted tales, allies vs. microaggressions, philosopher vs. John Lawton, and more.
The fallacy that randomized controlled experiments can fully answer the big complex questions we really care about. From developmental economics, but totally accessible to anyone, and the issues raised generalize. Read, discuss in the context of ecology.
Do baseball umpires use Bayesian reasoning to call balls and strikes? Interesting hypothesis. (ht Andrew Gelman)
A philosopher of science pushes back against John Lawton’s famous claim that there are no generalizations (“laws”) in community ecology, arguing that the available data are inadequate to test that claim. My own critique of Lawton’s argument is conceptual rather than empirical.
Sticking with philosophy of science and ecology: current issues and important directions in philosophy of science as applied to ecology. From some sharp philosophers who pay attention to what actual ecologists think and say. If you’re curious what smart outsiders to ecology think about ecology, check it out.
Meg once asked what is, or will be, your old school science cred. Just today, I realized mine might be that my go-to R reference book is actually an S-Plus book. Kieran Healy seems to have had a similar thought: 🙂
And finally, how to decide whether to attend that upcoming conference. 🙂
How allies can respond to microaggressions. Like many people, I sometimes freeze in the face of microaggresions. That’s a problem, because we need allies to help call them out. I certainly know that I really, really appreciate it when an ally helps to call out sexist behavior. So, I found the advice in here interesting, and will try to work on getting better at calling out microaggressions when I am in the ally role.