Comments on: Extinction rates have NOT been over-estimated https://gregladen.com/blog/2011/05/23/extinction-rates-have-not-been/ Wed, 25 May 2011 15:56:17 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.4.8 By: spinozaurus https://gregladen.com/blog/2011/05/23/extinction-rates-have-not-been/#comment-503174 Wed, 25 May 2011 15:56:17 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2011/05/23/extinction-rates-have-not-been/#comment-503174 this was a great read. So im assuming thier is no single greatest cause behind the current extinction rate

]]> By: Greg Laden https://gregladen.com/blog/2011/05/23/extinction-rates-have-not-been/#comment-503173 Wed, 25 May 2011 13:05:22 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2011/05/23/extinction-rates-have-not-been/#comment-503173 Roger, I’ll have a look, thanks.

Regarding titles, I checked with Nature (unofficially) and it is as I suspected: Academic papers (like this one) are the same as for other journals …. they have a few minor rules (i.e., maximum length and no punctuation) but the authors make the titles.

]]> By: Roger Harris https://gregladen.com/blog/2011/05/23/extinction-rates-have-not-been/#comment-503172 Wed, 25 May 2011 04:18:44 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2011/05/23/extinction-rates-have-not-been/#comment-503172 Excellent article Greg. You covered the key points nicely, and laid out the issues clearly. I have posted a response to He and Hubbell on the SavingSpecies blog, focusing more on the non-scientific implications of their Nature paper. (Stuart Pimm is one of the founders of SavingSpecies.) I’d love your feedback on those thoughts, since others in this thread have commented on this aspect of the paper.

Extinction isn’t just a numbers game — the trouble with He and Hubbell

]]> By: Greg Laden https://gregladen.com/blog/2011/05/23/extinction-rates-have-not-been/#comment-503171 Tue, 24 May 2011 22:26:43 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2011/05/23/extinction-rates-have-not-been/#comment-503171 Nice one!

]]> By: daedalus2u https://gregladen.com/blog/2011/05/23/extinction-rates-have-not-been/#comment-503170 Tue, 24 May 2011 22:22:52 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2011/05/23/extinction-rates-have-not-been/#comment-503170 Greg,

I just happened across this paper which discusses the wolf-coyote effect quite nicely.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1702374/?tool=pubmed

]]> By: Greg Laden https://gregladen.com/blog/2011/05/23/extinction-rates-have-not-been/#comment-503169 Tue, 24 May 2011 01:57:33 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2011/05/23/extinction-rates-have-not-been/#comment-503169 By the way, I should add this comment regarding titles: It makes no difference what a title is. There is, in fact, an unspoken rule in academia: If you base your thinking on a paper on what the title is, you’re doin’ it rong. You’ve got to at least go with what the abstract says!

This may be bad policy when it comes to the interface of science and policy makers, or science and the press, or science and the public, but it isn’t entirely unreasonable, mainly because a title is short and can’t contain much information anyway.

]]> By: Greg Laden https://gregladen.com/blog/2011/05/23/extinction-rates-have-not-been/#comment-503168 Tue, 24 May 2011 01:45:14 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2011/05/23/extinction-rates-have-not-been/#comment-503168 travc, I’m equivocating on the title issue because Nature is different enough that they might do something with titles. I’ll ask and get back on that.

]]> By: travc https://gregladen.com/blog/2011/05/23/extinction-rates-have-not-been/#comment-503167 Tue, 24 May 2011 00:30:51 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2011/05/23/extinction-rates-have-not-been/#comment-503167 @daedalus2u,
I read “overestimation can be greater than 160%” as a factor of >2.6.

The title certainly is worded poorly. Nature may have negotiated or suggested the title, but normally it is just up to the authors. I’ve never had a journal suggest changing the title of a paper. Sadly, I’m pretty sure Nature is happy with the controversy though.

IMO, the reviews messed up on this. They should have dinged the title at least. You’re allowed some leeway for overarching/overreaching and speculative points in the discussion, but not the title.

]]> By: David Horton https://gregladen.com/blog/2011/05/23/extinction-rates-have-not-been/#comment-503166 Mon, 23 May 2011 23:05:12 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2011/05/23/extinction-rates-have-not-been/#comment-503166 The media, and the corporations they represent, will seize on any scientific work that can be seen as in some way supporting their view that nothing ever needs to be done anywhere anytime in relation to conservation of the environment. This has been obvious for many years, and any scientist who isn’t aware of this, and therefore tries to be very careful about their conclusions and how these might be represented, and the presence of sentences that can be plucked out of context, is either foolish or playing the corporation game.

This kind of stuff is no longer the subject of just happy little tea room or seminar room discussions where everyone uses the same language and knows the literature, and where the conclusions really don’t matter much to anyone except appointment and promotion boards. Nowadays it matters, their is a war against the world we live in, and scientists must be very aware of not loading bullets (ie data that can be misrepresented) for those on the other side of the conservation barricades.

]]> By: daedalus2u https://gregladen.com/blog/2011/05/23/extinction-rates-have-not-been/#comment-503165 Mon, 23 May 2011 22:47:44 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2011/05/23/extinction-rates-have-not-been/#comment-503165 ” and we show that overestimation can be greater than 160%.”

Huh? A factor of 1.6 of overestimation is considered significant?

]]>