[Taxacom] RES: south-west Australia

[Robinwbruce at aol.com]

Hi Curtis,
 
Sorry for the slow reply; this is the first opportunity I have had to  
attempt a fair and measured reply to you questions.
 
In systems where we are exploring generalities of  uncertain natures I  do 
think that use of statistical logic may be premature;  pursued as such, the 
results arising from weak hypotheses  and a lack of clarity of the 
restraints of the dimensions of the  system are probably not going to lead us 
anywhere of interest; global and  sub-global biogeography is an example of such a 
system I believe (whether  local systems are so configured I do not want to 
consider now; something  here about the nature of space?). Hence the terms 
null hypothesis and degrees of  freedom are at a level of generality in global 
biogeography which is  contra to their usual restricted statistical usage. 
In language, context is not  everything, but it is a lot, and we just have 
to all try to understand each  other if we have an interest in communicating 
ideas. We all have to make  allowances for our limitations. The alternative 
is to shout at people who do not  speak English and/or turn away. It would 
be better if we all make  space for each other.
 
I do not claim to be a panbiogeographer, just a biologist; but Croizat is,  
to my mind, a very important figure in 20th century biology, others are 
free to  disagree. And panbiogeography, despite only having a few 
practitioners,  seems not to have withered with the passing of Croizat ( by way of 
possible  explanations I know of no algorithm that can relate quality to quantity; 
 alternatively perhaps I am just (self?) deluded ). If Croizat can be  
compared, perhaps he should be compared with James Hutton; the latter pursued  
the nature of geological  time. Croizat pursued the nature of geological  and 
geographical  time and space as they relate to organisms. Hutton  was 
instrumental in creating geology as a science; Croizat may yet be  instrumental 
in creating a science of biogeography; we can but hope, argue,  agree, 
disagree, and agree to disagree. We can all try to see  through a glass darkly.
 
 
Thank you for your interest,
 
Robin
  
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
In a message dated 6/24/2011 5:58:09 A.M. GMT Daylight Time,  
lists at curtisclark.org writes:

On  6/22/2011 9:35 PM, Michael Heads wrote:
> You can use it in any of the  standard ways and people will know what you 
mean from the context.
How did  Robin mean it? How did John mean "null hypothesis"?

Panbiogeography can  only seem esoteric, and subject to marginalization, 
if it uses technical  terms commonly used by other biologists, but with 
different meanings, and  without the differences being clarified. It's 
easy for the rest of us to  assume "track", for example, to be a 
specialized term in panbiogeography,  since it has a multiplicity of 
meanings in standard English, but most of  us with a biometrics 
background would assume we know what "degrees of  freedom" and "null 
hypothesis" mean, and would only be puzzled, and I  admit put off, by 
what would seem to be redefinitions.

--  
--
Curtis Clark
Cal Poly  Pomona