Re: This is an interesting study, but...

This is an interesting study, but... (Score: 2, Insightful)

by rocks@pipedot.org on 2014-07-22 15:20 (#2M7)

...while the basic conclusion is clear and presumably backed up by the analysis, the abstract leaves open the question of how climate indirectly influences the size and age of the plants... Perhaps this is/was beyond the scope of the given study.

Re: This is an interesting study, but... (Score: 1)

by zafiro17@pipedot.org on 2014-07-22 21:12 (#2MA)

Perhaps this is/was beyond the scope of the given study.

... and if so, it's yet another maddening example of a study only barely answering some questions while opening up so many other lines of inquiry that it fails to do much good at all, unless you consider "indefinite further research studies for interested scientists" a public good.

Re: This is an interesting study, but... (Score: 2, Insightful)

by rocks@pipedot.org on 2014-07-22 22:18 (#2MF)

well, I think it is an aspect of Cartesian philosphy that to know anything about one thing you have to know everything about its context (i.e., all of the boundary conditions). This idea strongly influences how our scientific culture tends to evaluate scientific results (since we owe a lot to Descartes). Basically, this idea makes incomplete results (almost always the case in science) "difficult to apply" to any practical decision making. In my opinion, it is one of the more subtle reasons why people can justify ignoring scientific results while claiming to respect the scientific method. As you say, this is all great for scientists who want to do more studies, but is pretty poor for students of life who want to know whether they should grow big plants or not :). I suggest we grow a lot of plants that grow large and see if we can effect the global contribution of primary productivity :).

Story

Preview