FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1503222852> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1503222852 startingPage "98" @default.
• W1503222852 abstract "How much evidence is required to conclude that is an atypical occurrence? That is, how much evidence does it take to conclude that amphibians are undergoing a more rapid and coordinated decline than any other set of organisms-are two instances of decline sufficient, or does it take 10, or 20, or more? And, is it more convincing if decline in some instances has been especially rapid, or in some instances apparently has no direct human cause? How can we avoid the uncritical accumulation of [amphibian] field data in Baconian hope that hard labor of collection is equivalent to good science (Berry, 1987: 25)? This conundrum is an example of what I shall term the problem of standards of proof. The problem of standards of proof applies to virtually every pattern-based generalization in ecology: minimum-area requirements (e.g., McCoy, 1983), invasionproneness (e.g., Simberloff, 1986), biogeographical-connectedness (e.g., McCoy and Heck, 1987), and importance of corridors (e.g., Inglis and Underwood, 1992), to name but a few. A potentially useful approach for addressing problem of standards of proof is to examine evidence in a contextdependent, rather than an absolute, way. For example, if a particular amphibian population were declining after a rather long period of stasis, decline would be cause for alarm if amphibian populations rarely or never behaved in this manner, but not necessarily cause for alarm if they typically did. For another example, if a group of amphibian species-populations were declining, declines would be cause for alarm if number of declines was unusually large, but not necessarily cause for alarm if it was not. Pechmann and Wilbur (1994) discuss these model ideas quite thoroughly, so I need not reiterate their usefulness in ecological pattern analysis (see also, Connor and Simberloff, 1978; Quinn and Dunham, 1983; Schoener, 1988; Underwood, 1990). What I shall discuss is framework in which ideas must be placed, because Pechmann and Wilbur (1994) do not address this important topic at all. The problem of standards of proof is ethical, as well as methodological, because it bridges gap between scientific understanding and action (Clark, 1993; Rescher, 1982; also Rapport, 1989). The rapid degeneration of habitats around world has forced ecologists to face ethical aspect of problem of standards of proof head-on. They must make a monumentally tough decision, a decision for which typical scientific training offers only modest guidance (Salzman, 1989). Put simplistically, decision is: do ecologists wear their conservationist hats and muster their expertise in defense of life, or do they wear their scientist hats and muster their expertise in defense of truth? [I am well aware that truth, as well as related terms such as success and progress, are knotty philosophical concepts (see, for example, Pitt, 1988), and I claim no expertise whatsoever in dealing with them.] If they make first choice, then ecologists may require relatively little evidence in favor of some purported biotic decline and, thereby, willingly risk substantial Type I error (rejection of a true null hypothesis). This choice may engender accusations of advocacy, a most unpopular behavior among scientists (Soule, 1990). On other hand, if they make second choice, then ecologists may require relatively much evidence in favor of" @default.
• W1503222852 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1503222852 creator A5025083633 @default.
• W1503222852 date "1994-01-01" @default.
• W1503222852 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W1503222852 title "Amphibian Decline: A Scientific Dilemma in More Ways than One" @default.
• W1503222852 cites W1599929676 @default.
• W1503222852 cites W1963750858 @default.
• W1503222852 cites W1998850601 @default.
• W1503222852 cites W2000653088 @default.
• W1503222852 cites W2008340186 @default.
• W1503222852 cites W2012514058 @default.
• W1503222852 cites W2019205156 @default.
• W1503222852 cites W2029270971 @default.
• W1503222852 cites W2048192606 @default.
• W1503222852 cites W2062850146 @default.
• W1503222852 cites W2084523307 @default.
• W1503222852 cites W2117777590 @default.
• W1503222852 cites W2142333917 @default.
• W1503222852 cites W2147192047 @default.
• W1503222852 cites W2163715691 @default.
• W1503222852 cites W2332551966 @default.
• W1503222852 hasPublicationYear "1994" @default.
• W1503222852 type Work @default.
• W1503222852 sameAs 1503222852 @default.
• W1503222852 citedByCount "8" @default.
• W1503222852 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1503222852 hasAuthorship W1503222852A5025083633 @default.
• W1503222852 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W1503222852 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W1503222852 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W1503222852 hasConcept C149923435 @default.
• W1503222852 hasConcept C177148314 @default.
• W1503222852 hasConcept C18903297 @default.
• W1503222852 hasConcept C2778496695 @default.
• W1503222852 hasConcept C2781465898 @default.
• W1503222852 hasConcept C2908647359 @default.
• W1503222852 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W1503222852 hasConceptScore W1503222852C111472728 @default.
• W1503222852 hasConceptScore W1503222852C138885662 @default.
• W1503222852 hasConceptScore W1503222852C144024400 @default.
• W1503222852 hasConceptScore W1503222852C149923435 @default.
• W1503222852 hasConceptScore W1503222852C177148314 @default.
• W1503222852 hasConceptScore W1503222852C18903297 @default.
• W1503222852 hasConceptScore W1503222852C2778496695 @default.
• W1503222852 hasConceptScore W1503222852C2781465898 @default.
• W1503222852 hasConceptScore W1503222852C2908647359 @default.
• W1503222852 hasConceptScore W1503222852C86803240 @default.
• W1503222852 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W1503222852 hasLocation W15032228521 @default.
• W1503222852 hasOpenAccess W1503222852 @default.
• W1503222852 hasPrimaryLocation W15032228521 @default.
• W1503222852 hasRelatedWork W146734964 @default.
• W1503222852 hasRelatedWork W1486210610 @default.
• W1503222852 hasRelatedWork W1681117225 @default.
• W1503222852 hasRelatedWork W1964157041 @default.
• W1503222852 hasRelatedWork W1993263881 @default.
• W1503222852 hasRelatedWork W1997662541 @default.
• W1503222852 hasRelatedWork W2004164398 @default.
• W1503222852 hasRelatedWork W2020680740 @default.
• W1503222852 hasRelatedWork W2031904309 @default.
• W1503222852 hasRelatedWork W2035492988 @default.
• W1503222852 hasRelatedWork W2063189291 @default.
• W1503222852 hasRelatedWork W2110933697 @default.
• W1503222852 hasRelatedWork W2111287983 @default.
• W1503222852 hasRelatedWork W2252428521 @default.
• W1503222852 hasRelatedWork W2321488983 @default.
• W1503222852 hasRelatedWork W2325216580 @default.
• W1503222852 hasRelatedWork W2326888667 @default.
• W1503222852 hasRelatedWork W2604625743 @default.
• W1503222852 hasRelatedWork W86122090 @default.
• W1503222852 hasRelatedWork W2513107592 @default.
• W1503222852 hasVolume "50" @default.
• W1503222852 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1503222852 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1503222852 magId "1503222852" @default.
• W1503222852 workType "article" @default.