Comments on: Frequency distributions for ecologists V: Don’t let the lack of a perfect tool prevent you from asking interesting questions http://jabberwocky.weecology.org/2009/09/23/frequency-distributions-for-ecologists-v-dont-let-the-lack-of-a-perfect-tool-prevent-you-from-asking-interesting-questions/ Ethan White’s and Morgan Ernest’s blog for discussing issues and ideas related to ecology and academia. Fri, 03 Feb 2012 15:15:01 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: Ethan http://jabberwocky.weecology.org/2009/09/23/frequency-distributions-for-ecologists-v-dont-let-the-lack-of-a-perfect-tool-prevent-you-from-asking-interesting-questions/#comment-89 Sat, 03 Oct 2009 17:41:35 +0000 http://jabberwocky.weecology.org/?p=225#comment-89 Yeah, that’s basically the idea. Most of the tests that you are being taught are based on the simple analytical solution to applying the same basic set of concepts from probability in a particular context. I’d like to see us start from the ground up by teaching probability and likelihood. The problem of course is that building from the ground up you can only probably introduce a few specific approaches in one semester, but if you understand that the linear regression and ANOVA that you’ve learned to perform are basically the same I think you’re much better off than if you are able to perform 3 different kinds of ANOVA by hand (since in reality you just get your stats package to do it anyway. Here’s a link to a chapter from Benjamin Bolker’s new book describes the relationship between likelihood and the tests you’re being taught. If you’re interested in an introduction to these ideas that is pretty accessible I’d strongly recommend The Ecological Detective.

]]> By: Andrew T http://jabberwocky.weecology.org/2009/09/23/frequency-distributions-for-ecologists-v-dont-let-the-lack-of-a-perfect-tool-prevent-you-from-asking-interesting-questions/#comment-88 Thu, 01 Oct 2009 20:47:27 +0000 http://jabberwocky.weecology.org/?p=225#comment-88 About your second post – really? I have only ever learned about how different tests are to be used in specific circumstances. It seems that in all the statistics courses in the undergrad level, proofs are seldom given out, so we students learn our equations for distributions and tests, but never the reasons behind them. This way, we can easily memorize them for tests / assignments, but when it comes to really understanding why we get the results we get, well… I doubt many undergrads would be able to explain that.
Do you mean that it’s the underlying statistical methods and proofs that should be taught and that that specific tests should be more secondary material?

]]> By: Ethan http://jabberwocky.weecology.org/2009/09/23/frequency-distributions-for-ecologists-v-dont-let-the-lack-of-a-perfect-tool-prevent-you-from-asking-interesting-questions/#comment-80 Thu, 24 Sep 2009 23:21:38 +0000 http://jabberwocky.weecology.org/?p=225#comment-80 Oh, and one other thing. If you’re getting even one statistics course as an undergraduate, that’s better than a lot of programs. The problem is that we typically teach that one course the wrong way (IMHO). You’ll probably be taught that there are a bunch of separate statistical tests – one for each type of situation. The truth is actually closer to the opposite – one underlying set of principles and approaches that apply to everything. If we introduced people to these ideas during their early statistics course, I think we’d find there was a lot more interest in, and a deeper understanding of, statistics.

]]> By: Ethan http://jabberwocky.weecology.org/2009/09/23/frequency-distributions-for-ecologists-v-dont-let-the-lack-of-a-perfect-tool-prevent-you-from-asking-interesting-questions/#comment-79 Thu, 24 Sep 2009 23:14:10 +0000 http://jabberwocky.weecology.org/?p=225#comment-79 Hi Andrew – That’s a great question that I’m afraid doesn’t have a simple answer. If I did offer a simple answer it would be that more statistical background is almost always of benefit to ecologists, scientists more broadly, and people in general regardless of their career paths. The more complex answer begins with the fact that one of the things that I love about ecology is that it is such a multidisciplinary field. This means that you never run out of things to learn, but makes decisions about undergraduate curricula difficult. Basically, the best set of undergraduate course work (and graduate course work for that matter) really depends on what kind of ecology you are interested in doing. For example, I’ve never used any chemistry in my research, so I would have been better off if two or three of my semesters of chemistry had been replaced with more mathematics, statistics, or computer science. But, someone whose research focuses on biogeochemistry will certainly need those same chemistry courses just to be ready to learn the more advanced material they need in graduate school.

I guess what I’d like to see in ecology programs (and biology programs in general) is more flexibility with respect to the non-biology coursework. The increasingly interdisciplinary nature of ecological research variously calls for background in mathematics, statistics, computer science, geology, chemistry, physics, and even areas of social science and politics. What additional courses students take could be determined by the kind of ecology students are interested in, or maybe more likely the kinds of supplemental course work that students enjoy could guide their decisions regarding specific areas of research interest (this is how it worked for me and still does to some degree). The first couple of years students could sample one course each from some of these areas and decide on a secondary field to focus on during their junior and senior years. You can probably do something like this yourself with some of your uncommitted hours (if you have any).

I know this isn’t a very specific answer, but hopefully it is of some use. If you have any more specific questions please let me know and I’ll do what I can to answer them.

]]> By: Andrew T http://jabberwocky.weecology.org/2009/09/23/frequency-distributions-for-ecologists-v-dont-let-the-lack-of-a-perfect-tool-prevent-you-from-asking-interesting-questions/#comment-77 Thu, 24 Sep 2009 01:23:07 +0000 http://jabberwocky.weecology.org/?p=225#comment-77 As an ecology undergrad, I’m curious as to what you think “ecology” (or more broadly, science) students should be taught in University. Currenty, at University of Ottawa, the only statistics requirement for an Hons. BSC in Biology is a “statistics for life sciences” course, which is approximately equal to an AP Statistics, or 1st year Statistics course.
Would you advocate better statistical skills in favour of say, calculus, physics, chemistry, or some other field (assuming that # of required credits is constant)?
Again, as an undergrad with limited statistical knowledge, I’m unsure as to how much a limiting factor proper statistical knowledge is to publishing ecologists – thoughts?

]]>