Revisiting Chamberlin: Multiple working hypotheses for the 21st century

BioScience

Volumn 57, Issue 7, 2007, Pages 608-614

  Elliott, Louis P ^a   Brook, Barry W ^b  

^a Northern Territory Department of Natural Resources Environment and the Arts   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE   (Australia)

Author keywords

Bayesian statistics; Hypothesis testing; Model selection; Philosophy of science; Statistical significance

Indexed keywords

EID: 34547110355     PISSN: 00063568     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1641/B570708     Document Type: Review

References (25)

1. Anderson DR, Burnham KP. 2002. Avoiding pitfalls when using information-theoretic methods. Journal of Wildlife Management 66: 912-918.
2. Anderson DR, Burnham KP, Thompson WL. 2000. Null hypothesis testing: Problems, prevalence, and an alternative. Journal of Wildlife Management 64: 912-923.
3. Bacon F. 1620. The New Organon, or True Directions Concerning the Interpretation of Nature. (11 May 2007; www.constitution.org/bacon/nov_org. htm)
4. Bradford-Hill A. 1966. The environment and disease: Association or causation? Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine 58: 295-300.
5. Brook BW, Bradshaw CJA. 2006. Strength of evidence for density dependence in abundance time series of 1198 species. Ecology 87: 1445-1451.
6. Buckland ST, Burnham KP, Augustin NH. 1997. Model selection: An integral part of inference. Biometrics 53: 603-618.
7. Burnham KP, Anderson DR. 2002. Model Selection and Multi-model Inference: A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach. New York: Springer.
8. _. 2004. Understanding AIC and BIC in model selection. Sociological Methods and Research 33: 261-304.
9. Carver RP. 1978. The case against statistical significance testing. Harvard Educational Review 48: 378-399.
10. Chamberlin TC. 1890. The method of multiple working hypotheses. Science 15: 92-96 (reprinted in Science 148: 754-759 [1965]).
11. Clark JS. 2005. Why environmental scientists are becoming Bayesians. Ecology Letters 8: 2-14.
12. Fisher AC Jr. 1980. My Chesapeake - Queen of Bays. National Geographic 158: 428-467.
13. Hilborn R, Mangel M. 1997. The Ecological Detective: Confronting Models with Data. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press.
14. Johnson DH. 2002. The role of hypothesis testing in wildlife science. Journal of Wildlife Management 66: 272-276.
15. Johnson JB, Omland KS. 2004. Model selection in ecology and evolution. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 19: 101-108.
16. Lukacs PM, Thompson WL, Kendall WL, Gould WR, Doherty PF, Burnham KP, Anderson DR. 2007. Concerns regarding a call for pluralism of information theory and hypothesis testing. Journal of Applied Ecology 44: 456-460.
17. McBride GB, Loftis JC, Adkins NC. 1993. What do significance tests really tell us about the environment? Environmental Management 17: 423-432.
18. Morris WF, Doak DF. 2002. Quantitative Conservation Biology: Theory and Practice of Population Viability Analysis. Sunderland (MA): Sinauer.
19. Osenberg CW, St. Mary CM, Schmitt RJ, Holbrook SJ, Chesson P, Byrne B. 2002. Rethinking ecological inference: Density dependence in reef fishes. Ecology Letters 5: 715-721.
20. Phillips CV, Goodman KJ. 2004. The missed lessons of Sir Austin Bradford Hill. Epidemiological Perspectives and Innovations 1: 3. (4 June 2007; www.epi-perspectives.com/content/1/1/3)
21. Platt JR. 1964. Strong inference. Science 146: 347-353.
22. Scott C. 1996. Science for the West, myth for the rest? Pages 69-86 in Nader L, ed. Naked Science: Anthropological Inquiry into Boundaries, Power, and Knowledge. New York: Routledge.
23. Stephens PA, Buskirk SW, Hayward GD, Martinez del Rio C. 2005. Information theory and hypothesis testing: A call for pluralism. Journal of Applied Ecology 42: 4-12.
24. Turchin P. 2003. Complex Population Dynamics: A Theoretical/Empirical Synthesis. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press.
25. Wade PR. 2000. Bayesian methods in conservation biology. Conservation Biology 14: 1308-1316.