Every old-growth forest should be protected and treasured. They are the well-springs of fertility that link the entire Earth back to our pre-industrial ecosystems.
And, of course, ground-working animals such as gophers should be valued for their role in helping to maintain the fecudity of the environment, whether they are ultra-polite or not ;-)
Allowing the forest to face an eruption, uninhibited, is probably what will keep it old. Most of these truly old ecosystems have developed with natural disasters common to the area in mind. Trees have to function on a centuries long timeline.
That would be selfish and terrible. The most productive farming in the USA is largely because of previous volcanic eruptions. Similarly the water cycle, subduction, earthquakes, floods, fires, and carbon cycle are what keeps soil healthy and allows for nutritious food.
If you remove all that you end up with MUCH more energy intensive agriculture and an economic incentive to cheap out.
"Two years after the eruption, they tested this theory."
Has the science community just given up on the word hypothesis? It's not that complicated and in the USA the word is taught almost every year starting in elementary. When a science driven website like this has given up then we've lost the theory/hypothesis distinction.
Yes, the distinction between theory and hypothesis can be important, but a distinction should also be made between popular science and rigorous peer-reviewed literature. Popular science is meant to be easy for the general reader to understand. Often that means using simpler words, as long as they are still accurate in a general way.
In this case, I believe theory is an acceptable word to use. The MW dictionary, for the definition of 'theory', says
2a. "a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action"
3a. "a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation"
Seems to me that the usage in the article fits either of these definitions well enough.
> The Greek theoria (θεωρία) meant "contemplation, speculation, a looking at, things looked at", from theorein (θεωρεῖν) "to consider, speculate, look at", from theoros (θεωρός) "spectator", from thea (θέα) "a view" + horan (ὁρᾶν) "to see".
"Theory" should refer only to the beatific vision or its analogical precursors in temporal existence achieved through mystical union with the Uncreated Light!
> Popular science is meant to be easy for the general reader to understand. Often that means using simpler words
The point above, and I agree, is that the word 'hypothesis' is taught every year in public schools, from elementary school through highschool. Even dropouts should know it, and from what I've seen do know it. At a certain point we've got to stop pandering to morons. Or worse, pandering to what we assume is the level of morons but is actually substantially lower. I don't think the general public is perplexed by that word; anybody who thinks they are is probably underestimating the public. Even if the average Joe on the street isn't disciplined about using the word hypothesis vs theory, they still understand what the word means when they read it.
It wasn't a terribly useful distinction to begin with - especially in natural sciences where there is usually no definite proof, just various degrees of confidence. We had quite a few linguistic purity battles in tech, too. You never win and it's not particularly worthwhile to play that game.
The difference between a hypothesis and a theory is that a hypothesis has no evidence to support it while a theory has at least some supporting evidence.
An important part of science is that, given enough evidence, any theory can be overturned in favor of a better theory. Scientific theoretical models are just "This currently fits demonstrated evidence of reality the best".
Some theories have mountains of evidence in support (evolution, gravity, the standard model, for example) that will necessarily need a huge amount of evidence to overturn. It is far more likely these theories will just be refined with further evidence rather than broken by new evidence.
Part of the scientific model is the built-in assumption that any model or theory is at least a little incorrect. They are fuzzy generalities that are constantly being refined to hopefully more closely match reality.
They certainly are more industrious than I would have thought. Per the original paper "Findings from a fundamental study recounted by Logan (2007) showed that a single gopher can move 227 kg of soil per month, with gopher populations translocating 38,000 kg of soil per acre per year." [0]
I had the same question. The linked paper says they used gopher enclosures:
> In 1982, an individual pocket gopher (Thomomys talpoides [Richardson]) from a nearby clearcut was placed in a 1m2 enclosure around a single L. lepidus individual for 24 hours
Call me a cynic but this seems like a weird story. How did they catch the gophers again? Did they do a comparable test by turning over some soil with a spade?
If this is true though, I also find it weird that the gophers dug deeper than the leftover plants / ecosystem buried beneath the surface could do themselves; seeds want to go up, after all, breaking up the soil as they emerge. Of course, the ash may have been too dense, idk.
Gophers don’t give a flying fig about fences. Seriously, as someone who struggles with gophers all the time, I really want to know how they controlled them!
Readit News
And, of course, ground-working animals such as gophers should be valued for their role in helping to maintain the fecudity of the environment, whether they are ultra-polite or not ;-)
Perhaps one day, we will be able to do so.
If you remove all that you end up with MUCH more energy intensive agriculture and an economic incentive to cheap out.
In this case, I believe theory is an acceptable word to use. The MW dictionary, for the definition of 'theory', says
2a. "a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action"
3a. "a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation"
Seems to me that the usage in the article fits either of these definitions well enough.
"Theory" should refer only to the beatific vision or its analogical precursors in temporal existence achieved through mystical union with the Uncreated Light!
The point above, and I agree, is that the word 'hypothesis' is taught every year in public schools, from elementary school through highschool. Even dropouts should know it, and from what I've seen do know it. At a certain point we've got to stop pandering to morons. Or worse, pandering to what we assume is the level of morons but is actually substantially lower. I don't think the general public is perplexed by that word; anybody who thinks they are is probably underestimating the public. Even if the average Joe on the street isn't disciplined about using the word hypothesis vs theory, they still understand what the word means when they read it.
The difference between a hypothesis and a theory is that a hypothesis has no evidence to support it while a theory has at least some supporting evidence.
An important part of science is that, given enough evidence, any theory can be overturned in favor of a better theory. Scientific theoretical models are just "This currently fits demonstrated evidence of reality the best".
Some theories have mountains of evidence in support (evolution, gravity, the standard model, for example) that will necessarily need a huge amount of evidence to overturn. It is far more likely these theories will just be refined with further evidence rather than broken by new evidence.
Part of the scientific model is the built-in assumption that any model or theory is at least a little incorrect. They are fuzzy generalities that are constantly being refined to hopefully more closely match reality.
If we abondon meaning, we're abandoning reason.
It's worth the fight.
Deleted Comment
[0] https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/microbiomes/articles/10...
https://www.natureswayresources.com/earthworms/
I bet to this day no other gophers believe the story those gophers tell at the pub. :)
In oceans, whales also mix different layers of sea water with their vertical movements.
So the sea water layers are probably less mixed than natural. No idea what effects that might have.
> In 1982, an individual pocket gopher (Thomomys talpoides [Richardson]) from a nearby clearcut was placed in a 1m2 enclosure around a single L. lepidus individual for 24 hours
If this is true though, I also find it weird that the gophers dug deeper than the leftover plants / ecosystem buried beneath the surface could do themselves; seeds want to go up, after all, breaking up the soil as they emerge. Of course, the ash may have been too dense, idk.
i do like it when they take slight liberties with their captions. fantastic