3 ms·

And yet, had someone just stated "Squirrels listen to bird songs and relate that to their relative safety." You might dismiss that with "Sounds plausible but yo

And yet, had someone just stated "Squirrels listen to bird songs and relate that to their relative safety." You might dismiss that with "Sounds plausible but you can't really know that can you? Maybe they just like birds." "Doing the science" is something that while sometimes seems like you're testing an obviously true hypothesis does two things, one it gives you confidence in asserting something is true (hypothesis proven), two it unlocks additional structure that was unknown (hypothesis fails randomly indicating a confounding factor).

davnicwil 7y ago
> hypothesis proven I broadly agree with you but just want to flag up that there is subtlety here that's important. The scientific method is really more focused on disproving hypotheses than proving them. The goal isn't to prove your model describes exactly what is happening. You actually assume it doesn't, but is good enough as far as you know for practical purposes, for now. Trying to refute aspects the model sort of provides evidence that it isn't obviously incorrect, so in a sense you are supporting the hypothesis by not disproving it, but the goal really is ultimitely to refute it and then refine the model accordingly so it becomes better over time. You're never 'done' - the model/hypothesis is never 'proven'. It's a subtle distinction, but an important one.
Gravityloss 7y ago
I assume the grandparent had the opposite point: that it's obvious to anyone who's spent any time with birds around that everybody tends to notice the alerts they make. Other birds, humans, pets, wild animals.
oh_sigh 7y ago
This has been known by outdoors people for literally centuries, probably millenia, because disturbing birds can ruin your hunt. I was just browsing this[1] book on my bookshelf where it is talked about extensively, and it is far beyond just a statement of fact. [1] https://www.amazon.co.uk/Walkers-Guide-Outdoor-Clues-Signs-ebook/dp/B00H4EPBWM https://www.amazon.co.uk/Walkers-Guide-Outdoor-Clues-Signs-e...
- mongol 7y ago
  Looks like an interesting book, do you like it?
  - oh_sigh 7y ago
    If you like to spend time outdoors, definitely yes. It's mostly prose, but it is broken up into easily digestible chunks, so it's great to browse if you have a few minutes on transit here and there, or for a toilet book. A lot of the clues and signs are based around situations in the UK (prevailing winds, northern hemisphere, moss/tree types, etc), but with a little bit of work you can convert similar concepts to your locale. Which might be a good thing, because there is really more information than is possible to absorb from just straight up reading it - you need to get out in the field and practice it. Besides for just gleaning more information about the environment, I've actually used knowledge learned from this book explicitly twice in the ~2 years I've had it - once to save my bacon, and once to randomly impress my girlfriend. I was hiking near my house in the Rockies with my girlfriend, and using the exact clues this article is talking about(and talked about in the book), I offhandedly remarked that I thought there might be another hiker coming towards us over a hill. She didn't think it was likely since we never encounter people on that trail, but 5 minutes later we crested the hill and there was someone just coming up the other side. The other time it came in handy was when I basically did something stupid(separated from a more experienced group in unknown terrain near sundown to help somebody else), and I was able to navigate us back at night using 4 or 5 different clues I recalled from the book. Note though I haven't done any kind of comparative analysis of other similar books. I do like this one though.

davnicwil 7y ago

> hypothesis proven I broadly agree with you but just want to flag up that there is subtlety here that's important. The scientific method is really more focused on disproving hypotheses than proving them. The goal isn't to prove your model describes exactly what is happening. You actually assume it doesn't, but is good enough as far as you know for practical purposes, for now. Trying to refute aspects the model sort of provides evidence that it isn't obviously incorrect, so in a sense you are supporting the hypothesis by not disproving it, but the goal really is ultimitely to refute it and then refine the model accordingly so it becomes better over time. You're never 'done' - the model/hypothesis is never 'proven'. It's a subtle distinction, but an important one.

Gravityloss 7y ago

I assume the grandparent had the opposite point: that it's obvious to anyone who's spent any time with birds around that everybody tends to notice the alerts they make. Other birds, humans, pets, wild animals.

oh_sigh 7y ago

This has been known by outdoors people for literally centuries, probably millenia, because disturbing birds can ruin your hunt. I was just browsing this[1] book on my bookshelf where it is talked about extensively, and it is far beyond just a statement of fact. [1] https://www.amazon.co.uk/Walkers-Guide-Outdoor-Clues-Signs-ebook/dp/B00H4EPBWM https://www.amazon.co.uk/Walkers-Guide-Outdoor-Clues-Signs-e...

mongol 7y ago
Looks like an interesting book, do you like it?
- oh_sigh 7y ago
  If you like to spend time outdoors, definitely yes. It's mostly prose, but it is broken up into easily digestible chunks, so it's great to browse if you have a few minutes on transit here and there, or for a toilet book. A lot of the clues and signs are based around situations in the UK (prevailing winds, northern hemisphere, moss/tree types, etc), but with a little bit of work you can convert similar concepts to your locale. Which might be a good thing, because there is really more information than is possible to absorb from just straight up reading it - you need to get out in the field and practice it. Besides for just gleaning more information about the environment, I've actually used knowledge learned from this book explicitly twice in the ~2 years I've had it - once to save my bacon, and once to randomly impress my girlfriend. I was hiking near my house in the Rockies with my girlfriend, and using the exact clues this article is talking about(and talked about in the book), I offhandedly remarked that I thought there might be another hiker coming towards us over a hill. She didn't think it was likely since we never encounter people on that trail, but 5 minutes later we crested the hill and there was someone just coming up the other side. The other time it came in handy was when I basically did something stupid(separated from a more experienced group in unknown terrain near sundown to help somebody else), and I was able to navigate us back at night using 4 or 5 different clues I recalled from the book. Note though I haven't done any kind of comparative analysis of other similar books. I do like this one though.