[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index

Re: Nature magazine article- oops! Here it is.



Thanks, John M.! Interesting new word they invented in that overview... "Interpetating" [sic]... Princeton University Press. Reminds me of "Good Will Hunting".
 
Judith
----- Original Message -----
From: John M
To: ***
Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2004 2:39 PM
Subject: Re: [ROSEN] Nature magazine article- oops! Here it is.

Judith,
my web-search for you (Hubbell) brought out only a 120 year old
Canadian electrical company. Then in your URL (Nature) I found the initials and searched Hubbell+S+P and got him!
is a good start, there were more. (MSN search).
 
We have to be careful, not to fall into the 'complex' complicated convolutedness, as even Jamie walks on the rim of it, it is contrary to the RR-complexity, totally model-based and phenomenological. It is the kind of reductionist thinking, (xcuse me to play a pun): phenomeno - logical, all of us like to think in those lines of science, so your _expression_ "to infect the list" is well chosen.
 
John M
 


----- Original Message -----
To: ***
Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2004 11:49 AM
Subject: Fw: Nature magazine article- oops! Here it is.

Hi Folks,

There is an article that was published last year in Nature magazine about some ecology theories and models developed by two men; Hubbell and Bell. Neutrality Theory, it's being called. I read it because my oldest child had a paper to write and thought some of "Pop's stuff" (her name for her grandfather) might be applicable. She was right.
 
I'm curious, before I infect the group with my own point of view, what some of the ecologists think. The link is here:
 
I would also like to get contact info for Hubbell, if anyone knows how to achieve that?
 
Judith