Additional Thoughts on Rigor in Wildlife Science: Unappreciated Impediments

Traditionally, most scientists accepted reductionist and mechanistic approaches as the rigorous way to do science. Sells et al. (2018) recently raised the argument about reliability in wildlife science. Chamberlin (1890), Platt (1964), Romesburg (1981, 1991, 2009), and Williams (1997) were rightly referenced as very influential papers. My intention in this letter is not to refute the essence of the Sells et al. (2018) commentary but to add seldom addressed but important aspects that influence the attainment of rigor and certainty in wildlife studies. The elements of a rigorous approach (i.e., strong inference) as described by Platt (1964) included devising alternative hypotheses, devising ≥1 crucial experiments that will exclude ≥1 of the hypotheses, and carrying out the experiment to get a clean result. The process was then repeated using logical inductive trees (i.e., a continually bifurcated statement hypotheses approach) to obtain the essential cause for the effect. Platt (1964) agreed with Popper (1959) that science advanced only by disproof. He argued that this was a hard doctrine and leads to disputations between scientists, but that Chamberlin\u27s (1890) method of multiple working hypotheses helped to remove that difficulty. Platt (1964) emphasized inductive inference and crucial and critical experiments whereby alternate hypotheses are refuted. Romesburg (1981) explained that in wildlife biology, induction (reliable associations) and retroduction (developing hypotheses) were the basis for almost all wildlife research but were not sufficient. He proposed the hypothetical‐deductive (H‐D) method as a more reliable approach. Citing Harvey (1969), and Popper (1962), Romesburg (1981:294) explained that “Starting with the research hypothesis, usually obtained by retroduction, predictions are made about other classes of facts that should be true if the research hypothesis is actually true.” The hypothesis is then tested indirectly by using logic to deduce one or more test consequences (Romesburg 2014). Data are then collected in a statistical framework. Romesburg (1981) distinguished between a research hypothesis (i.e., a conjecture about some process) versus a statistical hypothesis (i.e., a conjecture about classes of facts encompassed by the process). Williams (1997) clearly explained the differences between necessary and sufficient causation and gave examples of the coherent logic both entailed. He summarized that the science endeavor included theory, hypotheses, predictions, observations, and comparison of predictions against data, and argued that inductive and deductive logic were required for testing hypotheses. Importantly, Williams (1997:1014) recognized that wildlife biology often involves simultaneous complementary explanatory factors, requiring “the framing of many scientifically interesting issues about cause and effect in terms of the relative contribution of multiple causal factors.” Over the years, many others have addressed the issue of rigor and reliability in the Journal of Wildlife Management (JWM) and the Wildlife Society Bulletin (WSB) either directly (McNab 1983, Eberhardt 1988, Anderson 2001) or indirectly (Steidl et al. 1997, Guthery et al. 2001). This is not a complete list and is limited primarily to JWM and WSB but gives an idea of the wide interest in achieving reliable results from wildlife studies

Golden Rule of Forecasting: Be Conservative

This article proposes a unifying theory, or the Golden Rule, or forecasting. The Golden Rule of Forecasting is to be conservative. A conservative forecast is consistent with cumulative knowledge about the present and the past. To be conservative, forecasters must seek out and use all knowledge relevant to the problem, including knowledge of methods validated for the situation. Twenty-eight guidelines are logically deduced from the Golden Rule. A review of evidence identified 105 papers with experimental comparisons; 102 support the guidelines. Ignoring a single guideline increased forecast error by more than two-fifths on average. Ignoring the Golden Rule is likely to harm accuracy most when the situation is uncertain and complex, and when bias is likely. Non-experts who use the Golden Rule can identify dubious forecasts quickly and inexpensively. To date, ignorance of research findings, bias, sophisticated statistical procedures, and the proliferation of big data, have led forecasters to violate the Golden Rule. As a result, despite major advances in evidence-based forecasting methods, forecasting practice in many fields has failed to improve over the past half-century

Supplement: "Localization and broadband follow-up of the gravitational-wave transient GW150914" (2016, ApJL, 826, L13)

This Supplement provides supporting material for Abbott et al. (2016a). We briefly summarize past electromagnetic (EM) follow-up efforts as well as the organization and policy of the current EM follow-up program. We compare the four probability sky maps produced for the gravitational-wave transient GW150914, and provide additional details of the EM follow-up observations that were performed in the different bands

Multi-messenger observations of a binary neutron star merger

On 2017 August 17 a binary neutron star coalescence candidate (later designated GW170817) with merger time 12:41:04 UTC was observed through gravitational waves by the Advanced LIGO and Advanced Virgo detectors. The Fermi Gamma-ray Burst Monitor independently detected a gamma-ray burst (GRB 170817A) with a time delay of ~1.7 s with respect to the merger time. From the gravitational-wave signal, the source was initially localized to a sky region of 31 deg2 at a luminosity distance of 40+8-8 Mpc and with component masses consistent with neutron stars. The component masses were later measured to be in the range 0.86 to 2.26 Mo. An extensive observing campaign was launched across the electromagnetic spectrum leading to the discovery of a bright optical transient (SSS17a, now with the IAU identification of AT 2017gfo) in NGC 4993 (at ~40 Mpc) less than 11 hours after the merger by the One- Meter, Two Hemisphere (1M2H) team using the 1 m Swope Telescope. The optical transient was independently detected by multiple teams within an hour. Subsequent observations targeted the object and its environment. Early ultraviolet observations revealed a blue transient that faded within 48 hours. Optical and infrared observations showed a redward evolution over ~10 days. Following early non-detections, X-ray and radio emission were discovered at the transient’s position ~9 and ~16 days, respectively, after the merger. Both the X-ray and radio emission likely arise from a physical process that is distinct from the one that generates the UV/optical/near-infrared emission. No ultra-high-energy gamma-rays and no neutrino candidates consistent with the source were found in follow-up searches. These observations support the hypothesis that GW170817 was produced by the merger of two neutron stars in NGC4993 followed by a short gamma-ray burst (GRB 170817A) and a kilonova/macronova powered by the radioactive decay of r-process nuclei synthesized in the ejecta

Localization and broadband follow-up of the gravitational-wave transient GW150914

A gravitational-wave (GW) transient was identified in data recorded by the Advanced Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatory (LIGO) detectors on 2015 September 14. The event, initially designated G184098 and later given the name GW150914, is described in detail elsewhere. By prior arrangement, preliminary estimates of the time, significance, and sky location of the event were shared with 63 teams of observers covering radio, optical, near-infrared, X-ray, and gamma-ray wavelengths with ground- and space-based facilities. In this Letter we describe the low-latency analysis of the GW data and present the sky localization of the first observed compact binary merger. We summarize the follow-up observations reported by 25 teams via private Gamma-ray Coordinates Network circulars, giving an overview of the participating facilities, the GW sky localization coverage, the timeline, and depth of the observations. As this event turned out to be a binary black hole merger, there is little expectation of a detectable electromagnetic (EM) signature. Nevertheless, this first broadband campaign to search for a counterpart of an Advanced LIGO source represents a milestone and highlights the broad capabilities of the transient astronomy community and the observing strategies that have been developed to pursue neutron star binary merger events. Detailed investigations of the EM data and results of the EM follow-up campaign are being disseminated in papers by the individual teams

Localization and Broadband Follow-up of the Gravitational-wave Transient GW150914

A gravitational-wave (GW) transient was identified in data recorded by the Advanced Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatory (LIGO) detectors on 2015 September 14. The event, initially designated G184098 and later given the name GW150914, is described in detail elsewhere. By prior arrangement, preliminary estimates of the time, significance, and sky location of the event were shared with 63 teams of observers covering radio, optical, near-infrared, X-ray, and gamma-ray wavelengths with ground- and space-based facilities. In this Letter we describe the low-latency analysis of the GW data and present the sky localization of the first observed compact binary merger. We summarize the follow-up observations reported by 25 teams via private Gamma-ray Coordinates Network circulars, giving an overview of the participating facilities, the GW sky localization coverage, the timeline, and depth of the observations. As this event turned out to be a binary black hole merger, there is little expectation of a detectable electromagnetic (EM) signature. Nevertheless, this first broadband campaign to search for a counterpart of an Advanced LIGO source represents a milestone and highlights the broad capabilities of the transient astronomy community and the observing strategies that have been developed to pursue neutron star binary merger events. Detailed investigations of the EM data and results of the EM follow-up campaign are being disseminated in papers by the individual teams. </p