Advertisement

Biology & Philosophy

, 33:30 | Cite as

Not null enough: pseudo-null hypotheses in community ecology and comparative psychology

  • William BausmanEmail author
  • Marta Halina
Article

Abstract

We evaluate a common reasoning strategy used in community ecology and comparative psychology for selecting between competing hypotheses. This strategy labels one hypothesis as a “null” on the grounds of its simplicity and epistemically privileges it as accepted until rejected. We argue that this strategy is unjustified. The asymmetrical treatment of statistical null hypotheses is justified through the experimental and mathematical contexts in which they are used, but these contexts are missing in the case of the “pseudo-null hypotheses” found in our case studies. Moreover, statistical nulls are often not epistemically privileged in practice over their alternatives because failing to reject the null is usually a negative result about the alternative, experimental hypothesis. Scientists should eschew the appeal to pseudo-nulls. It is a rhetorical strategy that glosses over a commitment to valuing simplicity over other epistemic virtues in the name of good scientific and statistical methodology.

Keywords

Null hypothesis Community ecology Neutral theory Comparative psychology Mindreading hypohesis Reasoning strategy 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Versions of this paper were presented at POBAM 2014 and SPSP 2015. We thank the audience for their questions and discussion. We would also like to thank Adrian Currie, Shay Logan, Helen Longino, Elliott Sober, Kent Staley, Jos Uffink, and C. Kenneth Waters for extensive comments and discussion. William Bausman’s writing of this article was supported in part by a grant from the John Templeton Foundation: #50191; From Biological Practice to Scientific Metaphysics.

References

  1. Bausman WC (2018) Modeling: neutral, null, and baseline. Philos Sci 84(4):414–435Google Scholar
  2. Beatty J (1987) Natural selection and the null hypothesis. In: Dupre J (ed) The latest on the best. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  3. Beatty J (1997) Why do biologists argue like they do?”. Philos Sci 64((Proceedings)):S432–S443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bell G (2000) The distribution of abundance in neutral communities. Am Nat 155(5):606–617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Call J, Tomasello M (2008) Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? 30 years later. Trends Cognit Sci 12(5):187–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chase JM, Leibold MA (2003) Ecological niches: linking classical and contemporary approaches. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edn. Routledge Academic, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Dacey M (2016) The varieties of parsimony in psychology. Mind Lang 31(4):414–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dienes Z (2008) Understanding psychology as a science: an introduction to scientific and statistical inference. Palgrave Macmillan, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Douglas H (2009) Science, policy, and the value-free ideal. University of Pittsburgh Press, PittsburghCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fitzpatrick S (2008) Doing away with Morgan’s Canon. Mind Lang 23(2):224–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fitzpatrick S (2017) Against Morgan’s Canon. In: Andrews K, Beck J (eds) The Routledge handbook of philosophy of animal minds. Taylor and Francis, RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  13. Fletcher L, Carruthers P (2013) Behavior-reading versus mentalizing in animals. In: Metcalfe J, Terrace HS (eds) Agency and joint attention. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 82–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Forster M, Sober E (1994) How to tell when simpler, more unified, or less ad hoc theories will provide more accurate predictions. Br J Philos Sci 45(1):1–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gigerenzer G (2004) Mindless statistics. J Socio-Econo 33(5):587–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Godfrey-Smith P (1994) Of nulls and norms. In: PSA: proceedings of the Biennial meeting of the Philosophy of Science AssociationGoogle Scholar
  17. Gotelli NJ, Graves GR (1996) Null models in ecology. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  18. Halina M (2015) There is no special problem of mindreading in nonhuman animals. Philos Sci 82(3):473–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hare B, Call J, Tomasello M (2006) Chimpanzees deceive a human competitor by hiding. Cognition 101(3):495–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hubbell SP (2001) The unified neutral theory of biodiversity and biogeography. In: Levin SA, Horn HS (eds) Monographs in population biology. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  21. Hubbell SP (2006) Neutral theory and the evolution of ecological equivalence. Ecology 87(6):1387–1398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Krupenye C, Kano F, Hirata S, Call J, Tomasello M (2016) Great apes anticipate that other individuals will act according to false beliefs. Science 354(6308):110–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Levins R (1966) The strategy of model building in population biology. Amer Sci 54:421–431Google Scholar
  24. Lloyd EA (2015) Adaptationism and the logic of research questions: how to think clearly about evolutionary causes. Biol Theory 10:1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Longino HE (2008) Values, heuristics, and the politics of knowledge. In: Carrier M, Howard D, Kourany J (eds) The challenge of the social and the pressure of practice: science and values revisited. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, pp 68–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lurz RW (2011) Mindreading animals: the debate over what animals know about other minds. MIT Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. MacArthur RH (1957) On the relative abundance of bird species. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 43(3):293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mayo DG, Spanos A (2006) Severe testing as a basic concept in a Neyman–Pearson philosophy of induction. Br J Philos Sci 57(2):323–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Meketa I (2014) A critique of the principle of cognitive simplicity in comparative cognition. Biol Philos 29(5):731–745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Melis AP, Call J, Tomasello M (2006) Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) conceal visual and auditory information from others. J Comp Psychol 120(2):154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Millstein RL (2017) Genetic drift. In: Zalta EN (ed) The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, Fall 2017 edn. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2017/entries/genetic-drift/
  32. Neyman J, Pearson ES (1933) The testing of statistical hypotheses in relation to probabilities a priori. In: Mathematical proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical SocietyGoogle Scholar
  33. Norton JD (2003) A material theory of induction. Philos Sci 70(4):647–670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Penn DC, Povinelli DJ (2007) On the lack of evidence that non-human animals possess anything remotely resembling a ‘theory of mind’. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B: Biol Sci 362(1480):731–744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Penn DC, Povinelli DJ (2009) On becoming approximately rational: the relational reinterpretation hypothesis. In: Watanabe S, Blaisdell AP, Huber L, Young A (eds) Rational animals, irrational humans. Keio University Press, Tokyo, pp 23–43Google Scholar
  36. Penn DC, Povinelli DJ (2013) The comparative delusion: the “behavioristic/mentalistic” dichotomy in comparative theory of mind research. In: Metcalfe J, Terrace HS (eds) Agency and joint attention. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 62–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Penn DC, Holyoak KJ, Povinelli DJ (2008) Darwin’s mistake: explaining the discontinuity between human and nonhuman minds. Behav Brain Sci 31(02):109–130Google Scholar
  38. Povinelli DJ, Vonk J (2004) We don’t need a microscope to explore the chimpanzee’s mind. Mind Lang 19(1):1–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Purves DW, Pacala SW (2005) Ecological drift in niche-structured communities: neutral pattern does not imply neutral process. In: Burslem D, Pinard M, Hartley S (eds) Biotic interactions in the tropics: their role in the maintenance of species diversity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 107–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rosenbaum PR (2005) Observational study. In: Everitt BS, Howell DC (eds) Encyclopedia of statistics in behavioral science. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  41. Sani F, John T (2008) Experimental design and statistics for psychology: a first course. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  42. Sedlmeier P, Gigerenzer G (1989) Do studies of statistical power have an effect on the power of studies? Psychol Bull 105(2):309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sober E (1994) Let’s razor ockham’s razor. In: Sober E (ed) From a biological point of view: essays in evolutionary philosophy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 136–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sober E (2002) Instrumentalism, parsimony, and the Akaike framework. Philos Sci 69(S3):S112–S123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sober E (2005) Comparative psychology meets evolutionary biology: Morgan’s Canon and Cladistic Parsimony. In: Daston L, Mitman G (eds) Thinking with animals: new perspectives on anthropomorphism. Columbia University Press, New York, pp 85–99Google Scholar
  46. Sober E (2009) Parsimony and models of animal minds. In: Lurz RW (ed) The philosophy of animal minds, p 237. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  47. Staley KW (2017) Pragmatic warrant for frequentist statistical practice: the case of high energy physics. Synthese 194(2):355–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tilman D (1982) Resource competition and community structure. In: Levin SA, Horn HS (eds) Monographs in population biology. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  49. Tilman D (1986) Resources, competition and the dynamics of plant communities. In: Crawley M (ed) Plant ecology. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, pp 51–75Google Scholar
  50. Vellend M (2016) The theory of ecological communities. In: Levin SA, Horn HS (eds) Monographs in population biology. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of GenevaGeneva 4Switzerland
  2. 2.Department of History and Philosophy of ScienceUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations