To Coronet or Not to Coronet, now that is a question

[treeseer]

1. I sympathize with her, it must be a relieve to have you out of the house for a while . Just funnin' with ya Guy, take it easy and give my best regards to your wife.

 

I shall do just that and copy her on this hilarity, so she knows I am not fooling around in other ways. Thanks for the funnin' Gerrit. Life, arboriculture, are too serious to take seriously all of the time.

 

2. And "qualifying" scientifically based answers to your questions as "broad insults" and "narrowminded arrogance" are typical American traits ?

 

Ahem I think it was the "utter nonsense" and other unscientific opinions of that ilk that drove my reaction; all disappearing in the rearview mirror now. As for "scientifically based", all research may be science, but not all science is research. (below)

 

3. Because of this bizarre way of communicating starting with : "far off the radar" ... "some offence still taken" ... "bully pulpit", followed by ridiculing my reply to your questions with suggestions for microscopical assessment by wishing for "world peace" and "a chicken in every pot", followed by : "We've excised Gerrit's constructive advice and will follow it" after I had withdrawn from the thread, "Thank for your frank responses; no sense beating around the bush. Keep them coming ", "Toss a few broad insults" and "narrowminded arrogance."

 

Yes we both got on quite a roll there. Bizarre dogmaticism led to bizarrer randomness. I note that "narrowminded arrogance" struck quite a nerve, as it has become a recurring theme. Shall we schedule an hour for you on the couch next Tuesday, to explore that a little further? I have an opening at 11 a.m....Schoolboy pranks; no harm, no foul.

 

4. Best of luck, keep up the good work

 

And you, good sir! this is quite a derail from all the good sport carried out in jolly old with those large woody substrates known as "trees". And get this-- some strange cults actually consider them worthy of more consideration for culturing than fungi! sorry bout that folks.

 

Science and Research

 

In The Importance of Science in Arboriculture (February 2006), Brian Kane described the usefulness of rigorous research using the Scientific Method, echoing a similar article by Robert Miller (April 2004). It’s hard to exclude enough variables from large living systems such as trees to produce valid results, so we in the field are grateful for good research. Dr. Kane has coauthored some very useful studies, such as the one on the strength of woundwood.

 

One facet of the article, however, was quite confusing. Wherever formal research was described, the more generic term “science” was used. The ISA motto “Science, Research, Preservation” makes it clear there is a distinct difference. As the high school science students that I tutor understand, research is only one aspect of science. “Science” includes observation, description, analysis, study, review and identification; functions that all human minds employ every day to gain knowledge.

 

Textbooks, glossaries and dictionaries make it clear that research is not synonymous with science. It is very valuable but like other forms of science it is limited. Myths can be generated by overgeneralizing its results. Anecdotal experience may lack the protocols for publication, but like research it can shed enough light to advance arboriculture. If we had to wait for research to guide our every move, we could not function.

 

Arborists must be willing to plow through research articles and use the nuggets of information they find. But the writing must be clear enough to read! As Dr. Shigo wrote thirty years ago “By writing and talking in laboratory lingo and technical jargon, (researchers) surround themselves with a barbed-wire barrier of words that keeps their work from reaching the people who can use it”.

 

The Scope of the arboriculture journal says, “…potential authors should bear the readership in mind.” They should also remember that no one group can claim a monopoly on knowledge or science. If everyone works harder at communicating, the barriers to better tree care will come down.

 

Guy Meilleur, BCMA

[RobArb]

I like that insert from kane, good little read:biggrin:

 

Kinda how I feel about my research, I want it to be understood by the masses but be "scientific" enough to be recognised.

Sent from Rob's GalaxySII

[treeseer]

I like that insert from kane, good little read:biggrin:

 

Kinda how I feel about my research, I want it to be understood by the masses but be "scientific" enough to be recognised.

Sent from Rob's GalaxySII

 

Well the insert was actually TO Kane, in a letter to the editor, but when he responded he did not disagree, so all good in that hood too.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

Science and Research

 

In The Importance of Science in Arboriculture (February 2006), Brian Kane described the usefulness of rigorous research using the Scientific Method, echoing a similar article by Robert Miller (April 2004). It’s hard to exclude enough variables from large living systems such as trees to produce valid results, so we in the field are grateful for good research. Dr. Kane has coauthored some very useful studies, such as the one on the strength of woundwood.

 

One facet of the article, however, was quite confusing. Wherever formal research was described, the more generic term “science” was used. The ISA motto “Science, Research, Preservation” makes it clear there is a distinct difference. As the high school science students that I tutor understand, research is only one aspect of science. “Science” includes observation, description, analysis, study, review and identification; functions that all human minds employ every day to gain knowledge.

 

Textbooks, glossaries and dictionaries make it clear that research is not synonymous with science. It is very valuable but like other forms of science it is limited. Myths can be generated by overgeneralizing its results. Anecdotal experience may lack the protocols for publication, but like research it can shed enough light to advance arboriculture. If we had to wait for research to guide our every move, we could not function.

 

Arborists must be willing to plow through research articles and use the nuggets of information they find. But the writing must be clear enough to read! As Dr. Shigo wrote thirty years ago “By writing and talking in laboratory lingo and technical jargon, (researchers) surround themselves with a barbed-wire barrier of words that keeps their work from reaching the people who can use it”.

 

The Scope of the arboriculture journal says, “…potential authors should bear the readership in mind.” They should also remember that no one group can claim a monopoly on knowledge or science. If everyone works harder at communicating, the barriers to better tree care will come down.

 

Guy Meilleur, BCMA

 

Firstly, this is the best post or rather this section is the best post you have made IMO. and i could not agree more.

 

I will however say that Gerrit is a rare breed, he is scientificly rigorous and accurate, but has the time and the patients to break down his work and deliver it to us morons without a clue. I have personally only ever met a handful of people in this world as knowing as Gerrit, and think you would do well to put aside these silly ego battles. You say you want to advance arboriculture, well Gerrits specialism has a MASSIVE contribution to that ADVANCING ARBORICULTURE.

 

It has for me nothing to do with who you are, its what you bring to OUR (arbtalk/industry) table that counts, so far your posts have resulted in a sillyness that has distracted from the content, and that is a shame. When Fungus made his FIRST post my reply was AT LAST with a bow smiley, for I knew what was being brought to the table in an instant.

 

This excerpt from you is the first time I have felt that from you.

[Fungus]

1. has the time and the patients

2. ... silly ego battles.

 

Tony,

1. Really ??? I thought I left the mental health "industry" 15 years ago or do you think I see trees (or arborists) as patients too ?

2. It takes two ego's for an ego battle and although I sometimes appreciate an ego boost , I buried mine long before entering the "arb & fung" world, so ?

Edited August 23, 2011 by Fungus

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

Tony,

1. Really ??? I thought I left the mental health "industry" 15 years ago or do you think I see trees (or arborists) as patients too ?

2. It takes two ego's for an ego battle and although I sometimes appreciate an ego boost , I buried mine long before entering the "arb & fung" world, so ?

 

bad spelling on my part! patience is what i meant!

 

No, ego was the wrong word.

[RobArb]

monolithed (dead) hawthorn, with coronets:biggrin:

[Adam Bourne]

nice work rob looking O natural , tall for hawthorn,

[Adam Bourne]

PS do you always climb with you HC upside down?

[David Humphries]

What did the client think?

 

 

 

.