MrMcCall 3 days ago | next |

Every old-growth forest should be protected and treasured. They are the well-springs of fertility that link the entire Earth back to our pre-industrial ecosystems.

And, of course, ground-working animals such as gophers should be valued for their role in helping to maintain the fecudity of the environment, whether they are ultra-polite or not ;-)

dgfitz 3 days ago | root | parent | next |

I agree with you. By definition, recreating old things takes time. As stewards of this rock, we should tend to and protect what we have.

chasil 3 days ago | root | parent | prev |

Alas, any forest in the path of a volcanic eruption is beyond our ability to protect (for now).

Perhaps one day, we will be able to do so.

BigGreenJorts 2 days ago | root | parent | next |

Allowing the forest to face an eruption, uninhibited, is probably what will keep it old. Most of these truly old ecosystems have developed with natural disasters common to the area in mind. Trees have to function on a centuries long timeline.

lukasb 2 days ago | root | parent | prev | next |

If you RTFA, they said that old growth forests managed to recover from the eruption.

chasil 2 days ago | root | parent |

I did read the fine article, but the eruption there only deposited (high-temperature?) ash.

In more extreme eruptions that involve molten lava or other more violent impacts, you will certainly agree that protection cannot be offered.

sliken a day ago | root | parent | prev |

That would be selfish and terrible. The most productive farming in the USA is largely because of previous volcanic eruptions. Similarly the water cycle, subduction, earthquakes, floods, fires, and carbon cycle are what keeps soil healthy and allows for nutritious food.

If you remove all that you end up with MUCH more energy intensive agriculture and an economic incentive to cheap out.

tuumi 3 days ago | prev | next |

"Two years after the eruption, they tested this theory." Has the science community just given up on the word hypothesis? It's not that complicated and in the USA the word is taught almost every year starting in elementary. When a science driven website like this has given up then we've lost the theory/hypothesis distinction.

lucaspfeifer 3 days ago | root | parent | next |

Yes, the distinction between theory and hypothesis can be important, but a distinction should also be made between popular science and rigorous peer-reviewed literature. Popular science is meant to be easy for the general reader to understand. Often that means using simpler words, as long as they are still accurate in a general way.

In this case, I believe theory is an acceptable word to use. The MW dictionary, for the definition of 'theory', says

2a. "a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action"

3a. "a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation"

Seems to me that the usage in the article fits either of these definitions well enough.

earthboundkid 2 days ago | root | parent | next |

> The Greek theoria (θεωρία) meant "contemplation, speculation, a looking at, things looked at", from theorein (θεωρεῖν) "to consider, speculate, look at", from theoros (θεωρός) "spectator", from thea (θέα) "a view" + horan (ὁρᾶν) "to see".

"Theory" should refer only to the beatific vision or its analogical precursors in temporal existence achieved through mystical union with the Uncreated Light!

istultus 2 days ago | root | parent | next |

The only reason this Ancient Greek definition holds is because it is a dead language. Prescriptivism cannot stop natural language change. Any "X should only mean Y" statement is a dead-end conservative approach.

lupusreal 2 days ago | root | parent | prev |

> Popular science is meant to be easy for the general reader to understand. Often that means using simpler words

The point above, and I agree, is that the word 'hypothesis' is taught every year in public schools, from elementary school through highschool. Even dropouts should know it, and from what I've seen do know it. At a certain point we've got to stop pandering to morons. Or worse, pandering to what we assume is the level of morons but is actually substantially lower. I don't think the general public is perplexed by that word; anybody who thinks they are is probably underestimating the public. Even if the average Joe on the street isn't disciplined about using the word hypothesis vs theory, they still understand what the word means when they read it.

BobaFloutist 2 days ago | root | parent |

Even if I know (or can trivially decipher) the definition of a technical word, reading an article saturated with technical words takes more work than reading an article written in more common language. Articles that take more work to read are going to be read by fewer people, and the population of people that do read them is going to be biased to the well-educated.

If you're trying to communicate to the general public something like "Gophers are actually good sometimes", you probably want that message to go beyond the well-educated.

equestria 3 days ago | root | parent | prev | next |

It wasn't a terribly useful distinction to begin with - especially in natural sciences where there is usually no definite proof, just various degrees of confidence. We had quite a few linguistic purity battles in tech, too. You never win and it's not particularly worthwhile to play that game.

cogman10 3 days ago | root | parent | next |

There is never definite proof.

The difference between a hypothesis and a theory is that a hypothesis has no evidence to support it while a theory has at least some supporting evidence.

An important part of science is that, given enough evidence, any theory can be overturned in favor of a better theory. Scientific theoretical models are just "This currently fits demonstrated evidence of reality the best".

Some theories have mountains of evidence in support (evolution, gravity, the standard model, for example) that will necessarily need a huge amount of evidence to overturn. It is far more likely these theories will just be refined with further evidence rather than broken by new evidence.

Part of the scientific model is the built-in assumption that any model or theory is at least a little incorrect. They are fuzzy generalities that are constantly being refined to hopefully more closely match reality.

cryptonector 2 days ago | root | parent | next |

Here's one dictionary's definition of hypothesis: "a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation."

Here's one dictionary's definition of theory: "a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained."

According to the dictionary you have it exactly backwards. A hypothesis requires some supporting evidence. A theory requires none. Though the dictionary won't reflect scientific definitions. I like these definitions, though we have to add verbiage about falsifiability to make them scientific.

One can still refer to Newton's theory of gravity as a theory, and indeed one does even though it has been falsified. Well, I suppose one could say the same thing about "the flat earth hypothesis" -- there is no evidence supporting it, and one might still refer to it as a hypothesis because there might once have been evidence for it when people did not recognize the evidence for the Earth being round.

So what is the difference between those words? Both are "suppositions". Both can be falsified. A theory must be falsifiable in order to be a scientific theory (the dictionary didn't say this, but this is a pillar of modern science). A theory is a "system of ideas", something much larger than a hypothesis. A hypothesis is a starting point for a theory.

cogman10 2 days ago | root | parent | next |

What dictionary did you use for those definitions?

If I search for those phrases I can find them floating around in random unrelated places. However, if I look up the definition of the words, really common dictionaries have definitions that match what I just said.

Here's MW for example:

hypothesis: an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument

theory: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena

It even has this handy bit of text after the definition

> A hypothesis is an assumption, an idea that is proposed for the sake of argument so that it can be tested to see if it might be true.

> In the scientific method, the hypothesis is constructed before any applicable research has been done, apart from a basic background review. You ask a question, read up on what has been studied before, and then form a hypothesis.

> A hypothesis is usually tentative; it's an assumption or suggestion made strictly for the objective of being tested.

> A theory, in contrast, is a principle that has been formed as an attempt to explain things that have already been substantiated by data. It is used in the names of a number of principles accepted in the scientific community, such as the Big Bang Theory. Because of the rigors of experimentation and control, it is understood to be more likely to be true than a hypothesis is.

[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypothesis

[2] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory

cryptonector 2 days ago | root | parent |

> What dictionary did you use for those definitions?

Oxford Languages. First one offered by Google. Oxford's definitions are close enough to Merriam Webster's.

Consider gravity. A hypothesis 400 years ago might have been that massive bodies exert a pull on each other, but that would not have been a theory. To get to "theory status" you'd have to add enough content that one could start making falsifiable predictions. That would require working out that gravity is an inverse square law, and that's exactly what Newton did.

There were gravity hypostheses before Newton, but to be a theory required adding enough mathematics to make those falsifiable predictions.

So I'd say that both, hypotheses and theories are suppositions, but hypotheses are weakly supported by evidence and lack predictive power, while theories have predictive power but must be falsifiable. Both hypotheses and theories can be falsified, and once falsified we refer to them as such (incorrect, failed, falsified). In mathematics a theory doesn't even need to have "evidence" for it -- it's just a system of axioms and principles, though it could prove to be inconsistent.

I would also say that even in scientific communities we're a bit loose with these things. Is the Big Bang a hypothesis or a theory? I would think we'd need quite a bit in the form of equations and thinking behind them that yield falsifiable predictions, but I'm not sure that those exist in the level of detail that we'd normally require. The less amenable a scientific field is to experimentation, the more we can expect this sort of looseness from. In Big Bang theory we mostly make predictions that can't be subject to experiments, only to measurements of reality (e.g., the uniformity of the CMB, the distribution of visible matter, etc.).

PittleyDunkin 2 days ago | root | parent | prev |

If we're going to entirely discard the substance of the article on lieu of nitpicking words, you probably shouldn't throw around "scientific" like that unqualified. Which science? It's a polysemous word. Even referring to the scientific methodology of empirical testing is insufficient because such distinctions between the terms involved aren't necessary for such methodologies. "Theories" and "hypotheses" arise from social institutions regulating consensus of empirical testing, and these same institutions regularly struggle with communication surrounding methodology and reproduction of consensus-held results.

My point is not to discard the term "science" as loosely referring to much of the above, of course, but to point out that semantic ambiguity is inherent in language and should never occlude good-faith interpretation; certainly not when the semantics are so unambiguously communicated as they are here. The distinction between "theory" and "hypothesis" and indeed "supposition" is irrelevant in the context presented in the article.

equestria 2 days ago | root | parent | prev |

There are definite proofs in mathematics. In natural sciences, I think you're sort of restating what I said: there are various levels of confidence based on experimental data. Because it's not binary, the hypothesis / theory language doesn't convey a particularly useful distinction.

It's not a sign of a lack of sophistication or knowledge to use simpler language if the point you're making is still clear.

cogman10 2 days ago | root | parent | next |

> Because it's not binary, the hypothesis / theory language doesn't convey a particularly useful distinction.

I don't think we agree here. The distinction between a theory and a hypothesis is fairly binary. Theories have supporting evidence; hypothesis either have no evidence or so little evidence that they need further investigation.

But I would agree that the general understanding of the words is such that no useful distinction is made by using one or the other. I bristle a little at it, though, because the word "theory" is often used by scientific critics because they conflate "theory" with "guess". In fact, for general communication I would rather an article like above use "guess" instead of "theorized" as it's both simpler language and it doesn't trigger this sort of conversation.

cryptonector 2 days ago | root | parent | prev |

> There are definite proofs in mathematics.

We prove theorems, which until proved are referred to as conjectures. But even in mathematics we don't prove theories. E.g., group theory. This is because a) the definition of mathematics theory is not quite the same as scientific theory since mathematics theories are axiomatic, and b) because it's entirely possible that some mathematics theory (e.g., group theory) could eventually be shown to be inconsistent (which is essentially how you disprove a theory in mathematics).

arcbyte 3 days ago | root | parent | prev | next |

We use words because they have meaning and we communicate ideas through them because we've built a shared understanding of that meaning.

If we abondon meaning, we're abandoning reason.

It's worth the fight.

pseudolus 3 days ago | prev | next |

They certainly are more industrious than I would have thought. Per the original paper "Findings from a fundamental study recounted by Logan (2007) showed that a single gopher can move 227 kg of soil per month, with gopher populations translocating 38,000 kg of soil per acre per year." [0]

[0] https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/microbiomes/articles/10...

krisoft 3 days ago | prev | next |

"scientists dropped a few local gophers on two pumice plots for a day"

I bet to this day no other gophers believe the story those gophers tell at the pub. :)

nf3 2 days ago | prev | next |

Earth worms provide a similar service in mixing clay and organic material to create clay-humus aggregate.

In oceans, whales also mix different layers of sea water with their vertical movements.

BurningFrog 2 days ago | root | parent | prev |

I think the whale population is still at least 90% below pre whaling levels.

So the sea water layers are probably less mixed than natural. No idea what effects that might have.

mhb 3 days ago | prev | next |

How did they catch the gophers after a day?

glitcher 3 days ago | root | parent |

I had the same question. The linked paper says they used gopher enclosures:

> In 1982, an individual pocket gopher (Thomomys talpoides [Richardson]) from a nearby clearcut was placed in a 1m2 enclosure around a single L. lepidus individual for 24 hours

Cthulhu_ 3 days ago | prev | next |

Call me a cynic but this seems like a weird story. How did they catch the gophers again? Did they do a comparable test by turning over some soil with a spade?

If this is true though, I also find it weird that the gophers dug deeper than the leftover plants / ecosystem buried beneath the surface could do themselves; seeds want to go up, after all, breaking up the soil as they emerge. Of course, the ash may have been too dense, idk.

sailfast 3 days ago | root | parent |

There’s a containment fence in the photo.

happyopossum 3 days ago | root | parent |

Gophers don’t give a flying fig about fences. Seriously, as someone who struggles with gophers all the time, I really want to know how they controlled them!

leptons 3 days ago | root | parent | prev |

I had a gopher in my little back yard recently. I feel your pain. The fucker killed several nice bushes we had and tore up our lawn pretty badly. I tried flooding his tunnels, but the fucker had a plan for that. I injured myself trying to get him with a sharp stick. Gopher 2, me 0. Then we brought in a pro who set a trap in one of the tunnels. That gopher is gone, but the tunnels remain, and after a few months getting my landscaping back together, a new gopher has moved in. God I hate those little assholes especially when they pop their heads out of the ground. They are just so smug about it.

cratermoon 3 days ago | root | parent | next |

I saw a movie about a gopher infestation at a golf course. Nothing the greenskeepers did could dislodge them.

leptons 2 days ago | root | parent |

Once I had the gopher, I watched that movie again to learn from it. I had been contemplating using all kinds of weapons and devices, and the movie convinced me to hire a professional.

SoftTalker 2 days ago | root | parent | prev |

Get a shotgun, load it with birdshot, sit quietly on your back porch, when he pops out of the ground, take him out.

leptons 2 days ago | root | parent |

Guns were discussed, but that fucker is just so quick. I had a long pole with a sharp end, and I positioned it at the very edge of his hole, and I waited patiently, quietly. Sure enough he popped his head up and I shoved the stick as fast as possible. It was just a centimeter from his face and he still managed to dodge it. I ended up with a cut on my hand from the end of the pole. A shotgun probably wouldn't be a great idea in my back yard, no doubt someone would call the cops.

octernion 3 days ago | prev | next |

> "An unhappy gopher and plant near the gopher enclosure fence"

i do like it when they take slight liberties with their captions. fantastic

James_K 3 days ago | prev | next |

Is it just me or is this title designed to make you think gophers somehow caused a volcano to erupt?

II2II 3 days ago | root | parent | next |

One's relationship with the topic probably has a lot to do with how the title is interpreted. I grew up not-too-far from Mount St. Helens and was of school age not-too-long after the eruption, so it had an indirect impact upon my life. I immediately understood what they were getting at. Likewise, the people who did the research and the people who wrote the article had a closer relationship to the topic, so they title made sense. To someone who was more distant, in time or space, I can see how the title may be misleading now that it has been pointed out.

So no, I don't think the title was designed in such a way.

James_K 2 days ago | root | parent |

Counterpoint: the article is aimed at people who know nothing about the topic, the first image in the article (the one you'll see if you post a link to it) is of Mount St. Helens erupting, and it drives engagement. I was definitely much more likely to click on the article when I thought it was about gophers blowing up volcanoes. The title also explicitly mentions it happened in "one day" which isn't long enough for re-wilding but is the right time frame for an eruption.

II2II 2 days ago | root | parent |

I have no doubt the title (and first image) were selected to drive engagement, I simply have serious doubts that it was intended to drive engagement from that angle. To add some context, the eruption of Mount St. Helens was viewed as a fairly significant ecological disaster in the 1980's (and, for once, one that wasn't caused by humans). There were a lot of photos of the devastation, and people were wondering how long it would take to recover. In all probability, the title was written from that perspective. Which is engaging, at least to those who lived near the time of the event or who are interested in how ecosystems recover.

As for gophers causing it to erupt, that type of connotation implies a very different type of publication.

James_K 2 days ago | root | parent |

I suppose it could be an accident that the headline has the connotation, but I tend to think it unwise to give people the benefit of the doubt if the "accident" in question is also beneficial to them.