Boris Zeide writes... <WAKE UP, FORESTRY FOLKS! ... Why don't we use this miracle, e-mail, more productively and imaginatively?> It bears repeating, and I concur wholeheartedly! Concerning the except on "THE PIPE MODEL THEORY" by Semevski and Zeide... [Note-- some non-Internet subscribers to this list do not have access to FTP; which is why I was unable to retreive the full text of the paper. Apologies for any resulting misinterpretation.] How can one possibly separate the functions of SUPPORT and CONDUCTION when describing stem diameter relationships? "Pipes run inside the Empire State Building, but it is likely that its form was determined by considerations other than pipe size." But unlike the Empire State Building, trees stems are not designed to provide office space. I suspect they are designed to display photosynthetic tissue to the sun, and to conduct stuff back and forth between the soil and the photosynthetic tissue. Without the conduction there would be no reason for the support, and vice-versa. The relationship between stem diameter and foliage mass is surely more than "spurious" and I cannot accept that it is "misguided." Like ALL models, the pipe model is "wrong" but surely it is one our most useful! What is this "'pluralism' of falsity and truth" that is insulting and must not be tolerated? Can science really provide falsity or truth? Don't we just search imperfectly for either through iterative experimentation and approximation, in a quest that will never be fulfilled? I am skeptical whenever I hear claims of "Truth," whether in science or politics! --Wade Harrison--
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0