If the "simplest" ecological phenomena will not "yield" to modeling, should
ecologists yield to some form and/or level of uncertainty?
Are there any guilded rat's nests out there?
WT
----- Original Message -----
From: "joseph gathman" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 1:12 PM
Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Subject: Ecology Certainty Uncertainty
Illusion/Delusion, was Re: Ecological Modelling
That means, I suspect, that ecology is, in the view of literal believers,
> "doomed" to be "applied."
I don't know about that, but I DO think that what may well be doomed is
our ability to accurately model complex systems. In my own limited
attempt at modelling, I tried to model a simple predator-prey system, but
it quickly led me into a rat's nest of uncertainties. It would have taken
years to collect reliable data from field samples and experiments in order
to make the model realistic. And that was with an artificially simplified
model system. I can't imagine what it would have taken to build a "real"
model.
Even the climate modellers acknowledge that over the last decade, all
they've managed to do is confirm what their models CAN'T do (and likely
never will). Somebody should tell the IPCC that bit about models not
being predictive tools.
Joe
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.12/1910 - Release Date: 1/22/2009
6:28 PM
