David McNeely and Ecolog: My original question was about whether or not the discipline of ecology (I meant in the broadest sense) recognizes or should try to recognize, some observations about how "things" function or work that amount to laws or statements (hypotheses), when applied NEVER FAIL to prove valid--pass the test for a law or a principle. (And, I might add, one [or more?] that needs no propping up with qualifiers. (This, I will confess, is one issue I have with the referenced paper, but the author might be right and I might be wrong.)
I share the uneasiness with philosophy, but do not wish to exclude any observations just because of its source. While I respect physicists, I do not necessarily believe that ecologists must have the respect of physicists in order to prove statements or principles or laws of ecology or otherwise "pass muster" under any authority--except, in the terms of the question, as stated above, "always work." (Yes, do drop the physics envy.) I am not at all sure that laws or principles of ecology necessarily need to be "reduced" to a mathematical equation. If some statement, in whatever form, consistently demonstrates predictive value, I don't care whether it is reduced to numbers or not. I think the standard is invariability, but quantifiable and observable? Perhaps neither of the latter. I suspect, but have not yet proven, that some kind of metamathematics may yet be found to express ecological phenomena, but doubt (again without proof, but I submit it to question nonetheless) that some "mathematical" concept not yet invented may prove necessary to set a law of ecology in the kind of concrete in which some physical laws are imbedded. I do suspect that ecological processes are driven by the known physical laws, but that defines the limitations of known assemblages of those laws alone under the withering fire of ecological/biological phenomena. "We" have, after all, not yet created life, but we accept that it exists. We don't know how it "got started," whether it is a phenomenon limited to (and originating on?) our little planet or whether it is an elemental form in/of universe (whatever that is, infinite or "bounded"). Of course, this is my PRESENT bias, and I look forward to being corrected on the merits of the issue. I find it particularly difficult to conceive that there is no law (are no laws?) "governing" how ecosystems work. Only conceiving that there is/are no such law(s) is more difficult. For this reason, it seems to me that ecology is more complex that physics, even though I have little doubt that the laws of physics do "work" within ecological phenomena (or the ecological phenomenon). My question did not insist that a law be "made," it only asked for suggestions about how ecological principles and/or laws (what IS the difference?) might be stated. I don't think ecology can dine on exceptions forever, and don't think it needs to, but so far, it seems to me that "models" remain fragments and observation has been largely discarded as irrelevant (largely because so many ecologists believe that if they don't reduce the phenomenon of how life works on a large as well as a small scale they will be thought of as "unscientific"). Yes, yes, YES, it is irrefutable (or is it?) that "ecology works the same [fundamental] way all over the planet!" What IS at the root of that phenomenon, that LAW, as it were, that is staring us in the face, yet cannot (dare not) name? It works, but HOW does it work? What concept should replace the concept of principle or "law?" WT ----- Original Message ----- From: "David L. McNeely" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2010 6:28 AM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] ECOLOGY Fundamentals Principles Laws Other > I'm not trying to be contrary or to oppose the search for understanding of > our scientific philosophy. In fact, the opposite. > > Aren't we trying to make "law" out of phenomena that don't fit the concept? > The original question asked about not only invariable, but observable, > quantifiable, and able to be reduced to an equation (perhaps in a predictive > way, like Newton's laws, thermodynamics, and so on). > > At this point, we only have them in a general sense in Ecology. Eltonian > trophics may be the closest we have. It fails on the invariability part. > Not that Eltonian trophics fails on the invariability part in the general > sense, but that its details are so dependent on the organismic makeup and > local conditions of a system that there is no constant that can be applied to > get a caloric or carbon pyramid that is identical from system to system. But > I'll submit Eltonian trophics as what we have, and we can play physical > scientist all we want with that one. And perhaps that is a part of the > point. We want the respect of physicists and chemists. > > We deserve that respect, but we don't have to mimic them by erecting "laws," > when what we are trying to do is understand how stuff works, and not all > models are applicable to all aspects of science. It is telling that > sometimes scientific "laws" are called "physical laws." Yes, ecology works > the same way all over the planet. We have discovered a good deal of the > workings. Being able to state mathematical relationships that apply in every > case requires knowledge that we don't have in most areas of the science. But > hey, the "laws' that the physical scientists have come up with are ours, too. > If we are looking at nutrient flow in a stream, why phosphorous must obey > all the relevant chemical and physical behaviors that are known. We don't > have to discover new "laws," we just have to apply the ones we have and treat > the various phosphorous compartments as they would be treated by any chemist. > > If the study of evolution is a part of ecology, rather than an adjunct to it, > then Hardy-Weinburg is also a fit, perhaps the best fit we have to the > physical science model that is called a "law." > > Let's all drop the physics envy, and get on with being ecologists (which > requires, to be done well, proper knowledge of and application of physical > principles or laws, just as physics to be done well requires that). > > Personally, I think the use of terms like "law" and "theory" as applied in > elementary science courses (precollege) has confused the public so much about > how science works and is done, that I wish the terms would go away completely. > > David McNeely > > ---- Wayne Tyson <[email protected]> wrote: >> Martin and Ecolog: >> >> I have often suggested this ("everything changes") as a law too (but not >> necessarily or primarily restricted to "over time"), but in perhaps less >> polite terms (I call it the "s__t happens" law). It may difficult to get >> either version widely accepted, but I think you are quite right that we >> suggest "the obvious," especially when it appears that it is truly being >> ignored. >> >> I tend to agree with the rest of your suggestions too, except I would like >> to hear a bit more elaboration on the "tropic efficiency" one. And while I >> do not disagree with "species evolve over time" I have a little (or a lot) >> of trouble with it if it means that time is the primary driver of species >> evolution. >> >> WT >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Martin Meiss" <[email protected]> >> To: <[email protected]> >> Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2010 9:18 AM >> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] ECOLOGY Fundamentals Principles Laws Other >> >> >> > Here are some ecological "laws" to consider: >> > >> > The main one is "Everything changes over time." This can probably be >> > derived from thermodynamic principles: entropy, and all that. >> > >> > Here are some corollaries of this law: >> > The physical environment changes over time. >> > Species diversity changes over time. >> > Gene frequencies change over time. >> > Species evolve over time. >> > >> > Maybe we can even assign direction to some changing factors: >> > Trophic efficiency INCREASES over time. >> > Resource availability DECREASES over time. >> > The total number of species that has ever existed INCREASES over time. >> > >> > Maybe some of our common observations could be formulated as laws: >> > The tropics have higher species diversity then polar regions. >> > Island populations reflect the populations of nearby continents. >> > There will always be diseases. >> > There will always be parasites. >> > There will always be predators and prey. >> > There will always be primary producers. >> > >> > Is this what you were getting at? >> > >> > Martin M. Meiss >> > >> > 2010/11/4 Bill Silvert <[email protected]> >> > >> >> "discipline" ? Ecology suffers from too much concern with philosophy and >> >> not enough science. >> >> >> >> Consider Gauss' Competitive Exclusion Principle. It is very useful, >> >> provides a guide to identifying the niche of an organism, but it has been >> >> identified as tautological by the late Rob Peters so we aren't supposed >> >> to >> >> use it. >> >> >> >> Lawrence Slobodkin used to complain about theorists invoking principles >> >> like conservation of energy as if that were optional for living >> >> creatures. >> >> Basically the answer to Wayne's question is that if ecologists come up >> >> with >> >> something useful that might serve as a law or principle, then it would be >> >> drowned out by claims that it was not rigorous enough. We worry too much >> >> about being "scientific" and not enough about learning how things work. >> >> >> >> Bill Silvert >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- From: Wayne Tyson >> >> Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2010 2:39 AM >> >> To: [email protected] >> >> Subject: [ECOLOG-L] ECOLOGY Fundamentals Principles Laws Other >> >> >> >> >> >> Ecolog: >> >> >> >> In recent years the debate about Laws of Ecology has been re-heated.* If >> >> the study of the interactions of living organisms with environments is to >> >> have discipline, it seems to me that it should have produced some >> >> observations about how things work or function that, when applied, never >> >> fail to prove valid. Can such observations, rendered as statements or >> >> equations, be termed "laws" or "principles," or? >> >> >> >> WT >> >> >> >> *For example, see >> >> http://philosophy.unc.edu/people/faculty/marc-lange/Oikosfile.pdf >> >> >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> Version: 8.5.449 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3237 - Release Date: 11/04/10 >> 08:42:00 > > -- > David McNeely -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.449 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3241 - Release Date: 11/06/10 19:34:00
