Interesting discussion.
I
would submit that
Thales is applicable to ecology (and to most any other other science)
Ditto with "384-322 BCE = "observation of physical phenomena could lead to
natural
laws governing them."
May I add LeChatelier's Principle in a broad sense - 'A system under stress
seeks to eliminate the stress' (OK one may need to define stress in applying
this to systems other than physical chemistry).
Some other 'foundations' of ecology relate to systems science - and dealing
with inexorably changing systems (entropy anyone?). Yes change is inevitable
in ecology and is a constant (that is the 'change). That is a tenent, as is
adaptaion.
Energy and mass transfer in ecosystems - trophic levels. Recycling of
materials.
All of those appear to me as 'fundamentals' that govern ecological thinking.
The list could go on like this with ecology depending at times on other
sciences for some of its fundamental principles . yet that is no differnet
from numerous other sciences.
The F=ma may be absent but 'competitive exclusion', the rule that about the
occupation of niches as well as other fundamentals are as well established as
E=mc**2
Esat Atikkan
--- On Sun, 11/7/10, malcolm McCallum <malcolm.mccal...@herpconbio.org> wrote:
From: malcolm McCallum <malcolm.mccal...@herpconbio.org>
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] ECOLOGY Fundamentals Principles Laws Other
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Date: Sunday, November 7, 2010, 12:32 AM
The problem with laws in ecology is that we really have not had
sufficient time to develop the mathematical laws present in Physics.
Ecology is a new science and it studies essentially one phenomenon in
the long run (evolution), albeit in many many different contexts. I
believe that physics in particular had much of its beginning founded
in mathematical law.
Physics began with the unification of several fields including
astronomy, optics, and mechanics through the study of geometry. Many
of these principles go as far back (for the Western World) as ancient
Babylonia and Greece.
Conversely, ecology is generally accepted as a new science appearing
only in the second half of the 20th century! Of course, there are
some basic ideas central to ecology that go all the way back to the
Greeks, but I think most are rudimentary foreshadows of modern
thought. Lets face it, we didn't even realize some very basic
taxonomic ideas!!!
It might just be too early in the life of Ecology as a science and our
mathematical skills to simple to adequately boil any ecological
principle into a single 1" equation. Further, as Silvert eloquently
mentioned, such a generalized model would very likely be thought of
very negatively by ecologists.
Look at this history:
700-600 BCE = Thales (Father of Science) proclaims every event has a
natural cause exclusive of supernatural explanations.
650-480 BCE = our understanding of nature was pretty raw. Physics was
descriptive. This was 200 years.
500 BCE = Leucippus developed the idea that all things are composed of
atoms (atomism).
384-322 BCE = "observation of physical phenomena could lead to natural
laws governing them.
331-230 BCE = Aristarchus presents a heliocentric model of the solar
system. Seleucus suggests earth rotates on its axis, and then revolves
around the sun.
276-194 BCE = Eratosthenes estimates the circumference of the Earth
(as a sphere).
250 BCE Archimedes develops the law of buoyancy (Archimedes principle).
1700 AD = Galileo did mechanical experiments, previously this was not
accepted as valid for investigating nature. First to propose
mathematically describing motion.
1800 AD = laws of thermodynamics, Newton's 3 laws of motion, law of gravity,
With it taking well over 3,000 years to develop but a handful of laws
in Physics, all of which describe fairly simple phenomena, it is
unfathomable to believe that suddenly Ecologists will develop
mathematical laws for this comparatively infantile science. In fact,
the theory of evolution can be thought of as being in a very similar
developmental stage to the study of motion in the 1700s when Galileo
suggested it could be described mathematically....it was a good
century before Newton did it.
At this rate, maybe sometime in the early to mid 21st century one of
us will develop a law of evolution which mathematically expresses the
concept. Any volunteers?
Malcolm
On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 9:28 AM, David L. McNeely <mcnee...@cox.net> wrote:
> 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 <landr...@cox.net> 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" <mme...@gmail.com>
>> To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>
>> 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 <cien...@silvert.org>
>> >
>> >> "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: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
>> >> 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
>
--
Malcolm L. McCallum
Managing Editor,
Herpetological Conservation and Biology
"Peer pressure is designed to contain anyone with a sense of drive" -
Allan Nation
1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea" W.S. Gilbert
1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss,
and pollution.
2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction
MAY help restore populations.
2022: Soylent Green is People!
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any
attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may
contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized
review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not
the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and
destroy all copies of the original message.
