---- Matt Chew <[email protected]> wrote: > Wayne, et al- > > It is simple to ask what ecology is (and isn't) but that doesn't make it > easy to answer. By definition and tradition it's a pretty broad concept. If > you have access, look at the OED entry. If we're trying to pin down what > ecology SHOULD be, well, good luck with that. For example, if we exclude > prescriptive philosophical approaches, we'd have to lose conservation and > restoration (along with a slew of inspirational authors including such as > Aldo Leopold and Ed Wilson).
Matt, most of us accept the definitions provided by standard textbooks, such as "the science that investigates biotic interactions with environment." You are correct that that is very broad. However, to my mind, that does not exclude such approaches as you mentioned. Conservation and restoration are only effectively practiced when one applies principles gleaned from scientific investigation, and conservationists and restorationists themselves investigate scientifically in order to know how to conserve and restore. Sure, a good many practitioners of such arts simply apply prescriptions from others, akin to physicians applying the products of science to their practice. But the connection certainly is sufficiently direct to allow lots of folks who work to keep and heal nature to be called ecologists just as those who work scientifically to understand it are. mcneely > > Matthew K Chew > Assistant Research Professor > Arizona State University School of Life Sciences > > ASU Center for Biology & Society > PO Box 873301 > Tempe, AZ 85287-3301 USA > Tel 480.965.8422 > Fax 480.965.8330 > [email protected] or [email protected] > http://cbs.asu.edu/people/profiles/chew.php > http://asu.academia.edu/MattChew -- David McNeely
