Re: [ECOLOG-L] ECOLOGY Fundamentals Principles Laws Other
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 wrote: From: malcolm McCallum 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 mathematicallyit 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 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 se
Re: [ECOLOG-L] ECOLOGY Fundamentals Principles Laws Other
malcolm McCallum wrote: > Regardless if you want to put it at 1930, 1830, or even 1730, the time > frame for the study of physics as a science is way way longer. As for > remembering it properly, whether or not these studies constitute > modern ecology or natural history is subject to conjecture. I > actually agree with you that they are ecology, but many ecologists > would not. This is why most consider the thrust of ecology to have > begun in the mid 20th century. Malcolm, most do not consider "the thrust of ecology to have begun in the mid 20th century." I don't know how you reached that conclusion. Poll the list, but if you do, be sure to ask age and level of training. Anyone who thinks that Volterra, Clements, Forbes, Cowles, Shelford et al were not ecologists, well I'm sorry, but they're wrong. Though it falls short of the entirety of our science's development, I highly recommend to you an edited compilation (Real, Leslie A. and James H. Brown, eds., 1991. Foundations of ecology, classic papers with commentaries. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London). Ecology is a new science, but it wasn't born in the mid-20th century. It was experimental and modeled well before then, if those are the requisites for being born as a science (they're not). DMc > > On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 6:35 AM, wrote: > > I'll grant you that ecology is a new science, but not that it began only in > > the second half of the twentieth century. Ernst Haeckel mistook the > > rootstock of modern biology, natural history, for one of its branches and > > gave it the term ecology in 1869. He gave this "new" science essentially > > its current definition. A good deal of what we call ecology was being > > practiced by then. Many consider Charles Darwin to be the "Father of > > Ecology." Certainly, his treatise on earthworms and soil formation was > > ecology. He initiated what many still consider to be the only actual > > "theory" in ecology. By the early 20th century there were intense > > interdisciplinary arguments over the scope of ecology, and the Ecological > > Society of America was founded in 1915. Elton authored textbooks with > > "Ecology" in the title by 1930. Cowles work on Indiana dunes was published > > in the late 19th century. > > > > Surely our history is important enough for us to remember it properly. > > > > David McNeely > > > > malcolm McCallum wrote: > > > >> Conversely, ecology is generally accepted as a new science appearing > >> only in the second half of the 20th century! > > > > > > -- > 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. -- David McNeely
Re: [ECOLOG-L] ECOLOGY Fundamentals Principles Laws Other
Before diving into any of this, I'd just like to say I agree with Mr.
McNeely said:
'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.'
I teach high school science and each year go through the same laborious
dance with these words as vocab categories, and get to spend relatively
little precious time not actually applying them as concepts that assist with
the actual doing of science.
It IS a very interesting intellectual enterprise to ponder this jargon, but
when will it ever be used? Edward Wilson's book *Consilience* is just this
sort of vacuum-chamber frivolity. An entertaining and thought provoking
read, but is it useful? Well, maybe one thing was (besides his treatment of
the 'science' of 20th century economics): I recall him taking a
reductionist view of most learning, but Wilson seemed to place the ability
to use a certain fact of interdisciplinary knowledge on a scale from
reduction to synthesis. Isn't this what makes ecology so fun, and
ecologists so dreamy? Thermodynamics, water chemistry, geology and
evolution, succession, climate patterns and human use (to name a few
ecological satellites)--if there is any enterprise that evenly straddles the
need for reduction and synthesis, isn't it ecology? Well maybe economics
too, but that's not surprising.
The article to which this post originally referred played around with how
ecological principles could be laws and why they could be important.
Perhaps an ecological TOE will emerge one day, but it seems like any
equation ("law"?) that an ecologist might use today is "just" a starting
point, with "everything else being equal" as the entry way to the inherent
idiosyncrasies of a particular habitat.
Here's a law for us to consider that isn't too far removed from a definition
(though let's not get started on definitions for ecology): ecology deals
with only living things (though as soon as I say that, I wonder, can we
imagine an "ecology" of pre-biotic molecules? should the law then
automatically include "the evolution of--" as well?) Anyway, maybe one way
to think about what ecological laws would really look like is to hypothesize
what life would look like and evolve like on another planet? I know we have
remote islands and undersea vents on our own planet, but what would life
need to evolve, anywhere? And what would these emergent living systems
necessarily have in common with our Earth or any other hypothetical living
world?
Best,
Jimmy Green
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 10:35 AM, Bill Silvert wrote:
> Wow, to be a law or principle it has to be perfect? I have a PhD in Physics
> and thought that we had lots of laws, but they seldom pass that test. For
> hundreds of years we talked about and taught Newton's Laws of Motion, but
> then Einstein came along with examples of cases where they FAIL. As for
> propping up, where do hypothetical particles like neutrinos and quarks come
> from?
>
> Do we really want ecology to be a much more rigid and philosophically pure
> science than physics, astronomy and the rest? Or can we just focus on trying
> to figure out how nature works?
>
>
> Bill Silvert
>
>
> -Original Message- From: Wayne Tyson
> Sent: Sunday, November 07, 2010 1:55 AM
>
> To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] ECOLOGY Fundamentals Principles Laws Other
>
> 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.)
>
Re: [ECOLOG-L] ECOLOGY Fundamentals Principles Laws Other
Wow, to be a law or principle it has to be perfect? I have a PhD in Physics and thought that we had lots of laws, but they seldom pass that test. For hundreds of years we talked about and taught Newton's Laws of Motion, but then Einstein came along with examples of cases where they FAIL. As for propping up, where do hypothetical particles like neutrinos and quarks come from? Do we really want ecology to be a much more rigid and philosophically pure science than physics, astronomy and the rest? Or can we just focus on trying to figure out how nature works? Bill Silvert -Original Message- From: Wayne Tyson Sent: Sunday, November 07, 2010 1:55 AM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] ECOLOGY Fundamentals Principles Laws Other 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.)
Re: [ECOLOG-L] ECOLOGY Fundamentals Principles Laws Other
ical 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 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"
>> To:
>> 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
>> >
>> >> "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
>> >> T
Re: [ECOLOG-L] ECOLOGY Fundamentals Principles Laws Other
I'll grant you that ecology is a new science, but not that it began only in the second half of the twentieth century. Ernst Haeckel mistook the rootstock of modern biology, natural history, for one of its branches and gave it the term ecology in 1869. He gave this "new" science essentially its current definition. A good deal of what we call ecology was being practiced by then. Many consider Charles Darwin to be the "Father of Ecology." Certainly, his treatise on earthworms and soil formation was ecology. He initiated what many still consider to be the only actual "theory" in ecology. By the early 20th century there were intense interdisciplinary arguments over the scope of ecology, and the Ecological Society of America was founded in 1915. Elton authored textbooks with "Ecology" in the title by 1930. Cowles work on Indiana dunes was published in the late 19th century. Surely our history is important enough for us to remember it properly. David McNeely malcolm McCallum wrote: > Conversely, ecology is generally accepted as a new science appearing > only in the second half of the 20th century!
Re: [ECOLOG-L] ECOLOGY Fundamentals Principles Laws Other
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" To: 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 h
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 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"
> To:
> 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 par
Re: [ECOLOG-L] ECOLOGY Fundamentals Principles Laws Other
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"
To:
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
"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
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 > "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 >
Re: [ECOLOG-L] ECOLOGY Fundamentals Principles Laws Other
"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
[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
