Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology What is it?
Ecolog and Liane: Liane's definition is good enough for me, but I do confess, with respect to similar definitions, that I prefer interactions to relationships even while not selling relationships short. That is, I like both terms, even as I am at pains to define them. I have no real quarrel with any of the variations on this theme, even as I remain open to some new one(s). I, for one, as a result of observing and yearning to understand rather than to merely know, continually struggle with feeble attempts to decipher what happens and to reconcile it with what is writ. So much of Nature seems beyond language, especially one stuck with particular/limited definitions. It's all too much, really, and that's exactly what draws me in. The reason I like interactions is that it seems to connote to me, however imperfectly, both positive and negative impacts. (I should add that I even have some trouble with the positive/negative dichotomy too.) Peace, relationships can also so connote. Both can embrace ups and downs. Ecologists do speak of perturbations. (I would say hysteresis, but I don't want to induce any hysteria.) Environmentalism, however the media might stray from the ecological straight and narrow, is the result of visible or felt feedback loops initiated by system perturbations, radically-fluctuating boom and bust deviations from established modulations that characterize resilience and adaptation to the slings and arrows of outrageous cultural indifference to its own support system. I simply do not know which is on the real fool's errand, the ever-confused observer or the ever-obsessed calculator. I suspect that they really do need each other. Dare no true scientist spare space for literature? Need the fact that fools have trod in the tracks where wise men have worn ruts deter us from assessing each bit of writ on its merit or deficit? WT In the heart of the city I have heard the wild geese crying on the pathways that lie over a vanished forest. Nature has not changed the force that drives them. Man, too, is a different expression of that natural force. He has fought his way from the sea's depth to Palomar Mountain. He has mastered the plague. Now, in some final Armageddon, he confronts himself. --Loren Eiseley, The Invisible Pyramid. - Original Message - From: Cochran-Stafira, D. Liane coch...@sxu.edu To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2011 2:39 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology What is it? I'll answer the question in one short easy to understand definition. To quote ESA: Annual Meeting, August 2000 Ecology is: The scientific discipline that is concerned with the relationships between organisms and their past, present and future environments, both living and non-living. This is the definition I teach in my classes. Ecology is to environmentalism or environmental science as Physics is to engineering. One is the science, the other is an application that makes use of the theory established by the science. Liane D. Liane Cochran-Stafira, Ph.D. Associate Professor Department of Biological Sciences Saint Xavier University 3700 West 103rd Street Chicago, Illinois 60655 phone: 773-298-3514 fax:773-298-3536 email: coch...@sxu.edu http://faculty.sxu.edu/~cochran/ http://faculty.sxu.edu/~cochran/ From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of Matt Chew Sent: Mon 11/14/2011 4:41 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology What is it? As of the latest digest I received, this thread had attracted input from fewer than 0.1% of the list's 12K recipients. Perhaps there are 12K reasons for remaining unengaged but I suspect they are all variations or combinations of a few basic themes. Rather than debate plausible rationalizations, I challenge you all to consider Wayne's question carefully. Sociologists who study the formation and dynamics of scientific disciplines use the concept of boundary work to describe the process of deciding what ideas (and those who adhere to them) are inside (therefore also outside') of the group. So, what's in and what's out of ecology? Academic ecologists and biogeographers have a long tradition of border skirmishing. But beyond that ecology seems to have been accreting adherents, methods and ideas at quite clip for the last 40 years or so. As an -ology, is ecology limited to studying something? Strictly speaking, yes; but we do not speak strictly. Is ecology a thing to be studied? We speak of the ecology of a place, of a geographical feature, of a species, of a population, of an assemblage, of a community (whatever that is) of an ecosystem (whatever that is) or of a landscape (etc.). Is ecology a method, a philosophy, an ethical stance, a moral commitment, a religious belief? Are you an ecologist? What makes you one? Recycling stuff? Organic gardening? Watching
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology What is it?
Interaction and relationship are two of my favorite terms to think about (in relation to plants or animals, including humans). I use interaction when I do not intend to imply anything about *differential (condition-dependent, state-dependent) fitness optima* (for organisms or populations). I use relationship when i do want to imply differential, condition-dependent fitness optima. Thus, one might use relationship when speaking of predator-prey or other co-evolved associations (parasite-host. Interaction might be applied to any chance or random or ephemeral event (aggregations, events resulting from deforestation, tornados, wind-pollination) or events within/between species that are byproducts of relationships or other interactions. One might say that all relationships are interactions but all interactions are not relationships. Any spatiotemporal event, of course, has some probability of survival cost or reproductive benefit for an individual (as per McCleery in Krebs Davies 1978). Using the descriptor differential fitness optima is advantageous because it can be expressed theoretically/quantitatively/mathematically, at least in principle. I try to avoid using relationship because, in my specialization, social evolution, a number of researchers think of the term anthropomorphically/intentionally. On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 1:46 AM, Wayne Tyson landr...@cox.net wrote: Ecolog and Liane: Liane's definition is good enough for me, but I do confess, with respect to similar definitions, that I prefer interactions to relationships even while not selling relationships short. That is, I like both terms, even as I am at pains to define them. I have no real quarrel with any of the variations on this theme, even as I remain open to some new one(s). I, for one, as a result of observing and yearning to understand rather than to merely know, continually struggle with feeble attempts to decipher what happens and to reconcile it with what is writ. So much of Nature seems beyond language, especially one stuck with particular/limited definitions. It's all too much, really, and that's exactly what draws me in. The reason I like interactions is that it seems to connote to me, however imperfectly, both positive and negative impacts. (I should add that I even have some trouble with the positive/negative dichotomy too.) Peace, relationships can also so connote. Both can embrace ups and downs. Ecologists do speak of perturbations. (I would say hysteresis, but I don't want to induce any hysteria.) Environmentalism, however the media might stray from the ecological straight and narrow, is the result of visible or felt feedback loops initiated by system perturbations, radically-fluctuating boom and bust deviations from established modulations that characterize resilience and adaptation to the slings and arrows of outrageous cultural indifference to its own support system. I simply do not know which is on the real fool's errand, the ever-confused observer or the ever-obsessed calculator. I suspect that they really do need each other. Dare no true scientist spare space for literature? Need the fact that fools have trod in the tracks where wise men have worn ruts deter us from assessing each bit of writ on its merit or deficit? WT In the heart of the city I have heard the wild geese crying on the pathways that lie over a vanished forest. Nature has not changed the force that drives them. Man, too, is a different expression of that natural force. He has fought his way from the sea's depth to Palomar Mountain. He has mastered the plague. Now, in some final Armageddon, he confronts himself. --Loren Eiseley, The Invisible Pyramid. - Original Message - From: Cochran-Stafira, D. Liane coch...@sxu.edu To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2011 2:39 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology What is it? I'll answer the question in one short easy to understand definition. To quote ESA: Annual Meeting, August 2000 Ecology is: The scientific discipline that is concerned with the relationships between organisms and their past, present and future environments, both living and non-living. This is the definition I teach in my classes. Ecology is to environmentalism or environmental science as Physics is to engineering. One is the science, the other is an application that makes use of the theory established by the science. Liane ** D. Liane Cochran-Stafira, Ph.D. Associate Professor Department of Biological Sciences Saint Xavier University 3700 West 103rd Street Chicago, Illinois 60655 phone: 773-298-3514 fax:773-298-3536 email: coch...@sxu.edu http://faculty.sxu.edu/~**cochran/ http://faculty.sxu.edu/~cochran/ http://faculty.sxu.edu/~**cochran/ http://faculty.sxu.edu/~cochran/ __**__ From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of Matt Chew
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology What is it?
not know which is on the real fool's errand, the ever-confused observer or the ever-obsessed calculator. I suspect that they really do need each other. Dare no true scientist spare space for literature? Need the fact that fools have trod in the tracks where wise men have worn ruts deter us from assessing each bit of writ on its merit or deficit? WT In the heart of the city I have heard the wild geese crying on the pathways that lie over a vanished forest. Nature has not changed the force that drives them. Man, too, is a different expression of that natural force. He has fought his way from the sea's depth to Palomar Mountain. He has mastered the plague. Now, in some final Armageddon, he confronts himself. --Loren Eiseley, The Invisible Pyramid. - Original Message - From: Cochran-Stafira, D. Liane coch...@sxu.edumailto:coch...@sxu.edu To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDUmailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2011 2:39 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology What is it? I'll answer the question in one short easy to understand definition. To quote ESA: Annual Meeting, August 2000 Ecology is: The scientific discipline that is concerned with the relationships between organisms and their past, present and future environments, both living and non-living. This is the definition I teach in my classes. Ecology is to environmentalism or environmental science as Physics is to engineering. One is the science, the other is an application that makes use of the theory established by the science. Liane ** D. Liane Cochran-Stafira, Ph.D. Associate Professor Department of Biological Sciences Saint Xavier University 3700 West 103rd Street Chicago, Illinois 60655 phone: 773-298-3514 fax:773-298-3536 email: coch...@sxu.edumailto:coch...@sxu.edu http://faculty.sxu.edu/~**cochran/ http://faculty.sxu.edu/~cochran/ http://faculty.sxu.edu/~**cochran/ http://faculty.sxu.edu/~cochran/ __**__ From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of Matt Chew Sent: Mon 11/14/2011 4:41 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDUmailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology What is it? As of the latest digest I received, this thread had attracted input from fewer than 0.1% of the list's 12K recipients. Perhaps there are 12K reasons for remaining unengaged but I suspect they are all variations or combinations of a few basic themes. Rather than debate plausible rationalizations, I challenge you all to consider Wayne's question carefully. Sociologists who study the formation and dynamics of scientific disciplines use the concept of boundary work to describe the process of deciding what ideas (and those who adhere to them) are inside (therefore also outside') of the group. So, what's in and what's out of ecology? Academic ecologists and biogeographers have a long tradition of border skirmishing. But beyond that ecology seems to have been accreting adherents, methods and ideas at quite clip for the last 40 years or so. As an -ology, is ecology limited to studying something? Strictly speaking, yes; but we do not speak strictly. Is ecology a thing to be studied? We speak of the ecology of a place, of a geographical feature, of a species, of a population, of an assemblage, of a community (whatever that is) of an ecosystem (whatever that is) or of a landscape (etc.). Is ecology a method, a philosophy, an ethical stance, a moral commitment, a religious belief? Are you an ecologist? What makes you one? Recycling stuff? Organic gardening? Watching a TV show? Joining the Sierra Club, Audubon, and/or TNC (etc.)? Taking a class? Two classes? Earning a certificate? An Associate's degree? A BA? A BS? An MA? An MS? A Ph.D.? Some other accredited degree? Working in the field for 1/5/10/20 years? Should anyone who calls whatever they feel, think or do ecology be considered an ecologist because they call themselves one? If so, why does ESA have a certification process? Does that process exclude anyone who seeks certification? If so, can excluded individuals still call themselves an ecologists? Can those of us who never seek certification call ourselves ecologists? Does being certified mean you know what you're talking about, or merely that you're using the right words? If ecology means all those things, can it really mean any one of them? The impending 100th anniversaries of Rachel Carson's Silent Spring and of ESA and BES as organizations are good excuses to ponder all this. I'm expecting 12,000 answers by Monday night. But don't cc me. Just respond to the list. 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 mc...@asu.edumailto:mc...@asu.edu or anek
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology What is it?
Dear Ted et al., I find it somewhat incredible that the Vatican is not strongly opposed to some of the other principles of the Manifesto, namely, Principle #8, the advocation for human population reduction. Then again, I'm not complaining. -GW On Tue, 15 Nov 2011 08:25:49 -0500, Ted Mosquin mosq...@xplornet.com wrote: Hello Matt others, In addition to your citations (below) and as far as I am aware, the Manifesto for Earth has been published in two other places, vis: - The Structurist No 43/44. University of Saskatchewan. pp. 5-9 2004 Special Edition entitled Toward an Ecological Ethos in Art and Architecture. Edited by Eli Bornstein. 152 pp. - Davidsonia 2004. Quarterly journal of the Univ of B.C. Botanical Gardens. 15: (2) 70-81. Generally, the Manifesto (www.ecospherics.net) has not received negative criticism. It has been translated into Spanish, French, German, Ukrainian, Russian and Italian. It was, however, reviewed by a representative of the Vatican in La Republica, Italy's national newspaper where the reviewer disagreed only with Principle Number 1 which states that The Ecosphere is the center of value for humanity. The criticism stems from the core Catholic belief that source of value is to be found in God and not Earth itself. It is of interest that there have not been any science-based criticisms of the Manifesto so it is good to see this discussion on Ecolog-L. The Manifesto is Earth-centered and not organism-centered and, as far as I know, this makes it the most ecocentric document in the field of ecological philosophy and ethics. It represents the results of well over 100 years of ecological and natural history observations, experience and thinking of its two authors.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology What is it?
Clara, Clara, Chris and Wayne: This is a definition that first time ecology students and the general public can grasp and interpret as we go through the various types of interactions. I hardly think it is necessary to teach them theoretical physics or scientific philosophy before they can take a course in ecology. In this definition of ecology, relationship refers to any interaction between the organism and its living and non-living environment. It does not only apply to relationships between individuals. I think you, Chris and Wayne are looking at this far too deeply. This is why we have so much difficulty talking to the public, when we can't even agree on the simplest things amongst ourselves. I think we've beaten the dead horse into its composite atoms. TIme to move on. Clara, are you suggesting that Darwin used the ideas of Wallace to finalize his theory of evolution by natural selection? I would like to see the definitive evidence that Darwin plagiarized Wallace. It is possible, but is it just conjecture and a long list of maybe's, or its there proof? Lastly ,fitness peaks, if not the specific term optima, are discussed in Sewell Wright's writings on the shifting balance theory. Clara, you don't give a date for your own usage, but if you were the first, you are certainly not begin given the credit. Can you enlighten me? Cheers, Liane D. Liane Cochran-Stafira, Ph.D. Associate Professor Department of Biological Sciences Saint Xavier University 3700 West 103rd Street Chicago, Illinois 60655 phone: 773-298-3514 fax:773-298-3536 email: coch...@sxu.edu http://faculty.sxu.edu/~cochran/ http://faculty.sxu.edu/~cochran/ From: Clara B. Jones [mailto:foucaul...@gmail.com] Sent: Wed 11/16/2011 11:39 AM To: Christopher M Moore Cc: ecolog-l@listserv.umd.edu; Cochran-Stafira, D. Liane Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology What is it? 1. Liane: the definition of ecology is quite more complicated than what you teach your students since all of the fundamental (1st principle) terms in ecology are derived from physics (see work of Declan Bates [direct applications to biology], David Roylance works in physics on theory of robustness, theory of plasticity). I am reviewing this body of work at present for a monograph. 2. Chris: the concept of fitness optima is pervasive in (theoretical/mathematical) evolutionary biology/behavioral ecology (derived from physics). Unless I am mistaken, I was the first to use the concept specifically to discuss relationships (in a review of a book by Aureli De Waal for Primate Info Net several years ago). The idea is easily derived from theoretical work by Geoffrey Parker others*, though it took me awhile to get from the math on fitness per se to its application to the narrow and messy ideas...relationships/associations/interactions in sociobiology/behavioral ecology since these concepts are ubiquitously thought of a dyadic phenomena in social biology (plants or animals, including humans). I see that you are a graduate student. You should be very tentative, at best, about making claims of independent derivation, WallaceDarwin being the classic case (a very long case, indeed). *see the fundamental/theoretical/quantitative/mathematical/modeling domains discussing fitness budgets/resource holding power/other areas of optimality applied to behavior/sociality and the like; a good place to begin would be the literature on optimal foraging--see Les Real's classic book on this topic On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 11:45 AM, Christopher M Moore cmmo...@unr.edu wrote: Hi Clara, The moment I read your first paragraph I independently derived the toughest that you later articulated (i.e., fitness optima implications and evolutionary ecology). Are these strict terms that have previously been delineated? Just curious. Thanks, Chris On Nov 16, 2011, at 7:12 AM, Clara B. Jones wrote: Interaction and relationship are two of my favorite terms to think about (in relation to plants or animals, including humans). I use interaction when I do not intend to imply anything about *differential (condition-dependent, state-dependent) fitness optima* (for organisms or populations). I use relationship when i do want to imply differential, condition-dependent fitness optima. Thus, one might use relationship when speaking of predator-prey or other co-evolved associations (parasite-host. Interaction might be applied to any chance or random or ephemeral event (aggregations, events resulting from deforestation, tornados, wind-pollination) or events within/between species that are byproducts of relationships or other interactions. One might say that all
[ECOLOG-L] Ecology What is it?
It's nice to see signs of life. Right now responding to one in particular: Defining ecology is much harder than Liane Cochran-Stafira's hopeful assertion suggests. She favors The scientific discipline that is concerned with the relationships between organisms and their past, present and future environments, both living and non-living. which may well have been mentioned during the 2000 ESA meeting but can't easily be traced there; it does appear on the ESA website at http://www.esa.org/education/resources_teachers/generalEdu/ecologyEducation.php. That document cites only two draft documents produced by the ESA Education Committee in 1991. What's wrong with Liane's definition? Much of current ecology explicitly avoids dealing with organisms. Only past relationships can be described because they are all past by the time data are recorded, and very much past by the time research is published. Futures can be modeled, and model outputs can be studied, but the future cannot be studied. Finally, the elephant in the room: concerned allows for a wide range of interpretations. Meanwhile, there are other definitions of ecology lurking in the current ESA website: ** Ecology is the study of the relationships between living organisms, including humans, and their physical environment; it seeks to understand the vital connections between plants and animals and the world around them. Ecology also provides information about the benefits of ecosystems and how we can use Earth's resources in ways that leave the environment healthy for future generations. (http://www.esa.org/education/LME/ecologyANDme.php) Ecology is *the study of* interconnectedness. ( www.esa.org/education_diversity/pdfDocs/coralreefs.pdf) [Ecology, in its simplest form is] the study of the interactions between organisms and their environment ( www.esa.org/seeds/pdf/2011%20AM%20Report.pdf) ECOLOGY: from Greek oikos = house (place we live) logos = (study of) · the scientific study of organisms and their environment, addressing: · the distribution and abundance of organisms · how living things interact with each other and their environment · the fluxes of matter and energy through the living world · the full set of relationships between organisms and their environment, for example: · the ecology of the tropical rainforest · the ecology of the malaria mosquito · a disciplinary field, a profession, a community of scientists of which you can be a part! (www.esa.org/education_diversity/pdfDocs/careers-undergrad.pdf) Spreading the net slightly wider, if we take ecology to be what ecologists do, we can add: *E*cologists study oceans, deserts, forests, cities, grasslands, rivers, and every other corner of the world.(http://www.esa.org/ecologist/) *Ecologists... * - conduct research outdoors and in the laboratory - by asking both theoretical and practical questions that can be investigated using scientific techniques in exotic places or close to home. - teach students and the general public -at universities or colleges as well as at high schools, museums, and nature centers. - apply ecological knowledge to solve environmental problems - by investigating ecological issues, interacting with affected communities, writing environmental impact statements, and designing sustainable practices. - help manage natural resources - by monitoring, managing, or restoring populations and ecosystems. - advise students and local, state and federal policy makers - by recommending course work and research, working on committees, and providing the best available scientific information to politicians. - communicate with co-workers, students, and the public - by writing articles and research papers, giving lectures and presentations, participating in discussions, and conducting outreach in their local communities. (http://www.esa.org/education_diversity/webDocs/undergraduate.php#first) ESA does not clearly define or explain its E. BES has no such problem. You can find the BES definition of ecology one click away from their main website: Ecology is the study of the distribution and abundance of organisms, the interaction between organisms, the interaction between organisms and their environment, and structure and function of ecosystems. This definition has its problems (e.g., ecology…is the study of ecosystems) but at least the definition is there to be debated.( http://www.britishecologicalsociety.org/about_ecology/) Ecology has been defined, debated and redefined many times since the 1860s (when it existed largely in prospect). Today there are over 50 other national and regional organizations of professional ecologists defining ecology. There is no real likelihood that all ecologists could ever agree on either a narrow essential definition or an expansive description. Does that matter? That, too seems to depend on who you ask. Matthew K Chew Assistant Research Professor Arizona State University School of Life
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology What is it?
Defining ecology is not really all that hard, and yes, it is worth doing. The definitions found in elementary ecology texts like that of Krebs are quite satisfactory. Krebs said, Ecology is the scientific study of the interactions that determine the distribution and abundance of organisms. Whether a person believes that ecology has been divorced from organisms or not ( subject for another endless bull session), the interactions that those who do not address organisms directly study do in part determine the distribution and abundance of organisms. Simple and straightforward definitions are valuable, whether or not some claim that our science is too complex for them. Krebs' definition entails all the complexity that we investigate. His definition (other straightforward definitions serve as well, I just chose his for now) is useful especially in that it provides a starting point for students and the public to understand what we do and why we do it. Does Krebs' definition take environment out, since it does not use the word? No, it does not. Begon, Townsend and Harper, in their elementary ecology text explained this quite well. With what do organisms interact? Their environment. To belabor the fact that interactions are based in physics is unnecessary. Yes, ultimately physical laws explain what organisms do. For complex behaviors, such as social interactions, the steps between the physical law and the biotic activity are many and lengthy, and the study of the behavior does not require, nor even benefit from an analysis of the underlying physical laws until the higher levels of complexity have been examined. Yes, ultimately energy flow matters, even in mate choice. But one does not have to consult thermodynamics to investigate valid questions about mate choice. Sometimes I think that WE are why so many people misunderstand ecology. We are not willing to address it for them to their benefit. Liane, keep teaching, and keep giving your students a chance to get started on the path that so many of us have forgotten we had to tread. mcneely Matt Chew anek...@gmail.com wrote: It's nice to see signs of life. Right now responding to one in particular: Defining ecology is much harder than Liane Cochran-Stafira's hopeful assertion suggests. She favors The scientific discipline that is concerned with the relationships between organisms and their past, present and future environments, both living and non-living. which may well have been mentioned during the 2000 ESA meeting but can't easily be traced there; it does appear on the ESA website at http://www.esa.org/education/resources_teachers/generalEdu/ecologyEducation.php. That document cites only two draft documents produced by the ESA Education Committee in 1991. What's wrong with Liane's definition? Much of current ecology explicitly avoids dealing with organisms. Only past relationships can be described because they are all past by the time data are recorded, and very much past by the time research is published. Futures can be modeled, and model outputs can be studied, but the future cannot be studied. Finally, the elephant in the room: concerned allows for a wide range of interpretations. Meanwhile, there are other definitions of ecology lurking in the current ESA website: ** Ecology is the study of the relationships between living organisms, including humans, and their physical environment; it seeks to understand the vital connections between plants and animals and the world around them. Ecology also provides information about the benefits of ecosystems and how we can use Earth's resources in ways that leave the environment healthy for future generations. (http://www.esa.org/education/LME/ecologyANDme.php) Ecology is *the study of* interconnectedness. ( www.esa.org/education_diversity/pdfDocs/coralreefs.pdf) [Ecology, in its simplest form is] the study of the interactions between organisms and their environment ( www.esa.org/seeds/pdf/2011%20AM%20Report.pdf) ECOLOGY: from Greek oikos = house (place we live) logos = (study of) · the scientific study of organisms and their environment, addressing: · the distribution and abundance of organisms · how living things interact with each other and their environment · the fluxes of matter and energy through the living world · the full set of relationships between organisms and their environment, for example: · the ecology of the tropical rainforest · the ecology of the malaria mosquito · a disciplinary field, a profession, a community of scientists of which you can be a part! (www.esa.org/education_diversity/pdfDocs/careers-undergrad.pdf) Spreading the net slightly wider, if we take ecology to be what ecologists do, we can add: *E*cologists study oceans, deserts, forests, cities, grasslands, rivers, and every other corner of the world.(http://www.esa.org/ecologist/) *Ecologists...
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology What is it?
Hello Matt others, In addition to your citations (below) and as far as I am aware, the Manifesto for Earth has been published in two other places, vis: - The Structurist No 43/44. University of Saskatchewan. pp. 5-9 2004 Special Edition entitled Toward an Ecological Ethos in Art and Architecture. Edited by Eli Bornstein. 152 pp. - Davidsonia 2004. Quarterly journal of the Univ of B.C. Botanical Gardens. 15: (2) 70-81. Generally, the Manifesto (www.ecospherics.net) has not received negative criticism. It has been translated into Spanish, French, German, Ukrainian, Russian and Italian. It was, however, reviewed by a representative of the Vatican in La Republica, Italy's national newspaper where the reviewer disagreed only with Principle Number 1 which states that The Ecosphere is the center of value for humanity. The criticism stems from the core Catholic belief that source of value is to be found in God and not Earth itself. It is of interest that there have not been any science-based criticisms of the Manifesto so it is good to see this discussion on Ecolog-L. The Manifesto is Earth-centered and not organism-centered and, as far as I know, this makes it the most ecocentric document in the field of ecological philosophy and ethics. It represents the results of well over 100 years of ecological and natural history observations, experience and thinking of its two authors. Concerning your puzzling speculation (below) that the Manifesto seeks to close discussion rather than to open it and also perhaps it is not practical I would respond by pointing out that this is a manifesto and not some other kind of document. Unlike many other manifestos, declarations and similar writings it does not mix up what is (ecologically) and the ethical consequences, namely what ought to be. It explicitly points the way/path to ecocentric thinking, a difficult concept for many people (including most ecologists) who are raised on a heavy diet of pure anthropocentrism with a smattering of (organism centered) biocentrism. Note that the what is is presented in the first six principles and the what (consequentially) ought to be in the last five principles. In the final year of writing and revising the manifesto, we could not conceive a principle which could be added to the eleven. All other possibilities were best subsumed under one or another of the eleven. This seemed a bit odd to us but there you have it. The Manifesto has also once again been described and discussed in the second edition of 'Ecological Ethics: An Introduction' By Patrick Curry which was recently published (2011) by Polity Press (332pp). Pointing the way to ecocentric thinking is what Patrick Curry's book is about. I am reading it now. Finally, I called the owner/editor of Biodiversity (where the Manifesto was first published n 2004) re the ISI reference and he said that the journal is indexed in a number of services and he will look into approaching ISI. Cheers, Ted Mosquin (Retired ecologist/biologist) On 11/10/2011 12:03 PM, Matt Chew wrote: Wayne, et al: The manifesto has been cited, e.g., by: Patrick Curry (2006) Ecological Ethics. Cambridge UK: Polity Press. J. Anthony Cassils (2007) Some Reflections on Human Rationality (or the Lack of It) and the Way Ahead. Proceedings of the Canadia Association for the Club of Rome 3(11)19-27 Robert Burke (2011) The Rise and Fall of Growth: The Inappropriateness of Continuous Unchecked Growth. Journal of Futures Studies 16(1)79-100. There may be others, but I've used up the 10 minutes I had available. A link to the manifesto and some promotional text were posted to ECOLOG-L in March 2004 (see Digest #2004-83) by one of its authors. It has also been cited and linked to by various websites. Why has it not been cited in ISI indexed journals? Perhaps because (like many manifestos) it seeks to close discussion rather than open it. Perhaps because it isn't practical. Any other thoughts? 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 mc...@asu.edu oranek...@gmail.com http://cbs.asu.edu/people/profiles/chew.php http://asu.academia.edu/MattChew - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG -www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.1869 / Virus Database: 2092/4607 - Release Date: 11/09/11
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology What is it?
Comments inserted below, with much stuff cut out: Matt Chew anek...@gmail.com wrote: As of the latest digest I received, this thread had attracted input from fewer than 0.1% of the list's 12K recipients. Perhaps there are 12K reasons for remaining unengaged but I suspect they are all variations or combinations of a few basic themes. Rather than debate plausible rationalizations, I challenge you all to consider Wayne's question carefully. I suspect that for the vast majority of list participants, responding to rhetorical questions like Wayne's is simply a waste of time. Many of them are likely busy practicing ecology. Are you an ecologist? What makes you one? I still call myself an ecologist, though I seldom actually do any work any more. I have the requisite training (degrees in related sciences including a Ph.D. in Zoology with research emphasis in ecology), experience (I investigated and published on ecological questions and taught ecology for many years), and approach (I used observational and experimental techniques to resolve testable hypotheses). Recycling stuff? Organic gardening? Watching a TV show? Joining the Sierra Club, Audubon, and/or TNC (etc.)? Taking a class? Two classes? Earning a certificate? An Associate's degree? A BA? A BS? An MA? An MS? A Ph.D.? Some other accredited degree? Working in the field for 1/5/10/20 years? Ecology is a science, like other sciences. One who does not investigate scientifically is not a scientist, hence not an ecologist, regardless of confused beliefs about what constitutes ecology, regardless of training, regardless of degrees and certificates held. Should anyone who calls whatever they feel, think or do ecology be considered an ecologist because they call themselves one? Of course not. If so, why does ESA have a certification process? Because industry prefers to be able to say that a person whom they pay to do work for them as a contractor is certified by an appropriate entity, or because persons feel more authority when they seek contractual employment with industry. Few academic ecologists, unless consulting is important to them, bother with certification. Many industrial ecologists do. Does that process exclude anyone who seeks certification? If so, can excluded individuals still call themselves an ecologists? Can those of us who never seek certification call ourselves ecologists? Likely few or none who lack the published qualifications apply for certification, therefore few or none are excluded. Certification is not a prerequisite for practicing our science. Practicing our science is a prerequisite for being an ecologist. Anyone can call himself anything he wants to. Making such a claim for some professions (military officer, physician, lawyer) might be illegal in some contexts. Claiming degrees, training, or experience one does not have could be grounds for a lawsuit or prosecution for fraud. But simply calling oneself an ecologist through ignorance or puffery is none of those things. But if one has training, or experience, and practices the science of ecology, then one is an ecologist. Does being certified mean you know what you're talking about, or merely that you're using the right words? Being certified means that one applied, and holds the required credentials and experience. It is a screen, but it does not and cannot guarantee competence. If ecology means all those things, can it really mean any one of them? Ecology does not mean all of those things, though some folks are confused. The impending 100th anniversaries of Rachel Carson's Silent Spring _Silent Spring_ was published in 1962, not 100 years ago. The fiftieth anniversary of its publication is impending, not the 100th. _Silent Spring_ was a plea for environmental sanity regarding pesticide use, not a founding document for the science of ecology. and of ESA and BES as organizations are good excuses to ponder all this. I'm expecting 12,000 answers by Monday night. But don't cc me. Just respond to the list. Most list members are more engaged in what they do than they are in responding to rhetorical questions. mcneely
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology What is it?
Hmmm..you can't read our minds without active input to the listserv? I must be too used to working for the Fed. I am following the thread with interest. I may have some input. Just as you may only have 10 minutes to spare to respond, I am not funded to do half the work I am asked and expected to do, much less question or respond to why am I here (as an ecologist... etc.). Don't let my title fool you; as a district botanist my funded 'work' is to kill invasive plants, an inherently unsatisfatory task. My training is as a community ecologist, and whileI have my own ideas about what the study or application of that is, your and wayne's and other's discussion keep me engaged and I assume that speaks to others as well. Maybe the thread loses importance, as the Occupy movement, with time, but it continues to surface, so let's none of us quit thinking, or expressing our thoughts. discourse keeps the process alive. thank you. david David C. Baker Botanist, Tiller Ranger District 541-825-3149 Phone 541-825-3110 Fax -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Matt Chew Sent: Monday, November 14, 2011 2:41 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology What is it? As of the latest digest I received, this thread had attracted input from fewer than 0.1% of the list's 12K recipients. Perhaps there are 12K reasons for remaining unengaged but I suspect they are all variations or combinations of a few basic themes. Rather than debate plausible rationalizations, I challenge you all to consider Wayne's question carefully. Sociologists who study the formation and dynamics of scientific disciplines use the concept of boundary work to describe the process of deciding what ideas (and those who adhere to them) are inside (therefore also outside') of the group. So, what's in and what's out of ecology? Academic ecologists and biogeographers have a long tradition of border skirmishing. But beyond that ecology seems to have been accreting adherents, methods and ideas at quite clip for the last 40 years or so. As an -ology, is ecology limited to studying something? Strictly speaking, yes; but we do not speak strictly. Is ecology a thing to be studied? We speak of the ecology of a place, of a geographical feature, of a species, of a population, of an assemblage, of a community (whatever that is) of an ecosystem (whatever that is) or of a landscape (etc.). Is ecology a method, a philosophy, an ethical stance, a moral commitment, a religious belief? Are you an ecologist? What makes you one? Recycling stuff? Organic gardening? Watching a TV show? Joining the Sierra Club, Audubon, and/or TNC (etc.)? Taking a class? Two classes? Earning a certificate? An Associate's degree? A BA? A BS? An MA? An MS? A Ph.D.? Some other accredited degree? Working in the field for 1/5/10/20 years? Should anyone who calls whatever they feel, think or do ecology be considered an ecologist because they call themselves one? If so, why does ESA have a certification process? Does that process exclude anyone who seeks certification? If so, can excluded individuals still call themselves an ecologists? Can those of us who never seek certification call ourselves ecologists? Does being certified mean you know what you're talking about, or merely that you're using the right words? If ecology means all those things, can it really mean any one of them? The impending 100th anniversaries of Rachel Carson's Silent Spring and of ESA and BES as organizations are good excuses to ponder all this. I'm expecting 12,000 answers by Monday night. But don't cc me. Just respond to the list. 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 mc...@asu.edu or anek...@gmail.com http://cbs.asu.edu/people/profiles/chew.php http://asu.academia.edu/MattChew
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology What is it?
I am an ecologist because I can't help but think in ecological terms - which can be both a good and a bad thing. Sometimes the broader view creates more trouble than finds solutions, but it is what it is. I always end up coming to terms with my inability to sometimes evaluate a problem properly or account for all the factors that should be taken into consideration, if nothing else for practical purposes (if you want to finish part of a project, for instance, you must draw the line somewhere - maybe because the grant is done and you need to write a report, a paper, and get more funding - I can see that one starting a whole new discussion!). It helps that I have degrees, of course, since those degrees taught me the language, the background, and the method that makes me think ecologically. But they didn't turn me into who I am - I am sure there are plenty of people out there with degrees who don't particularly become ecologists but rather call themselves environmental scientists or something else. Maybe being an ecologist is a vision? I always wondered about the ESA certifications. In my mind, it has always been something for others, not for ourselves. Like a court of law or EPA might need someone to testify on something, and they like titles and certifications and such. I never thought of getting certified because I don't think it would add anything to me as an ecologist, but I may be wrong. Astrid Caldas, Ph.D. Climate Change and Wildlife Science Fellow Defenders of Wildlife 1130 17th Street N.W. Washington D.C. 20036-4604 Tel: 202-772-0229 |Fax: 202-682-1331 acal...@defenders.org | www.defenders.org -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Matt Chew Sent: Monday, November 14, 2011 5:41 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology What is it? As of the latest digest I received, this thread had attracted input from fewer than 0.1% of the list's 12K recipients. Perhaps there are 12K reasons for remaining unengaged but I suspect they are all variations or combinations of a few basic themes. Rather than debate plausible rationalizations, I challenge you all to consider Wayne's question carefully. Sociologists who study the formation and dynamics of scientific disciplines use the concept of boundary work to describe the process of deciding what ideas (and those who adhere to them) are inside (therefore also outside') of the group. So, what's in and what's out of ecology? Academic ecologists and biogeographers have a long tradition of border skirmishing. But beyond that ecology seems to have been accreting adherents, methods and ideas at quite clip for the last 40 years or so. As an -ology, is ecology limited to studying something? Strictly speaking, yes; but we do not speak strictly. Is ecology a thing to be studied? We speak of the ecology of a place, of a geographical feature, of a species, of a population, of an assemblage, of a community (whatever that is) of an ecosystem (whatever that is) or of a landscape (etc.). Is ecology a method, a philosophy, an ethical stance, a moral commitment, a religious belief? Are you an ecologist? What makes you one? Recycling stuff? Organic gardening? Watching a TV show? Joining the Sierra Club, Audubon, and/or TNC (etc.)? Taking a class? Two classes? Earning a certificate? An Associate's degree? A BA? A BS? An MA? An MS? A Ph.D.? Some other accredited degree? Working in the field for 1/5/10/20 years? Should anyone who calls whatever they feel, think or do ecology be considered an ecologist because they call themselves one? If so, why does ESA have a certification process? Does that process exclude anyone who seeks certification? If so, can excluded individuals still call themselves an ecologists? Can those of us who never seek certification call ourselves ecologists? Does being certified mean you know what you're talking about, or merely that you're using the right words? If ecology means all those things, can it really mean any one of them? The impending 100th anniversaries of Rachel Carson's Silent Spring and of ESA and BES as organizations are good excuses to ponder all this. I'm expecting 12,000 answers by Monday night. But don't cc me. Just respond to the list. 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 mc...@asu.edu or anek...@gmail.com http://cbs.asu.edu/people/profiles/chew.php http://asu.academia.edu/MattChew
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology What is it?
Ecology is a science. It is no more about environmentalism, for example, than is physics, IMHO. Ecologists study the interaction between organisms and their environment. As a matter of fact, we know very little of ecology. If you want to refer to the founding of ESA, one of the major motivations was to get the non-science and pseudoscience out of ecology and try to establish ecology as a real science. With all the political hackery and pseudo-science trying to call itself ecology these days, ecology as a science has really not progressed much further than the original basic objectives of the founders of the ESA. The Earth Manifesto does not involve ecology. Robert Hamilton, PhD Professor of Biology Alice Lloyd College Pippa Passes, KY 41844 -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Baker, David Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2011 10:16 AM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology What is it? Hmmm..you can't read our minds without active input to the listserv? I must be too used to working for the Fed. I am following the thread with interest. I may have some input. Just as you may only have 10 minutes to spare to respond, I am not funded to do half the work I am asked and expected to do, much less question or respond to why am I here (as an ecologist... etc.). Don't let my title fool you; as a district botanist my funded 'work' is to kill invasive plants, an inherently unsatisfatory task. My training is as a community ecologist, and whileI have my own ideas about what the study or application of that is, your and wayne's and other's discussion keep me engaged and I assume that speaks to others as well. Maybe the thread loses importance, as the Occupy movement, with time, but it continues to surface, so let's none of us quit thinking, or expressing our thoughts. discourse keeps the process alive. thank you. david David C. Baker Botanist, Tiller Ranger District 541-825-3149 Phone 541-825-3110 Fax -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Matt Chew Sent: Monday, November 14, 2011 2:41 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology What is it? As of the latest digest I received, this thread had attracted input from fewer than 0.1% of the list's 12K recipients. Perhaps there are 12K reasons for remaining unengaged but I suspect they are all variations or combinations of a few basic themes. Rather than debate plausible rationalizations, I challenge you all to consider Wayne's question carefully. Sociologists who study the formation and dynamics of scientific disciplines use the concept of boundary work to describe the process of deciding what ideas (and those who adhere to them) are inside (therefore also outside') of the group. So, what's in and what's out of ecology? Academic ecologists and biogeographers have a long tradition of border skirmishing. But beyond that ecology seems to have been accreting adherents, methods and ideas at quite clip for the last 40 years or so. As an -ology, is ecology limited to studying something? Strictly speaking, yes; but we do not speak strictly. Is ecology a thing to be studied? We speak of the ecology of a place, of a geographical feature, of a species, of a population, of an assemblage, of a community (whatever that is) of an ecosystem (whatever that is) or of a landscape (etc.). Is ecology a method, a philosophy, an ethical stance, a moral commitment, a religious belief? Are you an ecologist? What makes you one? Recycling stuff? Organic gardening? Watching a TV show? Joining the Sierra Club, Audubon, and/or TNC (etc.)? Taking a class? Two classes? Earning a certificate? An Associate's degree? A BA? A BS? An MA? An MS? A Ph.D.? Some other accredited degree? Working in the field for 1/5/10/20 years? Should anyone who calls whatever they feel, think or do ecology be considered an ecologist because they call themselves one? If so, why does ESA have a certification process? Does that process exclude anyone who seeks certification? If so, can excluded individuals still call themselves an ecologists? Can those of us who never seek certification call ourselves ecologists? Does being certified mean you know what you're talking about, or merely that you're using the right words? If ecology means all those things, can it really mean any one of them? The impending 100th anniversaries of Rachel Carson's Silent Spring and of ESA and BES as organizations are good excuses to ponder all this. I'm expecting 12,000 answers by Monday night. But don't cc me. Just respond to the list. 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 mc...@asu.edu or anek...@gmail.com http://cbs.asu.edu/people
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology What is it?
I'll answer the question in one short easy to understand definition. To quote ESA: Annual Meeting, August 2000 Ecology is: The scientific discipline that is concerned with the relationships between organisms and their past, present and future environments, both living and non-living. This is the definition I teach in my classes. Ecology is to environmentalism or environmental science as Physics is to engineering. One is the science, the other is an application that makes use of the theory established by the science. Liane D. Liane Cochran-Stafira, Ph.D. Associate Professor Department of Biological Sciences Saint Xavier University 3700 West 103rd Street Chicago, Illinois 60655 phone: 773-298-3514 fax:773-298-3536 email: coch...@sxu.edu http://faculty.sxu.edu/~cochran/ http://faculty.sxu.edu/~cochran/ From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of Matt Chew Sent: Mon 11/14/2011 4:41 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology What is it? As of the latest digest I received, this thread had attracted input from fewer than 0.1% of the list's 12K recipients. Perhaps there are 12K reasons for remaining unengaged but I suspect they are all variations or combinations of a few basic themes. Rather than debate plausible rationalizations, I challenge you all to consider Wayne's question carefully. Sociologists who study the formation and dynamics of scientific disciplines use the concept of boundary work to describe the process of deciding what ideas (and those who adhere to them) are inside (therefore also outside') of the group. So, what's in and what's out of ecology? Academic ecologists and biogeographers have a long tradition of border skirmishing. But beyond that ecology seems to have been accreting adherents, methods and ideas at quite clip for the last 40 years or so. As an -ology, is ecology limited to studying something? Strictly speaking, yes; but we do not speak strictly. Is ecology a thing to be studied? We speak of the ecology of a place, of a geographical feature, of a species, of a population, of an assemblage, of a community (whatever that is) of an ecosystem (whatever that is) or of a landscape (etc.). Is ecology a method, a philosophy, an ethical stance, a moral commitment, a religious belief? Are you an ecologist? What makes you one? Recycling stuff? Organic gardening? Watching a TV show? Joining the Sierra Club, Audubon, and/or TNC (etc.)? Taking a class? Two classes? Earning a certificate? An Associate's degree? A BA? A BS? An MA? An MS? A Ph.D.? Some other accredited degree? Working in the field for 1/5/10/20 years? Should anyone who calls whatever they feel, think or do ecology be considered an ecologist because they call themselves one? If so, why does ESA have a certification process? Does that process exclude anyone who seeks certification? If so, can excluded individuals still call themselves an ecologists? Can those of us who never seek certification call ourselves ecologists? Does being certified mean you know what you're talking about, or merely that you're using the right words? If ecology means all those things, can it really mean any one of them? The impending 100th anniversaries of Rachel Carson's Silent Spring and of ESA and BES as organizations are good excuses to ponder all this. I'm expecting 12,000 answers by Monday night. But don't cc me. Just respond to the list. 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 mc...@asu.edu or anek...@gmail.com http://cbs.asu.edu/people/profiles/chew.php http://asu.academia.edu/MattChew
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology What is it?
I've been casually scanning these discussions but not participating until now. So excuse me if I repeat something that's already been said. To me, as a professionally certified Senior Wildlife Ecologist (i.e., certified Senior Ecologist by ESA and certified Wildlife Biologist by The Wildlife Society), there seems to be three (over?)simple answers to the question Ecology What is it?: 1. The word ecology comes from the Greek oikos meaning household plus the Greek logos meaning reckoning. So, to me, ecology at its roots is the reckoning or consideration of natural households. (Other words with the oikos base include economics and ecumenical.) 2. When wandering through the woods (or the plains) with a group of biological professionals, it seems that the foresters/botanists are looking at the trees and shrubs, the wildlife biologists/zoologists are looking through the trees and shrubs to see the animals, and the soils scientist/geologist is looking down to see the ground and rocks. But the ecologist in me is looking at all of the above trying to make out how it all integrates and interacts. 3. The word ecology has become transmogrified by the media and the general public into a much wider meaning. Newspapers find that ecology fits the headlines better than environmental so the two words have become synonymous in their dictionary. And sometimes when I tell someone that I am an ecologist, the spoken or unspoken response is oh, so you're another one of those gdamdvirnmentlists (pronouncing the latter with only 5 syllables). Summation? For me, applied professional ecology is team formation -- integrating the more specific disciplines and perspectives into a cohesive and interrelating whole by providing insights on how natural things work together. Warren W. Aney Tigard, Oregon -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Astrid Caldas Sent: Tuesday, 15 November, 2011 07:21 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology What is it? I am an ecologist because I can't help but think in ecological terms - which can be both a good and a bad thing. Sometimes the broader view creates more trouble than finds solutions, but it is what it is. I always end up coming to terms with my inability to sometimes evaluate a problem properly or account for all the factors that should be taken into consideration, if nothing else for practical purposes (if you want to finish part of a project, for instance, you must draw the line somewhere - maybe because the grant is done and you need to write a report, a paper, and get more funding - I can see that one starting a whole new discussion!). It helps that I have degrees, of course, since those degrees taught me the language, the background, and the method that makes me think ecologically. But they didn't turn me into who I am - I am sure there are plenty of people out there with degrees who don't particularly become ecologists but rather call themselves environmental scientists or something else. Maybe being an ecologist is a vision? I always wondered about the ESA certifications. In my mind, it has always been something for others, not for ourselves. Like a court of law or EPA might need someone to testify on something, and they like titles and certifications and such. I never thought of getting certified because I don't think it would add anything to me as an ecologist, but I may be wrong. Astrid Caldas, Ph.D. Climate Change and Wildlife Science Fellow Defenders of Wildlife 1130 17th Street N.W. Washington D.C. 20036-4604 Tel: 202-772-0229 |Fax: 202-682-1331 acal...@defenders.org | www.defenders.org -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Matt Chew Sent: Monday, November 14, 2011 5:41 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology What is it? As of the latest digest I received, this thread had attracted input from fewer than 0.1% of the list's 12K recipients. Perhaps there are 12K reasons for remaining unengaged but I suspect they are all variations or combinations of a few basic themes. Rather than debate plausible rationalizations, I challenge you all to consider Wayne's question carefully. Sociologists who study the formation and dynamics of scientific disciplines use the concept of boundary work to describe the process of deciding what ideas (and those who adhere to them) are inside (therefore also outside') of the group. So, what's in and what's out of ecology? Academic ecologists and biogeographers have a long tradition of border skirmishing. But beyond that ecology seems to have been accreting adherents, methods and ideas at quite clip for the last 40 years or so. As an -ology, is ecology limited to studying something? Strictly speaking, yes; but we do not speak strictly. Is ecology a thing to be studied? We speak
[ECOLOG-L] Ecology What is it?
As of the latest digest I received, this thread had attracted input from fewer than 0.1% of the list's 12K recipients. Perhaps there are 12K reasons for remaining unengaged but I suspect they are all variations or combinations of a few basic themes. Rather than debate plausible rationalizations, I challenge you all to consider Wayne's question carefully. Sociologists who study the formation and dynamics of scientific disciplines use the concept of boundary work to describe the process of deciding what ideas (and those who adhere to them) are inside (therefore also outside') of the group. So, what's in and what's out of ecology? Academic ecologists and biogeographers have a long tradition of border skirmishing. But beyond that ecology seems to have been accreting adherents, methods and ideas at quite clip for the last 40 years or so. As an -ology, is ecology limited to studying something? Strictly speaking, yes; but we do not speak strictly. Is ecology a thing to be studied? We speak of the ecology of a place, of a geographical feature, of a species, of a population, of an assemblage, of a community (whatever that is) of an ecosystem (whatever that is) or of a landscape (etc.). Is ecology a method, a philosophy, an ethical stance, a moral commitment, a religious belief? Are you an ecologist? What makes you one? Recycling stuff? Organic gardening? Watching a TV show? Joining the Sierra Club, Audubon, and/or TNC (etc.)? Taking a class? Two classes? Earning a certificate? An Associate's degree? A BA? A BS? An MA? An MS? A Ph.D.? Some other accredited degree? Working in the field for 1/5/10/20 years? Should anyone who calls whatever they feel, think or do ecology be considered an ecologist because they call themselves one? If so, why does ESA have a certification process? Does that process exclude anyone who seeks certification? If so, can excluded individuals still call themselves an ecologists? Can those of us who never seek certification call ourselves ecologists? Does being certified mean you know what you're talking about, or merely that you're using the right words? If ecology means all those things, can it really mean any one of them? The impending 100th anniversaries of Rachel Carson's Silent Spring and of ESA and BES as organizations are good excuses to ponder all this. I'm expecting 12,000 answers by Monday night. But don't cc me. Just respond to the list. 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 mc...@asu.edu or anek...@gmail.com http://cbs.asu.edu/people/profiles/chew.php http://asu.academia.edu/MattChew
[ECOLOG-L] Ecology What is it?
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). 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 mc...@asu.edu or anek...@gmail.com http://cbs.asu.edu/people/profiles/chew.php http://asu.academia.edu/MattChew
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology What is it?
Matt Chew anek...@gmail.com 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 mc...@asu.edu or anek...@gmail.com http://cbs.asu.edu/people/profiles/chew.php http://asu.academia.edu/MattChew -- David McNeely
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology What is it?
Matt an' y'all: Any question should, as Einstein might put it, be as simple as possible, but no simpler, and any answer should be similarly elegant in its simplicity and brevity. That doesn't make them easy to think up, but then that's the whole point of intellectual enquiry, of science, no? Ecology is a broad concept, in the sense of consisting of a lot of stuff, but most of that stuff behaves in some pretty similar ways. Ecologists and others should be able to understand the principles that drive the phenomena concerned, and at least roughly how contexts, in their infinite variety affect them. To me, ecology as a phenomenon is what it is, and there need be no should about it. With respect to the consequences, the feedback loops as a result of changes to contexts, those are phenomena too, including human culture. Recognizing those changes and how they affect non-cultural (natural) phenomena also is subject to disciplined examination and evaluation. By hooking together how cultural and non-cultural phenomena interact, cultural beings have a choice about how they respond or do not respond to the action where culture and Nature interact. Granted, culture is a manifestation of Nature, but that does not mean that its effects, and the consequent bites-in-the-ass foisted upon cultures and individuals need be considered equivalent to all other phenomena. Or does it? Such simple sorting or evaluating is at the root of honest intellectual enquiry, including science. Philosophy, can be an extension of that process, and subject to continuous questioning of its own precepts. Rigor, or more accurately, discipline in thinking, requires the abandonment of opinion and belief, except when they are waypoints on an endless journey through time and space. Consistently, these words, this declaration, like any other, must likewise be subject to question, and the endless cycle of resilient adaptation to continuous changing states of reality. That we are consigned to the eternal treadmill is acceptable to understanding more and more about reality, despite knowing that we shall never know it all. If we can improve our powers of prediction of probable consequences in response to combinations of changes, we may yet learn how and when to zig, and how and when to zag. When it comes to manifestoes like those of Rowe and Mosquin, of Leopold and of Chew--or of Tyson, for that matter, I do not interpret them as closing possibilities at all, but in challenging others to refute or confirm their declarations and re-form them into a means of communicating the sum of where a discipline is and is not at any given moment. I look forward to being further inspired by you all. WT - Original Message - From: Matt Chew anek...@gmail.com To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2011 7:23 AM Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology What is it? 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). 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 mc...@asu.edu or anek...@gmail.com http://cbs.asu.edu/people/profiles/chew.php http://asu.academia.edu/MattChew - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1411 / Virus Database: 2092/4014 - Release Date: 11/13/11
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology What is it?
Matt, et y'all: While Chew is too polite to openly suggest it, it is apparent that I screwed up big-time here; I jumped to conclusions and simply didn't search for the paper by title before going off half-cocked. I appreciate Chew's time in investigating, however, and apologize for the error. Muddy thinking on my part. Even so, it seems that the paper actually hasn't gotten much attention. A simple search for A Manifesto for Earth and Rowe or Mosquin reveals only about 60 hits; hardly a landslide of comment. However, Chew's comment, . . . it seeks to close discussion rather than open it would seem to imply that discussion of the paper's validity and what, in the alternative, might be valid in terms of refutation of its points, would be a worthy topic to sort out. As Chew says, Any other thoughts? I would be most interested in Chew's own thoughts, as well as those of others . . . WT Ecology: What is it and what isn't it? (This should be an easy question, no?) - Original Message - From: Matt Chew anek...@gmail.com To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 9:03 AM Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology What is it? Wayne, et al: The manifesto has been cited, e.g., by: Patrick Curry (2006) Ecological Ethics. Cambridge UK: Polity Press. J. Anthony Cassils (2007) Some Reflections on Human Rationality (or the Lack of It) and the Way Ahead. Proceedings of the Canadia Association for the Club of Rome 3(11)19-27 Robert Burke (2011) The Rise and Fall of Growth: The Inappropriateness of Continuous Unchecked Growth. Journal of Futures Studies 16(1)79-100. There may be others, but I've used up the 10 minutes I had available. A link to the manifesto and some promotional text were posted to ECOLOG-L in March 2004 (see Digest #2004-83) by one of its authors. It has also been cited and linked to by various websites. Why has it not been cited in ISI indexed journals? Perhaps because (like many manifestos) it seeks to close discussion rather than open it. Perhaps because it isn't practical. Any other thoughts? 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 mc...@asu.edu or anek...@gmail.com http://cbs.asu.edu/people/profiles/chew.php http://asu.academia.edu/MattChew - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1411 / Virus Database: 2092/4008 - Release Date: 11/10/11
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology What is it?
Hi Wayne,
It is possible that the manifesto has been caught in between three
worlds. In the world of ecology and conservation the article is not
citable in most research papers, which deal with very specialized
literature. I the world of sociology, which may study the phenomenon of
environmental activism, the journal Biodiversity is unlikely to be known
or read at all. Finally, in the world of activism itself, daily
activities do not include publishing articles and thus citation of the
manifesto, although it may have been read by people involved.
All the best,
Alexandre
Date:Wed, 9 Nov 2011 11:45:07 -0800
From:Wayne Tyson landr...@cox.net
Subject: Ecology What is it?
Honorable Forum:
A search on-line for precisely ecocentric on November 9, 2011 results =
in precisely THREE hits. ALL three are from ONE paper, A Manifesto for =
Earth ('Biodiversity' Volume 5, No. 1, pages 3 to 9, January/March =
2004) http://www.ecospherics.net/pages/EarthManifesto.html .=20
Can someone tell me why this paper has not been cited at all in almost =
eight years?=20
WT
[ECOLOG-L] Ecology What is it?
Wayne, et al: The manifesto has been cited, e.g., by: Patrick Curry (2006) Ecological Ethics. Cambridge UK: Polity Press. J. Anthony Cassils (2007) Some Reflections on Human Rationality (or the Lack of It) and the Way Ahead. Proceedings of the Canadia Association for the Club of Rome 3(11)19-27 Robert Burke (2011) The Rise and Fall of Growth: The Inappropriateness of Continuous Unchecked Growth. Journal of Futures Studies 16(1)79-100. There may be others, but I've used up the 10 minutes I had available. A link to the manifesto and some promotional text were posted to ECOLOG-L in March 2004 (see Digest #2004-83) by one of its authors. It has also been cited and linked to by various websites. Why has it not been cited in ISI indexed journals? Perhaps because (like many manifestos) it seeks to close discussion rather than open it. Perhaps because it isn't practical. Any other thoughts? 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 mc...@asu.edu or anek...@gmail.com http://cbs.asu.edu/people/profiles/chew.php http://asu.academia.edu/MattChew
[ECOLOG-L] Ecology What is it?
Honorable Forum:
A search on-line for precisely ecocentric on November 9, 2011 results in
precisely THREE hits. ALL three are from ONE paper, A Manifesto for Earth
('Biodiversity' Volume 5, No. 1, pages 3 to 9, January/March 2004)
http://www.ecospherics.net/pages/EarthManifesto.html .
Can someone tell me why this paper has not been cited at all in almost eight
years?
WT
