David W. Potter wrote: >Jeff: Without having the article in front of me I can't be sure, but I >think the article you refer to ignores two facts. First, there are >ecologists whose work in the field of biology goes much deeper into the >relationships between organisms and their environment than mere natural >history.
Yes, ecology has done a good job of digging into the details while maintaining an overview of all the connections and relationships. I don't remember how the article treated this dichotomy (magazine was a library copy) but do know that dichotomies are often not the best way to approach a topic. Our world is complex and has more "shades of grey" than black and white issues. >In fact, the pace and depth of ecology and biological research >has so far outstripped what was practiced as natural history that the latter >would be regarded as obsolete. Imagine if doctors only practiced medicine >with a thermometer and stethoscope, ignoring all the wealth of detailed >medical research that is now available. I sometimes wonder if we approach nature and science too narrowly. Using the medical science example, we have made great progress but our populations are overweight, stressed, and suffering from new diseases or industrial pollution. Did we miss something along the way? We might respond that the stress and bad health are due to other factors, that are not in the domain of medical science. Why is this? Can't we go beyond medical cures and put more emphasis on prevention? The answer might be that we have placed "medical science" in a box and defined its scope. It mostly supports doctors and problems doctors encounter. It can not include economics, politics, agriculture, and other areas connected to health. So, if we say natural science is obsolete we also need to acknowledge that current approaches have limitations. This leads to many questions about why some problems are never solved and how could science address them? Too many open questions and ideas for my mind to sort through <grin>. jeff
