I'm not trying to be contrary or to oppose the search for understanding of our
scientific philosophy. In fact, the opposite.
Aren't we trying to make "law" out of phenomena that don't fit the concept?
The original question asked about not only invariable, but observable,
quantifiable, and able to be reduced to an equation (perhaps in a predictive
way, like Newton's laws, thermodynamics, and so on).
At this point, we only have them in a general sense in Ecology. Eltonian
trophics may be the closest we have. It fails on the invariability part. Not
that Eltonian trophics fails on the invariability part in the general sense,
but that its details are so dependent on the organismic makeup and local
conditions of a system that there is no constant that can be applied to get a
caloric or carbon pyramid that is identical from system to system. But I'll
submit Eltonian trophics as what we have, and we can play physical scientist
all we want with that one. And perhaps that is a part of the point. We want
the respect of physicists and chemists.
We deserve that respect, but we don't have to mimic them by erecting "laws,"
when what we are trying to do is understand how stuff works, and not all models
are applicable to all aspects of science. It is telling that sometimes
scientific "laws" are called "physical laws." Yes, ecology works the same way
all over the planet. We have discovered a good deal of the workings. Being
able to state mathematical relationships that apply in every case requires
knowledge that we don't have in most areas of the science. But hey, the "laws'
that the physical scientists have come up with are ours, too. If we are
looking at nutrient flow in a stream, why phosphorous must obey all the
relevant chemical and physical behaviors that are known. We don't have to
discover new "laws," we just have to apply the ones we have and treat the
various phosphorous compartments as they would be treated by any chemist.
If the study of evolution is a part of ecology, rather than an adjunct to it,
then Hardy-Weinburg is also a fit, perhaps the best fit we have to the physical
science model that is called a "law."
Let's all drop the physics envy, and get on with being ecologists (which
requires, to be done well, proper knowledge of and application of physical
principles or laws, just as physics to be done well requires that).
Personally, I think the use of terms like "law" and "theory" as applied in
elementary science courses (precollege) has confused the public so much about
how science works and is done, that I wish the terms would go away completely.
David McNeely
---- Wayne Tyson <landr...@cox.net> wrote:
> Martin and Ecolog:
>
> I have often suggested this ("everything changes") as a law too (but not
> necessarily or primarily restricted to "over time"), but in perhaps less
> polite terms (I call it the "s__t happens" law). It may difficult to get
> either version widely accepted, but I think you are quite right that we
> suggest "the obvious," especially when it appears that it is truly being
> ignored.
>
> I tend to agree with the rest of your suggestions too, except I would like
> to hear a bit more elaboration on the "tropic efficiency" one. And while I
> do not disagree with "species evolve over time" I have a little (or a lot)
> of trouble with it if it means that time is the primary driver of species
> evolution.
>
> WT
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Martin Meiss" <mme...@gmail.com>
> To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>
> Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2010 9:18 AM
> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] ECOLOGY Fundamentals Principles Laws Other
>
>
> > Here are some ecological "laws" to consider:
> >
> > The main one is "Everything changes over time." This can probably be
> > derived from thermodynamic principles: entropy, and all that.
> >
> > Here are some corollaries of this law:
> > The physical environment changes over time.
> > Species diversity changes over time.
> > Gene frequencies change over time.
> > Species evolve over time.
> >
> > Maybe we can even assign direction to some changing factors:
> > Trophic efficiency INCREASES over time.
> > Resource availability DECREASES over time.
> > The total number of species that has ever existed INCREASES over time.
> >
> > Maybe some of our common observations could be formulated as laws:
> > The tropics have higher species diversity then polar regions.
> > Island populations reflect the populations of nearby continents.
> > There will always be diseases.
> > There will always be parasites.
> > There will always be predators and prey.
> > There will always be primary producers.
> >
> > Is this what you were getting at?
> >
> > Martin M. Meiss
> >
> > 2010/11/4 Bill Silvert <cien...@silvert.org>
> >
> >> "discipline" ? Ecology suffers from too much concern with philosophy and
> >> not enough science.
> >>
> >> Consider Gauss' Competitive Exclusion Principle. It is very useful,
> >> provides a guide to identifying the niche of an organism, but it has been
> >> identified as tautological by the late Rob Peters so we aren't supposed
> >> to
> >> use it.
> >>
> >> Lawrence Slobodkin used to complain about theorists invoking principles
> >> like conservation of energy as if that were optional for living
> >> creatures.
> >> Basically the answer to Wayne's question is that if ecologists come up
> >> with
> >> something useful that might serve as a law or principle, then it would be
> >> drowned out by claims that it was not rigorous enough. We worry too much
> >> about being "scientific" and not enough about learning how things work.
> >>
> >> Bill Silvert
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message----- From: Wayne Tyson
> >> Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2010 2:39 AM
> >> To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
> >> Subject: [ECOLOG-L] ECOLOGY Fundamentals Principles Laws Other
> >>
> >>
> >> Ecolog:
> >>
> >> In recent years the debate about Laws of Ecology has been re-heated.* If
> >> the study of the interactions of living organisms with environments is to
> >> have discipline, it seems to me that it should have produced some
> >> observations about how things work or function that, when applied, never
> >> fail to prove valid. Can such observations, rendered as statements or
> >> equations, be termed "laws" or "principles," or?
> >>
> >> WT
> >>
> >> *For example, see
> >> http://philosophy.unc.edu/people/faculty/marc-lange/Oikosfile.pdf
> >>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.449 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3237 - Release Date: 11/04/10
> 08:42:00
--
David McNeely
