Future of ecology (continued)

Lecture graphics

To judge scientific progress, we must have an agreed-upon goal

Weiner (1995 J. Ecol. 83:153-158) indicated that ecology should observe 3 principles: (1) strive for prediction and testable explanations; (2) appreciate and incorporate natural history; (3) use new approaches

The ultimate test of ecological theory is whether ecologists can really say anything useful about the world

Thus, we must continuously keep applications in mind

Keddy: "We can develop all the elegant models we wish, live distinguished academic careers, publish numerous well-cited papers, and so on, but the ultimate test of the value of our work is whether we really can make predictions about the real world."

Kuhn (1970, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions) noted that scientists tend to choose "answerable" questions rather than important ones

We can begin by dividing scientific ideas into 2 classes: hypotheses and concepts

Hypotheses are predictive and falsifiable statements about nature (i.e., candidate explanations);

Concepts are not falsifiable, although they may be part of every scientist's thinking. They provide a conceptual framework which helps to organize hypotheses, and which may lead people to new creative insights.

Ecology has placed considerable emphasis on concepts, little on hypotheses --> result that "we have become modern scholastics interminably discussing questions which cannot be solved or tested scientifically." (Peters 1980, Synthese 43:257-269; see also Peters' book, A Critique for Ecology)

The value of different kinds of questions and different kinds of approaches depends on the relative emphasis that we place on hypotheses and concepts

If the construction of ecological theory is our objective, published studies are useful to the extent that they allow prediction of patterns in nature

Alternatively, concepts have utility if we see science as an activity which expands the horizons of human experience. In this case, we can be satisfied if we increase our 'understanding' of nature.

Judging the value of different research goals and methods also requires consideration of how scientific progress actually occurs

at one end of a continuum, data and facts are everything; at the other end, they are unimportant and are collected only to amplify belief systems

Positions along the continuum, acc. to Keddy:

1. Science primarily involves the patient collection of facts

2. Data are important for falsifying hypotheses, and original hypotheses drive scientific progress (Popperian view)

3. Data are collected to solve small technical problems, but there is a larger context or paradigm shared by scientists

4. Science is primarily political

5. Science is part of the entertainment industry, and the objective of scientific papers is to tell entertaining stories to a well-educated audience

Choosing a question for research

This is the most important part of the scientific process, and the most subjective

Hypothesis testing is where most scientists can avoid psychological bias, because there are specified rules to follow

Interpreting results of tests also may be highly subjective

There are an infinite number of questions to be answered in science. Why study competition, as ecologists have done for the last several decades? Keddy suggests that the focus on competition is closely related to the social setting of ecologists; he offers 6 suggestions:

1. Culture

2. Excitement

3. Gender bias

   Levels of aggression differ between genders (Maccoby and Jacklin 1974, The Psychology of Sex Differences):

   • males are more aggressive than females in all human societies for which evidence is available

   • behavioral differences arise early in life

   • similar differences occur in subhuman primates

   • aggression is related to levels of sexual hormones, and can be manipulated by experimentally modifying levels of these hormones

4. Taxonomic bias

   Ecological research is highly atypical of organisms occupying the earth

5. Scientific community structure

   W/in the scientific system itself there is competition for ltd. research funding, and competition for space in journals--likewise w/in academic depts

6. Elitism

   Relatively few indivs. set the agenda for science, and these indivs. share a strong bias in selection of model systems

   • elites may act directly to exclude an issue from discussion

   • subordinants may anticipate the negative reaction of elites and ignore proposals or suggestions that would disturb the elite

   • underlying values of society itself may prevent serious consideration of alternative programs and policies