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" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
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
[email protected] or [email protected]
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
