The reductionist myth of simplicity leads its advocates to isolate parts as completely as possible and study these parts. It underestimates the importance of interactions in theory, and its recommendations for practice (in agricultural programs or conservation and environmental protection) are typically thwarted by the power of indirect and unanticipated causes rather than by error in the detailed description of their own objects of study.
Reductionism ignores properties of complex wholes; the effects of these properties are therefore seen only as noise; this randomness is elevated into an ontological principle which leads to the blocking of investigation and the reification of statistics, so that data reduction and statistical prediction often pass for explanation.
The faith in the atomistic nature of the world makes the allocation of relative weights to separate causes the main object of science, and makes it more difficult to study the nature of interconnectedness.
Where simple behaviors emerge out of complex interactions, it takes that simplicity to deny the complexity; where the behavior is bewilderingly complex it reifies its own confusion into a denial of regularity.
Both the internal theoretical needs of ecology and the social demands that it inform our planned interactions with nature require an ecology that makes the understanding of complexity the central problem: it must cope with interdependence and relative autonomy, with similarity and difference, with the general and the particular, with chance and necessity, with equilbrium and change, with continuity and discontinuity, with contradictory processes. It must become increasingly self-conscious of its own philosophy, and that philosophy will be effective to the extent that it becomes not only materialist, but dialectical.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Cohen, J.: 1978, Food webs and niche space, Monographs in Population Biology 11, Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
- Lane, P.: 1975, ‘The dynamics of aquatic systems: a comparative study of the structure of four zooplankton communities), Ecol. Monog. 95(4, 307–336, Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Leston, Dennis: 1973, ‘The ant mosaic — tropical tree crops and the limiting of pests and diseases’, PANS 19, 311–341.Google Scholar
- Levins, R.: 1975, ‘Evolution in communities near equilibrium’, in Martin L. Cody and Jared Diamond, eds., Ecology and Evolution of Communities, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
- Lewontin, R. C.: 1974, ‘The analysis of variance and the analysis of causes’, Amer. J. of Hum. Gen. 26, 400–411.Google Scholar
- Lewontin, R. C.: 1974, ‘Darwin and Mendel — the materialist revolution’, in J. Neyman, ed., The Heritage of Copernicus: Theories ‘More Pleasing to the Mind’, M.I.T. Press, New York.Google Scholar
- Neyman, J., T. Park, and E. L. Scott: 1956, ‘Struggle for existence. The Tribolium model: biological and statistical aspects’. Third Berkeley Symposium on Math. Stat. & Prob. 4 41–79.Google Scholar
- Simberloff, B.: 1980, ‘A succession of paradigms in ecology: Essentialism to materialism and probabilism’, Synthese, this issue, 3–39.Google Scholar
- Wilson, E. O.: 1978, On Human Nature, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar