Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T23:39:30.709Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Message in the Bottle: The Constraints of Experimentation on Model Building

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Jay Odenbaugh
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Some ecologists have argued that theoretical model building in population and community ecology has gone evidentially unconstrained. In the essay, I argue that “bottle experiments” offer ecological model building evidential constraints and illustrate this by considering work on chaotic models tested by the dynamics of flour beetles. Critics reply that these experiments are importantly unlike nonmanipulated natural systems and thus do not constitute genuine tests of the models. I conclude by considering two responses to this worry and a suggestion on how to move forward on this debate.

Type
Strategies of Modeling in Biology and Chemistry
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 73 , Issue 5: Proceedings of the 2004 Biennial Meeting of The Philosophy of Science Association. Part II: Symposia Papers. Edited by Miriam Solomon , December 2006 , pp. 720 - 729
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Brandon, R. (1995), “Theory and Experiment in Evolutionary Biology,” in his Concepts and Methods in Evolutionary Biology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Carpenter, S. (1996), “Microcosm Experiments Have Limited Relevance for Community and Ecosystem Ecology,” Ecology 77:677–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cartwright, N. (1999), The Dappled World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Constantino, R. F., Desharnais, R. A., Cushing, J. M., and Dennis, B. (1997), “Chaotic Dynamics in an Insect Population,” Science 275:389–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, G. (2003), The Science of the Struggle for Existence: On the Foundations of Ecology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crone, E., and Molofsky, J. (1999), “Message in a Bottle? Utility and Limitations of Ecological Bottle Experiments,” Integrative Biology 1:209–214.3.0.CO;2-X>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawton, J. (1998), “Ecological Experiments with Model Systems: The Ecotron Facility in Context,” in Resetarits, William J. and Bernardo, Joseph (eds.), Experimental Ecology: Perspectives and Issues. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
May, R. (2002), “The Best Possible Time to Be Alive: The Logistic Map,” in Farmelo, G. (ed.), It Must Be Beautiful: Great Equations of Modern Science. London: Granta Books.Google Scholar
Odenbaugh, J. (2006a), “Idealized, Inaccurate but Successful: A Pragmatic Approach to Evaluating Models in Theoretical Ecology,” Biology and Philosophy 20:231–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Odenbaugh, J. (2006b), “Struggling with the Sciences of Ecology,” Biology and Philosophy 21:395–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simberloff, D. (1981), “The Sick Science of Ecology,” Eidema 1:49–54.Google Scholar
Wimsatt, W. (1987), “False Models as a Means to Truer Theories,” in Nitecki, M. and Hoffman, A. (eds.), Neutral Models in Biology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar