environmental preservation discourse, native vs non-native species etc

I completely agree while also being aware that some people get into sts so they can justify being AIDS denialists and the like. Hard to envision a current education system that could handle it properly, but in my utopia it would be a key part of the science curriculum

I think even now it should be requisite for softer sciences like psychology

if i could be that one guy here, ecology is totally an objective science, it's environmental policy that's the problem here

There's no such thing as an "objective" science is basically where we're coming from though...or putting it better, "objectivity" is itself a historically contingent, culturally constructed idea with no essential or fixed meaning

(see: https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9781890951795/objectivity)

That's not to say ecology is pure bullshit or something, just to recognize that like all sciences it's created by humans in particular social, cultural, economic, and historical contexts which affect what gets accepted as valid truth by the social community of scientists.

well okay, it's as objective as any other science. the science bit doesn't seem to be the problem here though, it's the policy decisions that are being questioned?

I can't speak for map, but what I thought he was getting at was that ecology has a specific view of the way the world works that isn't "objective" (meaning a transparent description of reality) and can be contrasted, for example, with indigenous ways of viewing the same ecosystem and deciding how to live within it.

It's true that if all ecologists did was write articles and books and their findings were never acted on by governments, they wouldn't constitute any kind of problem. But I don't know if you can separate science & policy so cleanly—many ecologists are surely motivated to do their work in order to influence policy makers, even if yes they do not have ultimate control over the resulting policy. And for sure, a lot of what matters here (to me) is how science enters public discussions and affects democratic governance, which I wouldn't "blame" ecologists for.

Btw your question upthread about how far to wind back the clock and the impossibility of a pristine ecosystem is exactly the kind of thing I'm thinking about here. Part of the danger with science as a public discourse is that nuances understood by experts get lost in translation to other audiences.

yeah i see what you're getting at, thanks for spelling it out. for me the science bit is testing hypotheses through designing experiments and gathering data and statistical analysis and all that stuff, but yes i accept that some alternative hypotheses probably never get looked at due to funding or politics or whatever else

I have weird theories about the will behind invasive species. We might brand something as invasive, but the species itself may just be expanding its territory, by any means necessary.

There's a big discussion about eucalyptus in California - are they purely invasive, or somewhat naturalized by this point? At one point does something become a natural part of an ecosystem, even when it's been introduced, like ring-necked pheasants.

Then there's shit like the japanese knotweed in the UK, which is just an absolute nightmare... invasive by any defintion

knotweed is a problem (from our perspective, from its perspective it's doing great) but I wouldn't want to get rid of rabbits or fallow deer or canada geese or even ring necked parakeets (which conservationists have issues with but they do bring a bit of colour to this miserable grey island)

shout out to pigeons, fucking legends (weird how much contempt people have for life that manages to survive in cities)

i think what you have to look at from a conservation POV is how the balance of an ecosystem is being affected by a new species. there might be a period of adjustment and then a new balance is found, and then you could say the species was naturalised. otoh there could be more of a death spiral thing happening where the final outcome is just complete collapse, and yeah, you probably don't want that happening. a lot of the time though, it's the economic impact that's prioritised - japanese knotweed is mostly a problem because of how destructive it is to the built environment

i think a larger point is that ecology isn't an absolute, objective science

It is. It really is. Ecology is closely associated with field biology. So basically whatever you think about biology as a science you can apply that to ecology.

Okay so no one's literally taking a blanket "pro-invasive species stance" but there does seem to be a widespread assumption here that ecology is significantly open to interpretation and it isn't. Yes policy based on the science is going to be more "soft". It's very much like public health in terms of science firmly grounded in empirical evidence vs political application of science which is much more subjective.

you don't seem to be reading the posts above, as usual

there is literally no such thing as "objectivity"

there's a helpful link from rob one if you feel like learning something

one above

there is literally no such thing as "objectivity"

So glad I'm here for this

empiricism is literally subjective by definition!

Okay I am not a philosopher and I'm open to being schooled on the correct terminology but in this instance assume that whatever the precisely applicable term for "hard" science is, that's what ecology is.

literally just objective reality? what do you need the scientists for then

I think we're done right

I know you are but what am I

I think we're done right

― recovering internet addict/shitposter (viborg), Wednesday, October 26, 2022 8:51 PM (twenty-nine minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

"we".

btw you don't seem to be recovering

It's a process dear

never call me dear

Okay pam

Sorry I'm an agnostic dyslexic