SOME THOUGHTS ON THE BEHAVIOUR OF ECOLOGISTS

At the present time much is expected of ecology by ecologists and also by the public at large. This situation has come upon us very rapidly, following a period in which the very possibility that such a science as ecology could exist was often treated with scepticism. I believe we need to look beyond our day-to-day preoccupations: firstly, because many specialists in one ecological field tend either to ignore or to accept uncritically the writings of their colleagues in other areas of ecology. Secondly, whilst few of us stop to consider how far the single name 'ecology' reflects a coherent system of ideas and approaches, it is surely a function of an ecological society to do so. Thirdly, because the assumptions, methods and activities of ecologists have from time to time been subjected to some quite strong criticism and I do not think these criticisms should be quietly forgotten in the way that seems to happen so often. As Watt has written (1971), 'if we do not develop a strong theoretical core that will bring all parts of ecology back together we shall all be washed out to sea in an immense tide of unrelated information'. Finally because, on the practical front, ecology is expected to produce methods of prediction which will permit the manipulation of populations and ecosystems and, to be frank, we have not been too successful in doing this so far. Most of the predictions which prove correct are, like those of the meteorologists, too trite to be interesting. There are those who argue that ecology, like human history, is concerned with unique events and that these are not supposed to be open to the 'scientific method'. Is this true and does 'scientific method' referred to in this context differ from its meaning in other sciences ? How do we gain knowledge in ecology ? Is all ecological knowledge comparable or are we concerned with different sorts of knowledge which demand different methods for their study ? What useful insight can we gain from the pronouncements on scientific method by ecologists, by other biologists or by philosophers of science? Many colleagues have little time for philosophy of science but I believe this to be an arrogant attitude in a subject which has been split by semantic schisms and methodological muddles, an attitude which we cannot afford. I am therefore prepared to risk boring my audience and enraging philosophers by beginning with a field of study which I am ill-qualified to discuss. I propose first to consider how science is supposed to work, then to review some of the inherent difficulties which conventional methods present to the ecologist, followed by specific instances of weaknesses in ecological methodology.