Talk:Gaia hypothesis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Deletion of cleanup tag
I have reduced the references to daisyword to one, and to Kirchner's thesis to two, and generally had an attempt to cleanup the whole article. Hope this overcomes the difficulties with the theory. Bared upon the insertion of the Amsterdam declaration and the re-write of the initial sections, I have deleted the cleanup tag and the factual tag at the end. I have left the middle tag in place. John D. Croft 11:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Requested move
Gaia theory (science) → Gaia hypothesis – I was under the impression the Gaia hypothesis is more generally considered a hypothesis than a theory. I.e. it does not hold enough universial support to be considered a 'scientific truth' and have theory status. That and the opening text refers to it as a hypothesis. References to it as a theory seem to come only from the loose non-scientific linguistic use of the word theory to be equivalent to idea. krebbe 19:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
There definitely needs to be some clean-up on the subject of hypothesis vs. Theory in the article, since they are used interchangably throughout in a most annoying fasion. They are not interchangable words. A hypothesis is a scientific idea that is untested. A theory is a scientific idea that has been tested a number of times and has failed to be proven wrong. Based on these definitions, one phrase or another should be pruned from the article.
- For the two comments above, I think according to your criteria neither String theory should be called a theory? Sampo Smolander 17:02, 02 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Survey
- Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
- Oppose. the original Gaia hypothesis has now made accurate scientific predictions and therefore becomes a theory. But perhaps "model" would be neutral? CharlieT 18 August 06
- Support I've taken a class taught by Lynn Margulis, who's mentioned in the article, and she always said Gaia hypothesis. Jay32183 19:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Support Most common name; this talk page is the first place I've seen it called a theory. Septentrionalis 00:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose The Gaia Hypothesis remains a hypothesis until subject to scientific testing. Any hypothesis which survives rigorous testing becomes a theory. The Gaia hypothesis has survived such testing since it was first suggested, and now has been accepted in the Amsterdam statement of "Earth Systems Science". Thus it has earned the name Gaia Theory. One can even go further and suggest that as a number of quite different "Gaia Theories" are currently being tested, a better description would be "Gaia science" John D. Croft 09:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Discussion
- (moved from the previous 'Gaia what' section)
"Gaia theory (science) The Gaia hypothesis, a theory" ok, so... what? theory hypothesis theory? huh? --TheAlphaWolf 19:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Personally, I have heard it referred to as "hypothesis" more often than "theory", though both are correct. It is a bit weird that the article goes back and forth, but even weirder that it is called "theory" but opens with "the Gaia Hypothesis"... Maybe it should be moved to Gaia Hypothesis. Any thoughts? romarin [talk ] 15:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Each form of it is a single hypothesis or postulate, which can be part of a theory; just as Kepler's theory of planetary motion has three of them. Septentrionalis 01:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
This article has been renamed as the result of a move request.
Ashibaka tock 22:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 Archives |
|---|
[edit] General sloppiness in the article
I am still unsatisfied with this article despite my attempts to remove the general sloppiness it contains. There seems to be numerous repetitions of James Kirchners critique of Gaia Theory as if that was the be-all and end-all of anti-Gaian criticism, and as if even Strong and Weak Gaian approaches are true. Lawrence Joseph in his "Gaia:The Birth of an Idea" analyses Kirchner's attack at depth and shows how it was an attack against Lovelock's credibility as a scientist (Kirchner made the same claim against Daisyworld as an example of garbage in garbage out. Jon Turney also has also shown that Kirchner's attack was based on Lovelock's early writings, and that Lovelock's own thinking on Gaia had developed significantly since the early 1970s, which Kirchner never acknowledged.
In the critical section there is also no mention of Stephen Jay Gould's influencial criticism of Gaia as merely metaphorical, nor the rebuttal by David Abrahm that reductionistic science is itself based upon the metaphore of a clockwork machine. Darwinian evolution itself is based upon a "natural selecion" analogous to the artificial selection of plant and animal breeders. Others have shown that as our machines become more cybernetic and microbiology discovers organic feedback systems the old organic-mechanical metaphorical split becomes less meaningful.
The article almost totally neglects the growth of interdisciplinary "Earth Systems Science" which owes its origin and its major development to Gaia Theory. The contributions of Thomas Volk and Stephan Harding are not discussed, nor the critique of homeostatic Gaia posed by Snowball Earth.
- Earth System Science has very little to do with the Gaia Hypothesis, and the statement towards the end of the introduction that says the Gaia Hypothesis is more commonly referred to Earth System Science needs to be removed. Earth System Science is much broader and much more inclusive than the Gaia Hypothesis. Furthermore, the link to "earth system science" in this article needs to be corrected (i.e. it should not link to "Earth Science"). Tomwithanh 02:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- Regarding "Earth System Science", both Stephan Harding in his book "Animate Earth", and James Lovelock in "Gaia's Revenge" consider Earth System Science a form of "intermediate" Gaia (using Kirchner's analogy). Have a look at the Talk given by Sir Crispin Tickell at http://www2.le.ac.uk/ebulletin/features/2000-2009/2006/11/nparticle.2006-11-20.9623961254
-
- John D. Croft 10:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] First reference to Gaia?
Lovelock, J. E.; Gaia as seen through the atmosphere, Atmospheric Environment 6 (1972) 579-580.
[edit] reference desk request for clarification
The following question was left at the ref desk:
At the bottom of the article, there is an abbreviated section titled: "Gaia hypothesis in ecology." Here it is stated that "most ecologists agree to assimilate the biosphere to a super ecosystem...." Could this simply be a minor carelessness at the end of a very wonderful article? Let me voice my doubt by asking a question about the use of the phrase "super ecosystem." In what way does the expression "super ecos
I disagree with the move. This should go back to Gaia theory. The Gaia idea has now made scientific predictions which have proved accurate. Also, the correct term is Earth System Sciencew, not "Systems." This whole article is a mess.
Charlie T.
For someone like me who has never hear of any of this, the article is very informative and I see no "mess".
Greg H
The Gaia <-> mule comparison is plain crap, to put it bluntly. The same criticism could _not_ be levelled against a mule or a post-menupausal woman. If you don't get this, then you haven't understood basic evolutionary theory and I am not going to teach it to you. Hint: the mule has an ancestry that wasn't sterile. Gaia, as far as I know, is not the last in some billions of predecessor global ecosystems.
- If the panspermia hypothesis is correct, then Gaia certainly is the last we know of in many predecessors.
- §§§§John D. Croft
Claes A
[edit] POV
The article has some POV language in favour of Lovelock and against his critics. I've removed some but not all as I don't have time now (I've added a POV notice in one section). Ben Finn 21:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Mary Daly The Witch of Boston College
Does this link belong here? Seems a bit sensationalist for an article on an important idea. Added unsigned on 2006-12-13T00:49:32 by 81.178.103.160
- PJTraill 01:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC) The linked article also has nothing to do with this article (it contains 'Gaia' in a different sense). I'm removing it. Also the other one to "Gaia: Worshipping the Ground We Walk On" on that site - that article claims "It was from the pulpit of this cathedral in 1979 that James Lovelock first publicly explained the Gaia theory - that the earth as a whole is a living, conscious organism.", but further has no real bearing on it. Lovelock's language has certainly confused people, but he does not impute consciousness to Gaia.
[edit] Dead link "Keep a positive attitude"?
The link Keep a positive attitude does nothing useful (for me). Can anyone improve it or should it be scrapped? PJTraill 01:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] First sentence
"The Gaia hypothesis is an ecological theory that proposes that the living matter of planet Earth functions like a single organism." This says nothing about the interaction of living and non-living things in the biosphere that - as I understand it - underpins Gaia. Could someone who has read Lovelock improve the opening sentence in such a way as to take this into account? Regards and thanks, Notreallydavid 03:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- PJTraill 23:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC) I would suggest that that is ample for a first sentence. Any such details should come later, maybe not even in the introduction. As I recall the book the distinction between living and non-living was not so important as far as their roles are concerned, except perhaps in so far as the hypothesis suggests Gaia maintains conditions propitious for life.
