Talk:Theoretical ecology
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Ecology, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve ecology-related articles. |
| Start | rated as start-Class on the assessment scale |
| High | rated as high-importance on the assessment scale |
[edit] "Metaphysics"?
How does metaphysics fit into a page on theoretical ecology? People tend to use the term 'ecology' loosely (for example, re-naming Home Economics as Human Ecology, but I question the appropriateness of this material here. Guettarda
Too much of the introduction reads like an academic play by play. I hope that this can be moved to the middle of the essay and that the introduction can be reserved basic, introductory material, relavent to those who are curious about what theoretical ecology is. --Ralfipedia
- In addition, I think the reference to Schrödinger's What is Life? as "metaphysics" is misleading. Schrödinger was seeking to ground our understanding of life in physics, not some extra-scientific philosophy. WebDrake 14:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
-
- Be that as it may...
- The article calls it metaphysics
- Whatever you call it, how is it ecology? Guettarda 14:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- Be that as it may...
-
-
- To deal with these issues in order:
- On that particular point, the article is talking out of its arse. What is Life? is not metaphysics, as you can see from the article dedicated to it.
- Your call. IMO What is Life? is theoretical biology, but ecology seems like too specific a term.
- — WebDrake 14:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- To deal with these issues in order:
-
[edit] Category:Theoretical biology
It seemed to me that theoretical biology was a wide enough field to merit its own category, so I created it and have added theoretical ecology to the list. :-) — WebDrake 14:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Neutral theory centered
The article seems to be cetered around neutral theory of biogeography. It seems to me there are many other areas worth noting; Lotka-Volterra equations, Logistic (and Gompertz, and Watt) growth, Holling Functional responses, etc.. I would think these are on par as far as theoretical ecology goes. Thoughts? --Hansnesse 18:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
