Donhauser Justin
Western University, London, ON N6A 5B8, Canada.
Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci. 2017 Jun;63:70-79. doi: 10.1016/j.shpsc.2017.03.008. Epub 2017 Apr 1.
In a (2016) paper in this journal, I defuse allegations that theoretical ecological research is problematic because it relies on teleological metaphysical assumptions. Mark Sagoff offers a formal reply. In it, he concedes that I succeeded in establishing that ecologists abandoned robust teleological views long ago and that they use teleological characterizations as metaphors that aid in developing mechanistic explanations of ecological phenomena. Yet, he contends that I did not give enduring criticisms of theoretical ecology a fair shake in my paper. He says this is because enduring criticisms center on concerns about the nature of ecological networks and forces, the instrumentality of ecological laws and theoretical models, and the relation between theoretical and empirical methods in ecology that that paper does not broach. Below I set apart the distinct criticisms Sagoff presents in his commentary and respond to each in turn.
在本期刊2016年发表的一篇论文中,我化解了关于理论生态学研究存在问题的指控,该指控称其依赖目的论的形而上学假设。马克·萨戈夫给出了正式回应。在回应中,他承认我成功证明了生态学家早就摒弃了坚定的目的论观点,并且他们将目的论描述用作隐喻,以帮助构建对生态现象的机制性解释。然而,他辩称我在论文中没有对理论生态学的持久批评给予公正的对待。他说这是因为持久批评集中在对生态网络和力量的本质、生态规律和理论模型的工具性,以及生态学中理论方法与实证方法之间关系的担忧上,而我的那篇论文并未涉及这些内容。下面我将区分萨戈夫在其评论中提出的不同批评,并依次进行回应。