Raerinne Jani
Faculty of Social Science University of Helsinki Helsinki Finland.
Ecol Evol. 2024 Feb 29;14(3):e11106. doi: 10.1002/ece3.11106. eCollection 2024 Mar.
During the last 50 years, a group of ecologists has repeatedly used Popper's falsificationism in normative claims concerning how research in ecology should be conducted and/or how ecology should be corrected. Other ecologists seem to be dissatisfied with these criticisms. Nevertheless, they have not provided systematic analyses of how and why the Popperian criticisms of ecology fail. I have two aims in this article First, I show how so-called Popperian ecologists have not only failed to use but have misused - if not abused - Popper in their criticisms of ecology. That is, the Popperian criticisms of ecology lack the justification the critics claim it has. Second, I claim that Popper's falsificationism is an unsuitable philosophy of science for ecology. In other words, ecology should not be criticized nor evaluated from the Popperian perspective in the first place.
在过去的50年里,一群生态学家在关于生态学研究应如何开展和/或生态学应如何修正的规范性主张中反复运用波普尔的证伪主义。其他生态学家似乎对这些批评不满。然而,他们并未对波普尔对生态学的批评为何以及如何失败进行系统分析。本文我有两个目的。其一,我将展示所谓的波普尔派生态学家在批评生态学时,不仅未能正确运用波普尔的理论,甚至可以说是滥用了——如果不是歪曲的话。也就是说,对生态学的波普尔式批评缺乏批评者所宣称的正当理由。其二,我认为波普尔的证伪主义对生态学而言是一种不合适的科学哲学。换句话说,生态学从一开始就不应该从波普尔的视角进行批评或评估。