GeorgW said:
Interesting to see this thread revived. It all comes down to your definition of science, and I feel that you need a certain level of precision for it to be science. As you said, there are just too many factors at play in ecology and other fields like it, and therefore I don't view it as science. It falls below my border of acceptance so to say. That's not to say that ecology is any less of a field, it's just different in a lot of ways and should have another definition. But that's just how I define it to myself, other people would of course define it differently. I just want to defend my position, cuz I realise I didn't present it so well the first time.
Ok, in the full knowledge that I can't change your opinion, and in the full understanding that you do not view ecology as less of a field for 'not being a science', I would like to suggest an alternative point for dicussion:
In physics, it can be seen that gravity acts and it can be seen that it doesn't in space; however, the exact mechanism by which gravity acts has not been proven rigourously. In other words, there may be a mechanism, which we do not comprehend, that explains the act of gravity but occurs in a completely different way to how we think it does. This hypothesis is currently untestable, and unprooven. Rather imprecise, shall we say.
However, in ecology, if I remove species X from a system, species Y, from the same trophic level, will reach "always" reach carrying capacity, in absence of predatory effects, due to a lack of competition for resources. This is a testable and repeatable hypothesis that we can explain from the metabolic level; without the need for hypothetical particles or anything that cannot be shown visibly or chemically. Does that not sound like a more valid scientific hypothesis than using something that uses a mechanism we cannot detect as an explanation.
I hope that this point has not been obtuse in anyway, I think perhaps your understanding of exactly what ecology is as a field is not as complete as to truely understand the processes that determine how organisms interact. Similar to how I do not have knowledge of chemistry past an A level standard. All I can say is that our opinions are highly biased, if you had an interest in ecology then you would probably think of it as a science. Similarly, if I was a physical chemist, I would probably think of it as a soft science at best.
I hope that I have not pressed this point in such a way as to be offensive.
