 Aiming the “unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics” at ecological theoryLev R. Ginzburg, Christopher X.J. Jensen and Jeffrey V. Yule Ecological Modelling, 2007, vol. 207, issue 2, 356-362 Abstract: A good theory is focused without being blurred by extraneous detail or overgenerality. Yet ecological theories frequently fail to achieve this desirable middle ground. Here, we review the reasons for the mismatch between what theorists seek to achieve and what they actually accomplish. In doing so, we argue on pragmatic grounds against mathematical literalism as an appropriate constraint to mathematical constructions: such literalism would allow mathematics to constrain biology when the biology ought to be constraining mathematics. We also suggest a method for differentiating theories with the potential to be “unreasonably effective” from those that are simply overgeneral. Simple axiomatic assumptions about an ecological system should lead to theoretical predictions that can then be compared with existing data. If the theory is so general that data cannot be used to test it, the theory must be made more specific. Keywords: Model assessment; Model design methodology; Assumption selection and generality; Pragmatism; Appropriate constraint of mathematical constructions; Predator–prey theory; Paradox of enrichment; Limit myths (search for similar items in EconPapers) Downloads: (external link) Related works: Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:ecomod:v:207:y:2007:i:2:p:356-362 DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2007.05.015 Access Statistics for this article Ecological Modelling is currently edited by Brian D. Fath More articles in Ecological Modelling from Elsevier |
Is your work missing from RePEc? Here is how to contribute.
Questions or problems? Check the EconPapers FAQ or send mail to .
EconPapers is hosted by the
School of Business at Örebro University.