Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T18:09:10.508Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparativist Philosophy of Science and Population Viability Assessment in Biology: Helping Resolve Scientific Controversy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Kristin Shrader-Frechette
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Comparing alternative scientific theories obviously is relevant to theory assessment, but are comparativists (like Laudan) correct when they also make it necessary? This paper argues that they are not. Defining rationality solely in terms of theories’ comparative problem-solving strengths, comparativist philosophers of science like Laudan subscribe to what I call the irrelevance claim (IC) and the necessity claim (NC). According to IC, a scientific theory's being well or poorly confirmed is “irrelevant” to its acceptance; NC is the claim that “all evaluations of research traditions and theories must be made within a comparative context,” how any theory “compares with its competitors” (Laudan 1977, 21, 120). Using current competing theories (T1 and T2) of population viability assessment (PVA) for the Florida panther, the paper investigates IC/NC. In part because dominant T2 panther biologists accept IC/NC (which T1 theorists reject), the paper argues that they appear both to have accepted flawed T2 and to have contributed to flawed panther science and policy. Correcting Laudan's Comparativist Philosophy of Science (LCPS), underlying the T1-versus-T2 debate, thus may hold promise for helping resolve both the scientific and policy controversy over panther PVA.

Type
Can Philosophy Offer Help in Resolving Contemporary Biological Controversies?
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 73 , Issue 5: Proceedings of the 2004 Biennial Meeting of The Philosophy of Science Association. Part II: Symposia Papers. Edited by Miriam Solomon , December 2006 , pp. 817 - 828
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Agripartners (2001), “Motion of Intervenor Agripartners,” National Wildlife Federation (NWF), et al., v. Louis Caldera, Civil Action no. 1: 00 CV 01031 (JR).Google Scholar
Allchin, Douglas (1994), “The Super Bowl and the Ox-Phos Controversy: ‘Winner-Take-All’ Competition in Philosophy of Science,” PSA 1994: Proceedings of the 1994 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Vol. 1. East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association, 22–33.Google Scholar
Beier, Paul (2003), “Comments on December 2002 Draft USFWS Conservation Strategy for the Florida Panther in South Florida,” Vero Beach, FL: USFWS Florida Ecosystem Office.Google Scholar
Beier, Paul, Choate, D., and Barrett, R. M. (1995), “Movement Patterns of Mountain Lions during Different Behaviors,” Journal of Mammalogy 76:1056–1070.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beier, Paul, Vaughan, M. R., Conroy, M. J., and Quigley, H. (2003), “An Analysis of Scientific Literature Related to the Florida Panther,” Project NG01-105, Tallahassee, FL: FFWCC.Google Scholar
Comiskey, E. J. (2003), Personal communication with Member of Panther MERIT Subteam, September 1, 2, 8.Google Scholar
Comiskey, E. J., Bass, O. L. Jr., Gross, L. J., McBride, R. T., and Salinas, R. (2002), “Panthers and Forests in South Florida: An Ecological Perspective.” Conservation Ecology 6: 18. http://www.consecol.org/vol6/iss1/art18/manuscript.html.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comiskey, E. J., Eller, A. C., and Perkins, D. W. (2004), “Evaluating Impacts to Florida Panther Habitat,” Southeastern Naturalist 3 (1): 51–74..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dees, C. S., Clark, J. D., and Manen, F. T. (2001), “Florida Panther Habitat Use in Response to Prescribed Fire,” Journal of Wildlife Management 65 (1): 141–147..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoctor, T. (2004), “Comments to the Florida-Panther Scientific Review Team,” in D. S. Maehr, Review of “An Analysis of Scientific Publications Related to the Florida Panther,” Memorandum to the Florida Panther Recovery Team, January 21.Google Scholar
Keister, G. P., and Van Dyke, W. A. (2002), “A Predictive Model for Cougars in Oregon,” Northwest Science 76 (1): 15–25..Google Scholar
Kostyack, John (2002), “Letter to Colonel James G. May, US Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida and Jay Slack, US FWS, Vero Beach, Florida (June 7, 2002),” National Wildlife Federation, 1–12.Google Scholar
Land, Darrell, Cunningham, Mark, McBride, Roy, Shindle, David, and Lotz, Mark (2002), Florida Panther Genetic Restoration, 2001–2002. Tallahassee, FL: FFWCC.Google Scholar
Land, Darrell, and Lacy, R. (2000). “Introgression Level Achieved through Florida Panther Genetic Restoration,” Endangered Species Update 17:100–105.Google Scholar
Laudan, Larry (1977), Progress and Its Problems. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Laudan, Larry (1997), “How about Bust? Factoring Explanatory Power Back into Theory Evaluation,” Philosophy of Science 64 (2): 306–316..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McBride, Roy T. (2002), Florida Panther Current Verified Population, Distribution, and Highlights of Field Work. Vero Beach, FL: Florida Panther Subteam, USFWS, South Florida Ecosystem Office.Google Scholar
McBride, Roy T. (2003), “Documented Panther Population and Its Current Distribution,” in Shindle, D., Cunningham, M., Land, D., McBride, R., Lott, M., and Ferree, B., Florida Panther Genetic Restoration. Tallahassee, FL: FFWCC, 63–73.Google Scholar
Maehr, David (1997), The Florida Panther. Covelo, CA: Island Press.Google Scholar
Maehr, David (2001), “Declaration of Opinion Regarding Florida Panther Litigation Re Landon Companies/Agripartners,” National Wildlife Federation et al. v. Caldera et al., Case No. 1: 00CV01031 (D.D.C. Judge Robertson).Google Scholar
Maehr, David, and Cox, J. A. (1995), “Landscape Features and Panthers in South Florida,” Conservation Biology 9 (5): 1008–1019..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maehr, David, and Deason, J. P. (2002), “Wide-Ranging Carnivores and Development Permits,” Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy 3:398–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maehr, David, Hoctor, T. S., and Harris, L. D. (2002), “The Florida Panther,” in Maehr, D. S., Noss, P. F., and Larkin, J. L. (eds.), Large Mammal Restoration. Covelo, CA: Island Press, 293–312.Google Scholar
Maehr, David, and Meegan, R. P. (2001), Corridors, Landscape Linkages, and Conservation Planning for the Florida Panther, Report to Lee County, FL.Google Scholar
Mayo, Deborah (1996), Error and the Growth of Experimental Knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meegan, R. P., and Maehr, D. S. (2002), “Landscape Conservation and Regional Planning for the Florida Panther,” Southeastern Naturalist 1 (3): 217–232..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Wildlife Federation (NWF), et al., Plaintiffs v. Louis Caldera, et al., Defendants (2001), Civil Action No. 1: 00 CV 01031 (JR), later changed to NWF et al., Plaintiffs, v. Thomas White, et al., Defendants, Case: 00CV01031 (JR).Google Scholar
Noble, I. R., and Dirzo, R. (1997), “Forests as Human-Dominated Ecosystems,” Science 277 (5325): 522–525..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinder, J. E., and Rea, T. E. (1999), “Deforestation, Reforestation, and Forest Fragmentation,” American Midland Naturalist 142 (2): 213–227..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shrader-Frechette, Kristin (2004), “Measurement Problems and Florida Panther Models,” Southeastern Naturalist 3 (1): 37–50..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slack, James J., Supervisor, Field, Florida Ecological Services Office, South, Fish, US and Service, Wildlife (2001), “Letter to Kris Thoemke, Everglades Project Manager, National Wildlife Federation, and Nancy Anne Payton, SW FL Field Representative, Florida Wildlife Federation (June 12).”Google Scholar
Slack, James J., Supervisor, Field, Florida Ecological Services Office, South, Fish, US and Service, Wildlife (2002), “Letter to Colonel James G. May, US Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida, Biological Opinion for the Proposed Fort Myers Mine # 2 in Lee County, Florida (January 30).”Google Scholar
Thoemke, Kris, Manager, Everglades Project, Wildlife Federation (NWF), National, and Payton, Nancy Anne, FL Field Representative, SW, WF, Florida (2001), “Letter to James J. Slack, Field Supervisor, South Florida Ecological Services Office, US FWS (May 7).”Google Scholar