11.08.2013 Views

1 Samuel M. Scheiner and Michael R. Willig, eds. 1. A General ...

1 Samuel M. Scheiner and Michael R. Willig, eds. 1. A General ...

1 Samuel M. Scheiner and Michael R. Willig, eds. 1. A General ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

substantial empirical content, it acquires theoretical flavor during its articulation. It is then that<br />

its scope is specified (which observations qualify for inclusion), relationships are exposed (what<br />

is shared among these observations), <strong>and</strong> language (definitions of facts <strong>and</strong> relationships),<br />

sometimes formal, settled. For example, in this book (<strong>Scheiner</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Willig</strong> Chapter 1), the<br />

generalization that individuals are different (i.e., share the property of being different) from each<br />

other is clearly based on numerous observations. However, it is not a sum of observations by<br />

any means. The generalization uses a relationship between two individuals of “being different”.<br />

Thus, a condensation of observations is produced by introducing a new concept, a concept of<br />

(non-)similarity that does not apply to a single individual (or species) but, instead, it requires at<br />

least two entities. This generalization implicitly defines the level of detail <strong>and</strong> dimensions of<br />

comparison. The level of detail may even change along a sliding scale depending on the<br />

evolutionary affinity of the individuals being compared: comparing individuals within a species<br />

would require consideration of different variables than comparing different species within a<br />

genus.<br />

Species area curves summarized as S = CA z (where S is species richness, C is a constant,<br />

A is area sampled, <strong>and</strong> z is scaling constant) or allometric relationships such as Di ∝ Mi -¾ (where<br />

Di is density of species i <strong>and</strong> Mi is its mass) are good examples of other empirical generalizations<br />

that commonly function in ecology (Gould 1979, Whittaker 1998), in spite of doubts as to their<br />

validity (e.g., <strong>Scheiner</strong> 2004). One characteristic indicator of generalization is the (initial)<br />

absence of theory that is capable of reproducing the underlying pattern without exceptions.<br />

Usually, an empirical generalization provides a strong stimulus for finding a conceptual<br />

framework that is capable of providing an explanation for the empirical pattern detected. This<br />

was certainly the case with S=CA z for which Preston (1962) developed statistical explanation<br />

<strong>and</strong> the equilibrium theory of isl<strong>and</strong> biogeography provided a additional biological mechanisms.<br />

Also, currently, the metabolic theory of ecology (Brown et al. 2004) proposes answers for the<br />

observation that Di ∝ Mi -¾ .<br />

Idealizations on the other h<strong>and</strong> are theoretical devices created to explore consequences of<br />

a feature or a relationship of interest as if no other interfering factors were at play. To continue<br />

with an earlier example, one could assume that species are r<strong>and</strong>omly distributed in<br />

homogeneously diverse space (space in which a mix of features repeats itself over <strong>and</strong> over; cf.<br />

Hutchinson 1961). Then one could derive a formula describing the relationship between<br />

28<br />

28

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!