Prognosis of ecology as a hard science?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on whether ecology qualifies as a hard science. Participants acknowledge the complexity and dynamism of ecosystems, emphasizing that ecology involves sophisticated modeling and analysis, which supports its classification as a hard science. While some express skepticism about the hard/soft science dichotomy, they argue that ecology, despite its perception as a softer field, relies heavily on objectively recorded data and rigorous methodologies. Specific examples, such as predator-prey dynamics in fish populations and recent research published in the journal Ecology, illustrate the scientific rigor present in ecological studies. The conversation also corrects the misuse of the term "prognosis," clarifying its medical context and reinforcing the notion that ecology's challenges are significant and complex.
Delong
Messages
400
Reaction score
18
Does anyone here consider ecology a hard science?
 
Biology news on Phys.org
To the extent that I agree with the hard/soft dichotomy (which isn't much) yes it is. Why do you think otherwise?

Also FYI: a prognosis is a prediction of the likely course a medical condition will take. It's use in the thread title is incorrect.
 
Ecosystems are pretty darn dynamic and complex. Lots of sophisticated modeling and analysis is done.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
Ryan_m_b said:
To the extent that I agree with the hard/soft dichotomy (which isn't much) yes it is. Why do you think otherwise?

Also FYI: a prognosis is a prediction of the likely course a medical condition will take. It's use in the thread title is incorrect.

I agree that hard and soft is ultimately contrived, every science has a potential of being hard. It's just sometimes ecology has the impression of being soft and I'm wondering if there truly is more to the field. You do think it is hard? What areas are hardest?

Also thanks for correcting me on the word usage of prognosis.
 
I have worked some years with predator-prey dynamics of fish an it is damn hard :-) Just to give an example of a highly cited model for fish dynamics (perch in Swedish lakes):
http://129.199.13.40/IMG/file/DavidPDF/amnat2000.pdf
And this is just a single-species model. Extending this to several species and applying it to the real world is not very soft. Ör just go to the latest issue of the journal Ecology (http://www.esajournals.org/toc/ecol/95/2) and have a look at the titles (some of the papers are marked as open access, too). So I would say that ecology with few exceptions is a hard field in the sense of "being based on objectively recorded data". However, one might get a quite different impression if you just base your impression on what is written in the news.
 
Deadly cattle screwworm parasite found in US patient. What to know. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2025/08/25/new-world-screwworm-human-case/85813010007/ Exclusive: U.S. confirms nation's first travel-associated human screwworm case connected to Central American outbreak https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/us-confirms-nations-first-travel-associated-human-screwworm-case-connected-2025-08-25/...
Chagas disease, long considered only a threat abroad, is established in California and the Southern U.S. According to articles in the Los Angeles Times, "Chagas disease, long considered only a threat abroad, is established in California and the Southern U.S.", and "Kissing bugs bring deadly disease to California". LA Times requires a subscription. Related article -...
I am reading Nicholas Wade's book A Troublesome Inheritance. Please let's not make this thread a critique about the merits or demerits of the book. This thread is my attempt to understanding the evidence that Natural Selection in the human genome was recent and regional. On Page 103 of A Troublesome Inheritance, Wade writes the following: "The regional nature of selection was first made evident in a genomewide scan undertaken by Jonathan Pritchard, a population geneticist at the...
Back
Top