入侵生物学中存在逻辑谬误,指责信使不会提高该领域的问责性:对弗兰克等人的回应。

IF 1.7 1区 哲学 Q1 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE Biology & Philosophy Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1007/s10539-023-09892-3
Radu Cornel Guiaşu, Christopher W Tindale
{"title":"入侵生物学中存在逻辑谬误,指责信使不会提高该领域的问责性:对弗兰克等人的回应。","authors":"Radu Cornel Guiaşu,&nbsp;Christopher W Tindale","doi":"10.1007/s10539-023-09892-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>We analyze the \"Logical fallacies and reasonable debates in invasion biology: a response to Guiaşu and Tindale\" article by Frank et al., and also discuss this work in the context of recent intense debates in invasion biology, and reactions by leading invasion biologists to critics of aspects of their field. While we acknowledge the attempt by Frank et al., at least in the second half of their paper, to take into account more diverse points of view about non-native species and their complex roles in ecosystems, we also find the accusations of misrepresenting invasion biology, for instance by \"cherry-picking\" and \"constructing 'straw people'\", directed at the Guiaşu and Tindale study to be unwarranted. Despite the sometimes harsh responses by leading invasion biologists to critics of their field, we believe that persistent and fundamental problems remain in invasion biology, and we discuss some of these problems in this article. Failing to recognize these problems, and simply dismissing or minimizing legitimate criticisms, will not advance the cause, or enhance the general appeal, of invasion biology and will prevent meaningful progress in understanding the multiple contributions non-native species can bring to various ecosystems worldwide. We recommend taking a more open-minded and pragmatic approach towards non-native species and the novel ecosystems they are an integral part of.</p>","PeriodicalId":55368,"journal":{"name":"Biology & Philosophy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9845828/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Logical fallacies persist in invasion biology and blaming the messengers will not improve accountability in this field: a response to Frank et al.\",\"authors\":\"Radu Cornel Guiaşu,&nbsp;Christopher W Tindale\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10539-023-09892-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>We analyze the \\\"Logical fallacies and reasonable debates in invasion biology: a response to Guiaşu and Tindale\\\" article by Frank et al., and also discuss this work in the context of recent intense debates in invasion biology, and reactions by leading invasion biologists to critics of aspects of their field. While we acknowledge the attempt by Frank et al., at least in the second half of their paper, to take into account more diverse points of view about non-native species and their complex roles in ecosystems, we also find the accusations of misrepresenting invasion biology, for instance by \\\"cherry-picking\\\" and \\\"constructing 'straw people'\\\", directed at the Guiaşu and Tindale study to be unwarranted. Despite the sometimes harsh responses by leading invasion biologists to critics of their field, we believe that persistent and fundamental problems remain in invasion biology, and we discuss some of these problems in this article. Failing to recognize these problems, and simply dismissing or minimizing legitimate criticisms, will not advance the cause, or enhance the general appeal, of invasion biology and will prevent meaningful progress in understanding the multiple contributions non-native species can bring to various ecosystems worldwide. We recommend taking a more open-minded and pragmatic approach towards non-native species and the novel ecosystems they are an integral part of.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55368,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Biology & Philosophy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9845828/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Biology & Philosophy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-023-09892-3\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biology & Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-023-09892-3","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

我们分析了Frank等人的文章“入侵生物学中的逻辑谬误和合理辩论:对guia和Tindale的回应”,并在最近入侵生物学激烈辩论的背景下讨论了这项工作,以及主要入侵生物学家对其领域各方面批评的反应。虽然我们承认Frank等人的尝试,至少在他们论文的后半部分,考虑到更多关于非本地物种及其在生态系统中的复杂角色的不同观点,但我们也发现,针对guia和Tindale研究的歪曲入侵生物学的指控,例如“挑选樱桃”和“构建‘稻草人’”,是没有根据的。尽管领军的入侵生物学家有时会对他们领域的批评做出严厉的回应,但我们认为,入侵生物学中仍然存在持续存在的基本问题,我们将在本文中讨论其中的一些问题。未能认识到这些问题,简单地忽视或尽量减少合理的批评,将不会推进入侵生物学的事业,或增强入侵生物学的总体吸引力,并将阻碍在理解非本地物种对全球各种生态系统的多重贡献方面取得有意义的进展。我们建议对非本地物种及其组成部分的新生态系统采取更开放和务实的态度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Logical fallacies persist in invasion biology and blaming the messengers will not improve accountability in this field: a response to Frank et al.

We analyze the "Logical fallacies and reasonable debates in invasion biology: a response to Guiaşu and Tindale" article by Frank et al., and also discuss this work in the context of recent intense debates in invasion biology, and reactions by leading invasion biologists to critics of aspects of their field. While we acknowledge the attempt by Frank et al., at least in the second half of their paper, to take into account more diverse points of view about non-native species and their complex roles in ecosystems, we also find the accusations of misrepresenting invasion biology, for instance by "cherry-picking" and "constructing 'straw people'", directed at the Guiaşu and Tindale study to be unwarranted. Despite the sometimes harsh responses by leading invasion biologists to critics of their field, we believe that persistent and fundamental problems remain in invasion biology, and we discuss some of these problems in this article. Failing to recognize these problems, and simply dismissing or minimizing legitimate criticisms, will not advance the cause, or enhance the general appeal, of invasion biology and will prevent meaningful progress in understanding the multiple contributions non-native species can bring to various ecosystems worldwide. We recommend taking a more open-minded and pragmatic approach towards non-native species and the novel ecosystems they are an integral part of.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Biology & Philosophy
Biology & Philosophy 管理科学-科学史与科学哲学
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
8.00%
发文量
48
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Recent decades have witnessed fascinating and controversial advances in the biological sciences. This journal answers the need for meta-theoretical analysis, both about the very nature of biology, as well as about its social implications. Biology and Philosophy is aimed at a broad readership, drawn from both the sciences and the humanities. The journal subscribes to no specific school of biology, nor of philosophy, and publishes work from authors of all persuasions and all disciplines. The editorial board reflects this attitude in its composition and its world-wide membership. Each issue of Biology and Philosophy carries one or more discussions or comparative reviews, permitting the in-depth study of important works and topics.
期刊最新文献
Environmental interference Trait-centered vs. fitness-centered definitions of natural selection Exploration and perspectival modelling with model organisms: developmental biology as a case study The evolution of reproductive characters: an organismal-relational approach Different kinds of data: samples and the relational framework
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1