Is the Gaia Hypothesis Pseudoscience?

[Taverner]

Or is it based on real research, real studies and empirical evidence?

[YOY]

1. Izzat the one where the planet is an organism in and of itself?

Forgive the ludditism.

[Taverner]

2. Yes, that one

[YOY]

5. Well it's just a hypothesis really. It cannot really stand up as science until it's proven.

Then it become theory...even then it can be tested and changed with more experimentation, evidence, and any other demonstrative fact. I don't run in circles that could tell you if there are such experimentation or disserations trying to theorize it.

Which is why I laugh when creationists call it "creation theory".

Just my two pennies as I try to recall scientific method...and I am pretty sure I'm remembering it right.

[HereSince1628]

12. That really begs the question of whether science proves things

Geometry has proofs. Biology has dogma...things that seem so reliably shown that they are accepted as true.

Even so, the dogma are only held tentatively.



on edit. only one o in prove :(

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[frustrated_lefty]

41. Science never proves anything.

Hypotheses, theorems, laws, all simply postulate a way to explain observed phenomenon.

For science to be science, it always has to be open to the idea that new evidence, new observations, will completely reshape the underlying theory.

The strength of scientific hypotheses, theorems, etc, becomes increasingly rigid with every additional confirmation.

Example: The sun will always rise tomorrow. Makes sense, it's pretty much accepted, expected, the source of our understanding of astronomy and certain bad musicals. It's been shown so many times, that there would have to be some amazing evidence to expect the sun would not rise tomorrow.

This is where climate change deniers and intelligent design pseudoscientists need to be taken to task. They argue one theory has the same merit or truth value as another. One theory = one theory. Simply put, no.

I theorize our deity is named Vaticanator and HIS will is to transform us all into friendly, fuckable bacon on a parched earth.

Gaea theory is basically weak. I suspect that it could be used to explain a lot of interspecies interactions, mammalian response to geological events, all sorts of good stuff.

The thing is, when you delve into a field to prove your point, you really have to play by the rules of that field. This is why science and religion can't really meet. A demand for evidential proof and an insistence on faith just can't go hand in hand.

Before Gaea theory is proposed to explain the world as we know it, I'd like it applied to explain more empirical events.

[old mark]

15. "Creation theory"? That's pretty funny coming from the same ignos

who used to deride evolution because it was "only a theory"...


m

[YOY]

17. They do that...They used the figurative meaning of "theory" to be a "well-educated" guess.

n.t.

[Taverner]

32. Creation "Theory" besmirches the name of "Theory"

Because Creation doesn't pass one single Scientific test!

[NeedleCast]

3. Depends

I've heard Gaia used a lot of ways. I believe that most aspects of the Earth are linked, and often in ways we probably don't know about yet.

I do not believe the Earth is a single, conscious organism.

[Taverner]

4. Reason I ask is that Gaia Hypothesis folks are the ones who say GW is causing earthquakes

Seems semi reasonable - the idea is that the melting of the glaciers causes the plates to expand - however these plates go down pretty deep - a melted glacier shouldn't make that much difference

[NeedleCast]

7. It's a matter of understanding the scientific method

I think it's an area that crosses into psuedo-science because of the way Giai is sometimes used. Yes, I think it is at least semi-reasonable that there may be a linkage between global warming and increased volcanic activity...but at the same time it's just a likely that the planet goes through increased levels of tectonic activity producing more quakes and volcano eruptions.

I think, however, that the term Giai is more popluarly linked with people who believe the Earth is a consious, intelligent organism and yeah, I think that idea is pretty nutty.

[aquart]

10. It's not the melt, it's the shifting of the weight, I thought.

[robdogbucky]

21. Taverner, link please

What you referenced is interesting to me. The "Gaia Hypothesis folks," are whom?

I read Lovelock's treatise on this back in the '70s when it was first published. Lovelock is like Chomsky to me, both brilliant and both enigmatic and somewhat cagey. Hard to nail down sometimes. Lovelock is no flake, and he is a world renowned scientist, inventing the orgone box, which measures gases in a given atmosphere for NASA back when he first became interested in the balance of CO2 and oxygen in our biosphere.

Anyway, Lovelock also narrated an old National Geo episode wherein he first explained in a way that I understood that the coming climate changes would actually result in an increase in turbulence, in violent storms, starting at the equator. It would not be evidenced simply by one element, like the warming, or even extreme cooling, but rather by upheaval, both warm and cold, but mostly upheaval and increase in intensity, again, especially around the equator.

He took jabs at environmentalists long before his purported support for nukes, and his analysis of why/how a movement of people could become so concerned about the planet's well-being (he had a point there, has modern man ever displayed any desire to conserve anything?)was that they were really concerned about their own hides, their own comforts, their own extinction. This was part and parcel to his explaining that in the history of earth, there have been cataclysmic changes many times, and the earth always adjusts.

It is interesting to be watching the behavior of short-term thinkers to long-term theory. This current claim seems like a knee-jerk reaction to news and an attempt to explain what people fear. The earth.



Just my dos centavos


robdogbucky

[Taverner]

27. No link, just Lovelock's hypothesis

And a request for a greater understanding of it

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

22. If the idea that global warming is causing an increase in earthquakes is reasonable...

then how come there isn't an increase in earthquakes that corresponds with global warming?

[Codeine]

26. There were plenty of earthquakes before climate change concerns.

I've seen no evidence suggesting any sort of statistical uptick over the last decade or so. :shrug:

[Chemisse]

40. The weight of the glaciers causes the plates to sink down

When they melt, the plate rises up. It makes sense that this rise could change the tectonic status of the plate.

[HereSince1628]

13. as presented in the way-back, it was about cybernetic homeostasis

for the planet. It was built around the disproven notion of "balance of nature" which is really based on local stability of ecostystems within limited periods of ecological time.

The planet operates at a geological time scale and there is more evidence that the biosphere can be pushed beyond the local stability to new stable nodes (snow ball Earth for example) than there is that earth will come back in balance.

Think 5 major extinction events and the reordering of the matrix of life on the planet.

[Viking12]

6. .

:popcorn:

[Dogmudgeon]

8. Only since James Lovelock came out in support of nuclear energy

Once he did that, the anti-nuke movement raided the skeptic archives for the proper rhetorical devices and "debunked" the Gaia Hypothesis as "pseudoscience".

Before that, Lovelock was a visionary. Funny how that works.

In its popular form, the Gaia Hypothesis is said to state that the Earth is a living entity; but it is scientifically a falsifiable hypothesis that can be empirically tested. Feedback systems, self-regulation, and complex responses to external challenges can be studied and evaluated, and our understanding of what constitutes life will continue to develop. That doesn't mean that the matter has been settled, only that it CAN be settled, which I understand to be one of the criteria for a scientifically acceptable idea.

I'm sure that evidence in either direction can be found "in the literature".

--d!

[Schema Thing]

9. yes or no, it does seem like more than half the people I interact with...

... just didn't *get it* when they were taught, back in third grade, what the phrase "symbiotic relationship" means.

[bridgit]

11. 'Gaia Hypothesis' is an algorithm

[msanthrope]

14. Endosymbiotic theory is not pseudoscience, you might try reading up on that

and then deciding for yourself if Gaia theory is supported by science, or, if it is part of a larger philosophical viewpoint....

I find the endosymbiotic/symbiotic viewpoint, as opposed to Neo-Darwinist, quite interesting for other than scientific reasons.

[HereSince1628]

25. NeoDarwinism died 90 years ago, wtf?

Lynn Margolis Endosymbiotic Theory isn't generalizable to the problems presented by Lovelock.

The issue is the presence or absence of the notion of "balance of nature." Ecosystem theory has been pretty devastating to balance of nature.

Within the bounds of locally stable nodes systems may be neutrally stable or stable, but the biosphere as a whole can be pushed from one stable node to another. The matrix of species present IS DIFFERENT surrounding different stability nodes. Hence there is no single matrix to which the biosphere, if preturbed, will always return.

The geological evidence for this is overwhelming. There is no Adansonian "essential" biosphere.

READ THE LITERATURE.

Mature.

It's good for you.

[msanthrope]

29. Perhaps you mean Lynn Margulis?

I really don't understand why my suggestion that the OP read up and decide if Gaia Theory is plausible engendered such a response from you.

As someone who does not support Gaia Theory, I find that suggesting people read as much as possible about Gaia often works better than merely scoffing at them. Generally, I find that DU posters are quite capable of thinking for themselves.

But thanks for the freshman-level 'science' lesson.

[HereSince1628]

31. Sorry about the spelling err. Yes, Margulis. But she isn't relavent

The central idea in Lovelock's "Gaia Hypothesis" is the balance of nature. It sounded all new agey and such, but after decades of examination, balance of nature as a truth really and honestly failed.

Mathematical theory suggests that there are probably multiple stable nodes for the composition of the species vector of the Earth. Empirical consideration of fossil evidence of change in the species vector over hundreds of millions of years very much supports the notion of multiple stable nodes within which life on this planet might endure--Things work, until the next perturbation.

If I sounded like I was grinding a personal ax, I apologize. This thing IS my professional life.

[Taverner]

36. Tell me what you can, please!

I want to hear about this...

[htuttle]

39. Now I need to go back and check Lovelock

I didn't realize he'd made an ideal balance of nature so essential to his his hypothesis. I guess I thought he meant the balance of nature at any given time, as it is obviously a very changeable thing.

I need to get more up to date on what's happened since I got out of college a few decades ago. I've had my mind buried inside a software compiler since then...

[msanthrope]

42. I accept your apology regarding your tone. Thank you. n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

16. Yes.

In as much as it's not science. It's got nothing to do with empirical evidence, or tests, or studies and so on.

It might qualify as philosophy or just a working principle or way of looking at things, rather than the usual woo woo and quackery associated with the term "pseudoscience."

[Taverner]

33. So beyond Symbiotic relationships, there is nothing proveable?

Got it!

:thumbsup:

[Greyhound]

18. It seems to me to be a matter of definition.

Certainly, the earth has a vast and largely unrecognized array of interdependent systems which are similar to what we recognize as organisms. And what is consciousness? Sentience?

OTOH, the majority (in my limited experience) of believers tend to anthropomorphize and assign human motivation to what would seem to be utterly incomprehensible intellect.
:kick: & R

[MattBaggins]

19. It's not even pseudoscience

that would imply it had some quality vaguely reminiscent of science, which it does not.

[blindpig]

24. Only if it strays from materialism.

All of the metaphysical hoodoo just detracts from the concept.

[Jennicut]

28. Yes and no.

"Scientists agree that there is clear evidence that the non-living environment has an important influence on organisms, and that organisms can cause substantial changes in their environment. However, there appears to be little widespread support within the scientific community for the notion that Earth's organisms and ecosystems have somehow integrated in a mutually benevolent symbiosis (or mutualism), aimed at maintaining environmental conditions within a comfortable range."
http://science.jrank.org/pages/2900/Gaia-Hypothesis.html

The environment and organisms on Earth effect each other but are they working together as one? Lovelock made Daisyworld , a simulation based on Gaia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daisyworld

[RedCappedBandit]

30. nm.

[Odin2005]

34. No, it isn't pseudoscience.

Only the bastardizations of it by New Agers is. "Weak Gaia" is widely accepted among geologists and climatologists.

[Taverner]

35. Got a link I can read for a while?

Loves me some good long links!

[Odin2005]

43. Unfortunatley I haven't been able to find anything good online.

The best stuff I have that is not from Lovelock is the 25yo book "The Co-evolution of Climate and Life" by Stephen Henry Schneider, who is a very highly respected paleo-climatologist.

[BlooInBloo]

37. At best it's an illustrative big-picture to have in mind, which could inspire

particular directions of potentially useful actual science.

At worst, it's just shit that know-nothing scientific illiterates like to babble about to feel smart.

[htuttle]

38. The Gaia hypothesis is merely a context in which to understand the implications of science

What is sometimes called 'Weak Gaia' theory just states that all the living parts of the planet, and it's climate, are as interactive and interdependent as the organs of our bodies. That is quite well understood by biology/ecology, and is a natural product of evolution. What did evolution lead to? Look around you. It lead to all of that -- it's all evolved together.

Now, as has been noted above, some New Agers have taken the Gaia hypothesis and decided that this planetary biosphere is sentient, conscious, and self-aware. I've always assumed that they missed having a God in their lives, so they came up with one. However, that's obviously not any sort of science at all. It's religion. But that's not Lovelock's theory, either.


ON EDIT:
I learned more by reading this thread than by replying to it (before I read the whole thing).