 |
| Titel |
What makes Darwinian hydrology "Darwinian"? Asking a different kind of question about landscapes |
| VerfasserIn |
C. Harman, P. A. Troch |
| Medientyp |
Artikel
|
| Sprache |
Englisch
|
| ISSN |
1027-5606
|
| Digitales Dokument |
URL |
| Erschienen |
In: Hydrology and Earth System Sciences ; 18, no. 2 ; Nr. 18, no. 2 (2014-02-04), S.417-433 |
| Datensatznummer |
250120267
|
| Publikation (Nr.) |
 copernicus.org/hess-18-417-2014.pdf |
|
|
|
|
|
| Zusammenfassung |
There have been repeated calls for a Darwinian approach to hydrologic
science, or for a synthesis of Darwinian and Newtonian approaches, to deepen
understanding of the hydrologic system in the larger landscape context, and
so develop a better basis for predictions now and in an uncertain future.
But what exactly makes a Darwinian approach to hydrology "Darwinian"? While
there have now been a number of discussions of Darwinian approaches, many
referencing Harte (2002), the term is potentially a source of confusion because its
connections to Darwin remain allusive rather than explicit.
Here we suggest that the Darwinian approach to hydrology follows the example
of Charles Darwin by focusing attention on the patterns of variation in
populations and seeking hypotheses that explain these patterns in terms of
the mechanisms and conditions that determine their historical development.
These hypotheses do not simply catalog patterns or predict them
statistically – they connect the present structure with processes operating
in the past. Nor are they explanations presented without independent
evidence or critical analysis – Darwin's hypotheses about the mechanisms
underlying present-day variation could be independently tested and
validated. With a Darwinian framework in mind, it is easy to see that a
great deal of hydrologic research has already been done that contributes to
a Darwinian hydrology – whether deliberately or not.
We discuss some practical and philosophical issues with this approach to
hydrologic science: how are explanatory hypotheses generated? What
constitutes a good hypothesis? How are hypotheses tested? "Historical"
sciences – including paleohydrology – have long grappled with these
questions, as must a Darwinian hydrologic science. We can draw on Darwin's
own example for some answers, though there are ongoing debates about the
philosophical nature of his methods and reasoning. Darwin used a range of
methods of historical reasoning to develop explanatory hypotheses:
extrapolating mechanisms, space for time substitution, and looking for
signatures of history. Some of these are already in use, while others are
not and could be used to develop new insights. He sought explanatory
hypotheses that intelligibly unified disparate facts, were testable against
evidence, and had fertile implications for further research. He provided
evidence to support his hypotheses by deducing corollary conditions ("if
explanation A is true, then B will also be true") and comparing these to
observations.
While a synthesis of the Darwinian and Newtonian approaches remains a goal,
the Darwinian approach to hydrologic science has significant value of its
own. The Darwinian hydrology that has been conducted already has not been
coordinated or linked into a general body of theory and knowledge, but the
time is coming when this will be possible. |
| |
|
| Teil von |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|