Talk:Gaia hypothesis
Talk:Gaia theory (science)/archive 1
EofT writes: "Not to be hasty, but, "science textbooks" are not the last word here. The general idea of a Gaia theory goes back a long way and includes some very early spiritual and cognitive views. Johannes Kepler, ....instance had very specific ideas of what it meant for a biosphere to be like organism, or part of a whole universe that was like one, or for us to live inside either (biosphere or universe)."
- No one disputes this. I was only talking about how this article should be organized. RK 20:16 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)
EofT writes "Western biology and ecology as now understood do not "own" the concept of "Gaia" or a "theory" about it. It would be scientism to claim that they do. EofT"
- There is no such thing as scientism. That word was coined by religious fundamentalists who did not understand how science works, and who were scared that science may reveal facts about the world which might challenge some of their preconceived notions. This word is also now use by radical pseudo-philosophers ("deconstructionists") who showhow imagine that science doesn't actually tells us about the world we live in, but that their literature somehow mysteriously can produce such truths. Some scientists, skeptics and humanists see this word as an ad-homenin attack against anyone who uses the scientific method to learn about the world. RK 20:16 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)
EofT writes "The danger is that the merged article will then lose all this context and be censored down strictly to the issues Lynn Margulis and other scientific ecologists talk about."
- What danger is this? I don't see anyone refusing to discuss these concepts. All I see are some people who wish to distinguish how scientists use this term. BTW, no traditional religion used the term "Gaia theory" in their cosmology or mythology. You are seeing an example of religions grabbing onto the terminology of a new scientific concept, and trying to claim "this is what we taught all along". RK 20:16 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)
- The name Gaia is itself religious terminology appropriated by science. There are similar goddesses or Earth Mother figures in most religions. EofT
EofT writes "It is really hard also to separate this from similar issues in evolution - maybe a revisiting of all those articles is also required, as there seems to be no gaia theory that is not ultimately talking about evolutionary concepts."
- I agree that some forms of the Gaia idea may be necessary for evolution to have occured, and this really should be discussed in the appropriate articles here on Wikipedia. Many college textbooks already do this. RK 20:16 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)
- College textbooks don't have the unique answer, and neither do have scientists. Which is also a quite improper comment as I am one. What you are currently doing is called censorship of points of view which don't fit your. I would also call that refusal to discuss and properly cooperate. Ant
- You are paranoid. No one here, let alone I, is censoring any point of view in these articles. That charge is a flat-out lie. I am only pointing out that you are making up bizarre names for these theories that no one else in the world uses. Worse, you are cutting apart a scientific article on Gaia into three separate articles, using a bizarre uppercase and lowercase spelling system, which violates all Wikipedia naming conventions. RK 23:28 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)
I don't own these articles more than you do. I am ready to discuss changes. And when we come to an agreement, that changes are made. But here, you are just pretending everyone is agreeing with you, when you are in fact alone. And you are refusing to discuss anything at all. This is not an acceptable behavior imho. ----
I have a totally crazy idea. How about we call this article (the one with a capital T) Modern Gaia theory. This is the way it's referred to in Gaia theory, and clearly the word "modern" is general enough to encapsulate the fact that this is probably the most scientific branch of Gaia theory to date. Whether it starts with Margulis or Lovelock I don't really care, but I think it's definitely a better title than (homeorhetic) or (Marguils') or whatever. Thoughts? -- Wapcaplet 20:54 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)
And, as if this page is not large enough already, here's a pretty good article that covers most of modern Gaia theory:
http://www.gaianet.fsbusiness.co.uk/gaiatheory.html
-- Wapcaplet 20:59 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)
I ask time for consideration. You asked for links. Here is one you might look at from the library of Arizona State University (where I spent some time).
http://www.asu.edu/lib/noble/earth/gaia.htm
<snip>
I like the general division, but propose putting all the soft-science stuff (Gaia theory analogs), plus the social groups (Gaians) under "Gaia theory (social)", with "Gaians" as a redirect to that page. The rest seems sensible.
I'm happy things are converging.
Steve Rapaport 19:02 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)
How about uniting Gaia theory (science) and Gaia hypothesis as Gaia (science)? --Eloquence 03:05 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)
It would be unfortunate to make entirely disappear the names given to these scientific works, known under hypothesis for Lovelock initial work and theories in a more general sense.
I think it also interesting to keep a short and simple (sort of) article on Lovelock hypothesis for clarity. This one being a more thorough background of all works and backup of this set of theories. User:Anthere
I am *really* not thrilled at all by the idea of writing it is a mathematically based theory. Anthère
But my impression is that everything that's called a "Gaia theory" in the sciences is something people run on a computer, which they can do because the theories define the relationships between living things and the environment mathematically. It seemed to me "mathematically" was the ideal way to distinguish a "Gaia theory" from a "Gaia philosophy." Why does "mathematically" bother you?168... 22:14, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Did Lovelock actually hypothesize that the living matter of the planet functioned like a single organism? Or did he rather discover evidence that it does? (i.e. by running his computer model) I'm thinking that Lovelock didn't build self-regulation into the model, but that probably he defined only the direct relations between unit components in his model. Then the idea of life regulating the Earth is a wholistic thing that would have emerged and that he would have seen when he typed "run." That's just my intuition. Does anybody know? Note that under this interpretation of what Lovelock did, his original "Gaia hypothesis" is just that the simple model (in which life really does control the conditions for itself) is like the complex Earth, which is sort of a trivial and obvious hypothesis that every modeler makes about the thing he or she is modeling. I've always thought this term "Gaia hypothesis" undermined the credibility of Lovelock's idea, because it suggests he simply cooked it up or pulled it out of the air, and that he made no test of it. To the extent his idea has been accepted, I'm sure it's because of tests and evidence more than because people like the sound of it. 168... 16:48, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- Most of what has been done scientifically with respect to Gaia or theories of Gaia, have not been mathematical (or more precisely computational) at all. Lovelock's first 1979 book was written entirely before the famous Daisyworld model of Watson and Lovelock, which was published around 1983 or so, I believe. If you've read Gaia (1979), you'll find that he did marshall his evidence as done any scientist would, mostly drawing on empirical work including looking at variation in the increase or decrease incoming solar radio levels was buffered by mechanisms unknown and hypothesised to be a feedback effect. This was then backed up by detailed analysis of temperature records from stratigraphy. He was mainly puzzled by these kinds of anomalies, and his experience in helping design various detection mechanisms for NASA. Of course, other hypotheses to account for these observations were possible, and are still debated, Lovelock was really attempting more of a synthesis of all the evidence that he had, and as such, he was presenting a case for a new research direction as well as a specific "hypothesis". Lynn Margulis's take has also been non-mathematical and empirical in nature (see her late 1990s book, Symbiotic Planet). Computer models came later, the initial motivation was most definitely empirically driven.
- The distinction between "discovery" and "hypothesis", is largely moot, because in practice scientists don't really sit around "hypothezing" out of thin air, then immediately go the bench to test when they like the idea enough. Nor do they walk into the lab and look at a dish (discovery of Penicillin and radioactivity, are the exceptions that prove the rule) and say, look I "discovered" something in there, I wonder what it can be. It's always a constant too and fro between the two modes of activity and it's rarely possible to completely separate them, scientists typically have some idea about how something works, and are looking for patterns to fit that, which are modified by discovery of new patterns and so on. You never really start with a clean slate. --Lexor 09:55, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Funny, you basically say here what I finally wrote this morning. Essentially. I will add my feeling anyway.
I will try to explain. I have though of several ways, but none appears clear to me. So, I'll do it another way, by somehow personal experience. In the field I studied and work now, these relationships between living things and the environnement, and impact of one on the other, and reversally, are not questionned, because they are just thought obvious somehow. Gaia theories are very little discussed and known in France, because it is very much an english work. However, it can't escape me that the concepts (not the strongest ones, but certainly much more than just the weaker theory) are just those that are taught at university level and widely admitted.
Those fields I know, rely very little on mathematics. They rely first on observation. After lengthy observations, people try to draw hypothesis, and usually check these hypothesis in the field. Sometimes, they make models and compare model results with observations, but that is not so frequent. Ecology for example is first of all a science of observation. Models came next. Agronomy, very developped in my country, uses very few models. Very empiric stuff. Geology is also first before anything a science of observation. You do not practice it well sitting in front of a computer.
I do not think everything called a Gaia theory in sciences is something people run on a computer. It is not the theory that define relationships between organisms and environment, it is observation, first. Mathematics does not explain everything.
As Lexor said, there were several years between the moment Lovelock stated his first hypothesis, and the moment he published the DaisyWorld model. Nearly 20 years I think. I think most of his initial hypothesis came from observations, and very likely from discussions with experts of very various fields. For a good deal of the hypothesis rely on biological and geological considerations. As I understood, a good deal of the noise that followed was due to the fact it was uniting perspectives from different disciplines at the same time. The theory (then perhaps a bit based on some mathematical consideration, but mostly observations, definitly not on modelling) was attacked because people challenged the fact the action of all the living organisms could be planned somehow. They also said it could not be foreseen how feedback loops could help stabilizing the system (which is a rather strange comment to me, because the ecosystems stabilisation was already a known concept), because the new definition of what was "alive" was irrelevant (I think there still is debate here to say what is alive to what is not), and of course because he could not "prove" it (which is quite funny considering the number of scientific facts only "proved" till they are refuted, but anyway...).
To answer them, Lovelock created (many years later) the daisyworld model. It could not answer all criticism, but was meant to prove the activity of living beings could indeed influence, stabilize an environment, for it to be the most favorable to their existence...without necessarily involving consciouness. This was the strongest mathematical base.
I reflected the following points, that I offer to you. This is geological knowledge. I suppose Lovelock used this, though most papers seem to reference to later times in Earth story.
When all the planets of the solar system were created by little dust accretion, there was initially an atmosphere around all of them. The initial (we say primordial, I don't know the word in english) atmosphere was the exact replica of the composition of gaz in the solar system in terms of proportion. There were mostly hydrogen, CO2, a bit of N and some water. Not much. 2 criterias oriented what happened to the atmosphere. If the planet was very near the sun, the gaz were vaporised. That is the case of Mercure where all atmosphere is gone. If the planet was too small, gravity did not permit to keep the atmosphere. Gaz just went away. Venus, which is far away enough and big enough kept most of it, only lost some of the H I think. Jupiter probably lost extremely little. Mars lost most of it because it was too small. But from the planets which kept the atmosphere, only the Earth drastically changed it. All the other ones evoluted in direction that can be explained only by temperature and density.
This was known when Lovelock worked with Nasa probably. They had possibility to analyse gaz composition (roughly) from other solar system planet.
Lovelock had to work to help "guessing" whether there was life on Mars. At that point, he considered the main difference between Earth and the other planets, was that Earth atmosphere was perfectly illogical, because the predominant gaz were not at all in the proportion and concentration in the original atmosphere. With the knowledge we have of what life is, we know that all life we know exchange elements with its environnement.
What mostly changed for Earth was that most CO2 disappeared, and a lot of oxygen (there was basically none initially) appeared.
Nothing really happened from an atmospheric pov initially, because CO2 does not dissolve well at high temperatures. As soon as temperature was low enough, CO2 could dissolve in it. That CO2 was then slowly trapped by several means.
- First through photosynthesis, as soon as 2.8 or 3 billions years. Perhaps even sooner. Most of this CO2 was transformed as C in organic matter. Very early.
- Second biggest trap was through calcareous tests. Calcareous tests are made of CaCO3, and could not occur until Ca was in reasonnable quantities in water. The calcium dissolved in water came from weathering rocks, water sweeping over the continents. The amount of Ca in water was not high until about 2 billions years. And in any cases, most life with calcareous tests appear much much later. Only stromatolithes, which appeared around 2.8 or 3 billions years had CaCO3.
Consequently, the biggest part of CO2 which disappeared initially was due to photosynthetic activity. Activity producing oxygen, slowly building up in the atmosphere, but really seriously increasing around 2.2 when life exploded. And only when oxygen level started being reasonnably high could aerobic life, more efficient start. It is entirely life which created the current atmosphere; that no other planets have.
How do we know ? Models ? No, not by models, though models are nice to complete holes. We know because of observations, indirect observations. We know when oxygen started to really build up in the atmosphere, because around 2.2, sedimentation of FeCO3 (which is Fe2+) switched toward a sedimentation of iron oxydes (with Fe2+ and Fe3+). this indicates a major change in atmospheric conditions. We also know by these huge iron precipitations that occured between 1.8 and 2.5. And we know about the CO2 being trapped as carbon in organic matter, because of the great accumulation of coal very rich in organic matter in Russia and Gabon, around 2.2. We know calcareous sedimentation had an impact much later, because the fossils accumulated much later at the bottom of the oceans. The arguments Lovelock give about the coccolithophores are very interesting in that sense, but that is already quite late in story. Anyway, I just wanted to say (mostly :-)) that these are sciences that certainly use models at some point or another, but to say those are based on mathematics is, sorry, grossly misleading. Lovelock essentially did (I think) a gathering of all what available by then (because the disciplines of geology, biology, ecology, pedology, climatology etc...) were much more walled than what they are right now; and drew conclusions from what could appear soon as "evidence". Of course, he added some interpretations, that are still controversial (and little likely to be ever proved or rejected ihmo). The models were attempt to answer some criticisms.
Sorry, if I was not clear. Horrible english :-) But I had little time these days. Just wanted to try to explain why I cannot accept to see that Gaia theories are based on mathematics. I know that Lexor explained it much better, but I was the one who refused this assertion, so had to explain :-)
Wow. That's about the most thorough answer I've ever gotten. Obviously, I didn't know about all the work the preceded the modeling and didn't appreciate either how important the evidence from the field was and continues to be. It's a very interesting story, and thanks to both of you for doing me the favor and summoning the patience to tell it to me.168... 17:14, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC) (P.S. "primordial" is the English word too)
Well, *that* probably is a miracle that you understood me. Reading me again, I do not understand myself :-)
There is something wrong with data. 83 and 88. I will fix later the article. Anthère
Was Lewis Thomas so influencial to be cited in the introduction while others are not ? Should Thomas be listed here as a major influence in the scientific field on Gaia theory ? I regret here the article on the Gaia hypothesis per Lovelock only that RK blanked. I feel like reviving it :-)
you were gentle 168. I was thinking of entirely removing it. I am not sure it should be part of "science" really. Ant