Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:04:17.022Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Methodological Individualism in Ecology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

James Justus
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Methodological individualism has a long, successful, and controversial track record in the social sciences. Its record in ecology is much shorter but proving as successful and controversial with so-called individual-based models. Distinctions and debates about methodological individualism in social sciences clarify the commitments of this general, individualistic approach to modeling ecological phenomena and show that there is a lot recommending it. In particular, a representational priority on individual organisms yields a cogent albeit deflationary account of ecological emergence and helps reveal how quite disparate models and theories in ecology might be unified.

Type
Biological Sciences
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 81 , Issue 5 , December 2014 , pp. 770 - 784
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†

For helpful feedback, thanks to Terrence Hill, Jay Odenbaugh, Joan Roughgarden, Carl Salk, Paul Teller, Michael Weisberg, Eric Winsberg, and audiences at “Values and Norms in Modeling” in Eindhoven (June 2012); the PSA meeting in San Diego (November 2012); joint Institut D ’ Histoire et de Philosophie des Sciences et des Techniques–Florida State University philosophy of biology workshop in Paris (July 2013); and the meeting of the International Society for the History, Philosophy, and Social Studies of Biology in Montpellier (July 2013).

References

Alexander, J., and Skyrms, B.. 1999. “Bargaining with Neighbors: Is Justice Contagious?” Journal of Philosophy 96:588–98.Google Scholar
Azzouni, J. 2004. Deflating Existential Consequence. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drake, J., Fuller, M., Zimmerman, C., and Gamarra, J.. 2007. “Emergence in Ecological Systems.” In From Energetics to Ecosystems: The Dynamics and Structure of Ecological Systems, ed. Rooney, N., McCann, K., and Noakes, D., 157–84. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Egerton, F. 1973. “Changing Concepts of the Balance of Nature.” Quarterly Review of Biology 48:322–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, B. 2012. “Agent-Based Modeling and the Fallacies of Individualism.” In Models, Simulations, and Representations, ed. Humphreys, P. and Imbert, C., 115–44. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Grimm, V., and Railsback, S.. 2005. Individual-Based Modeling and Ecology. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heath, J. 2010. “Methodological Individualism.” In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Zalta, Edward N.. Stanford, CA: Stanford University. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2009/experiment/.Google Scholar
Hoover, K. 2010. “Idealizing Reduction: The Microfoundations of Macroeconomics.” Erkenntnis 73:329–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Justus, J. 2008a. “Complexity, Diversity, Stability.” In A Companion to the Philosophy of Biology, ed. Sarkar, S. and Plutynski, A., 321–50. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Plutynski, A. 2008b. “Ecological and Lyapunov Stability.” Philosophy of Science 75:421–36.Google Scholar
Kincaid, H. 1997. Individualism and the Unity of Science. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Kincaid, H. 2004. “Methodological Individualism and Economics.” In The Elgar Companion to Economics and Philosophy, ed. Davis, J. B., Marciano, A., and Runde, J., 299–314. Cheltenham: Elgar.Google Scholar
Łomnicki, A. 1978. “Individual Differences between Animals and the Natural Regulation of Their Numbers.” Journal of Animal Ecology 47:461–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loreau, M. 2010. From Populations to Ecosystems: Theoretical Foundations for a New Ecological Synthesis. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maclaurin, J., and Sterelny, K.. 2008. What Is Biodiversity? Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mehdiabadi, N., and Gilbert, L.. 2002. “Colony-Level Impacts of Parasatoid Flies on Fire Ants.” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 269:1695–99.Google ScholarPubMed
Millstein, R. 2009. “Populations as Individuals.” Biological Theory 4:267–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nozick, R. 1977. “An Austrian Methodology.” Synthese 36:353–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Odenbaugh, J. 2005. “Idealized, Inaccurate but Successful: A Pragmatic Approach to Evaluating Models in Theoretical Ecology.” Biology and Philosophy 20:231–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Okasha, S. 2011. “Optimal Choice in the Face of Risk: Decision Theory Meets Evolution.” Philosophy of Science 78:83–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roughgarden, J. 2012. “Individual Based Models in Ecology: An Evaluation; or, How Not to Ruin a Good Thing.” Unpublished manuscript, PhilSci Archive. http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/9434/1/RoughgardenPSA2012IBMLecture.pdf.Google Scholar
Sen, A. 2009. The Idea of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skyrms, B. 1996. Evolution of the Social Contract. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skyrms, B. 2010. Signals: Evolution, Learning, and Information. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sober, E. 1999. “The Multiple Realizability Argument against Reductionism.” Philosophy of Science 66:542–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sterelny, K. 2001. “The Reality of Ecological Assemblages: A Palaeo-ecological Puzzle.” Biology and Philosophy 16:437–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tilman, D. 1999. “The Ecological Consequences of Biodiversity: A Search for General Principles.” Ecology 80:1455–74.Google Scholar
Tilman, D., Reich, P., and Knops, J.. 2006. “Biodiversity and Ecosystem Stability in a Decade-Long Grassland Experiment.” Nature 441:629–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar