• DOI:10.1007/S10539-004-0478-6
• Corpus ID: 85669126

Idealized, Inaccurate but Successful: A Pragmatic Approach to Evaluating Models in Theoretical Ecology

@article{Odenbaugh2005IdealizedIB,
  title={Idealized, Inaccurate but Successful: A Pragmatic Approach to Evaluating Models in Theoretical Ecology},
  author={Jay Odenbaugh},
  journal={Biology and Philosophy},
  year={2005},
  volume={20},
  pages={231-255}
}

• Jay Odenbaugh
• Published 1 March 2005
• Biology
• Biology and Philosophy

Ecologists attempt to understand the diversity of life with mathematical models. Often, mathematical models contain simplifying idealizations designed to cope with the blooming, buzzing confusion of the natural world. This strategy frequently issues in models whose predictions are inaccurate. Critics of theoretical ecology argue that only predictively accurate models are successful and contribute to the applied work of conservation biologists. Hence, they think that much of the mathematical work of ecologists is poor science. Against this view, I argue that model building is successful even when models are predictively inaccurate for at least three reasons: models allow scientists to explore the possible behaviors of ecological systems; models give scientists simplified means by which they can investigate more complex systems by determining how the more complex system deviates from the simpler model; and models give scientists conceptual frameworks through which they can conduct experiments and fieldwork. Critics often mistake the purposes of model building, and once we recognize this, we can see their complaints are unjustified. Even though models in ecology are not always accurate in their assumptions and predictions, they still contribute to successful science.