• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

The Gaia Hypothesis, Fact or Fantasy?

rachamim said:
Jam: It is a RELATED-discipline. It is NOT INTER-related. NOT SUB-discipline, NOT inter-related.
Click to expand...

Really, rach? Wow. Let's get the FACTS straight (reference: pick any university website and search their Geography faculty, example

Fact: Hydrology is a sub discipline of Physical Geography, which itself is a subdevision of Geography.

Fact: Atmospheric Science is a sub discipline of Physical Geography, which itself is a subdevision of Geography.

"Ergo": Hydrology and A.S. are, by their very definition, inter-related.

The fact that the current academic trend is towards integration and multidisciplinarity also works against your arguments: Geography and Environmental science are being rapidly integrated, therefore making all their sub-fields not only inter-related, but inter-dependent. The existence of one is made possible ONLY by the existence of all the others.

Your little taxonomic rhetoric is both mis-informative and irrelevant anyway.

Just looked at your diagram and I have to point out to you Jam, that by your reasoning a stafish is part and parcel of Atmiospheric Science. You are one of the few people I KNOW to be able to think outside the box, think on what you are saying.
Click to expand...

I think this is a joke-cum-insult, for obvious reasons.

So I will laugh with you, rather than at, just because I believe you were being lighthearted (although I am not entirely sure to be honest).
 
rachamim said:
Jam Pt II

"Thermohaline Circulation.": I am gald you brought this up because this is a perfect example of how Gaia INTEGRATES all facets within a haliostatic system.

Yes, Thermohaline* IS within Atmospheric Sciences but that relates to how one system is INTER-dependant upon the other. It is a prime example of inter-dependance Jam.
Click to expand...

And I totally agree with you on that. Why did we argue a post above, then? I take it is that semitic thing coming up again, eh?

*Thermohaline Circulation explores how, among OTHER things, ocean salinity effects criculation...But does not explore how salinity is itself affected.
Click to expand...

Source?

In other words it explores 1 facet of the inter-dependance between 2 separate systems and by relation DISCPLINES.
Click to expand...

Again, I do not understand this argument-for-sake-of-argument.

I have to also add for clarification since I imagine some may make note of it that there ARE changes in ocean salinity dependant upon Atmospheric conditions. However, salinity is a constant over time and these differences are quite temporary so that the Atmosphere leaves no indelible effect (upon salinity). The ocean itself, as a whole, does effect the Atmosphere however in much more marked ways.

(Edited to add last 2 paragraphs)
Click to expand...

And now you contradict yourself.
 
Why do you paraphrase when you can click QUOTE? It makes it harder to follow the thread and borders on being dishonest.


II)"Gaia, simply put, is a theory/hypothesis dealing with the relationship between chemical processes and all life on Earth.": OK, sounds good. Then why are you insisting that it merely relates to the Atmosphere? Do ALL chemical processes emanate from the atmosphere?
Click to expand...
Because the whole claim of homeostasis in Gaia theory is built around the homeostasis of the atmospheric boundary of earth. This is essentially a giant system of equilibrium equations from chemistry 101. How this equilibrium process intersects with biological processes is the concern of Gaia theory.

Also it's not emmanation in this context, it's emergence. Opposite process.



III. I generally agree with your ideas of what may or may not be alive, but that doesn't change the fact that homeostatic processes in the physiosphere and biosphere are qualitatively distinct.



IV)
"Gaia is a proper instance of systems theory. New age "web of life" thinking is an unscientific adaptation of systems theory. So no, Gaia doesn't follow from new age thinking, but it has since been adopted by new age thought in a watered down way.":
Click to expand...

Wow, are you sure you really want to go with that? First, who are you to describe something as definiatively scientific or unscientific? Surely you know the stock definition for "science"? Secondly, who are you to say something could not have influenced, even heavily, Lovelock's work simply because it falls outside the accepted parameters of science (IF indeed it does according to your estimation)?

I think a much more prudent approach would be to examine extant thinking at the time of the hypothesis' conceptualisation. IF we do that we clearly see that yes, ideas that are now collectively labeled as "New Age" DID exist in the mid to late 1960s. If we then further explore Lovelocks dated works we see their presence, intentional or not. It seems to be a given conclusion really.
Click to expand...
Ideas like holism, cybernetics, and homeostasis were formally introduced into science from the 1930's to 1950's. What then is the original contribution of "new age ecophilosophy" to the Gaia theory?




VI)
The solar system shows homeostasis. Do we call that Gaia now too?

People end up using the word Gaia for any natural system they see holism in.
Click to expand...
I believe Lovelock would offer that it is. I certainly do. Jewish Mysticism holds that to be absolutely true.
Click to expand...
No Lovelock would say it's another instance of a system, which physically includes Gaia within it as a component.

This type of fuzzy thinking is exactly what makes "new age ecophilosophy" complete shit in the context of science.


Jewish Mysticism holds that to be absolutely true.
Click to expand...
Jewish Mysticism differentiates multiple levels of emanation/complexity. The way you are speaking of Gaia does not.
 
no motivation to read the thread
but just from the second sentence of the first post : the entire earth? no, no. the entire universe
 
I don't really buy it. Sure, I can see the Earth's ecosystem as an extremely complex, intertwined network of relationships and actions from the level of microbes to mountains, but to evaluate the biosphere as a singular superorganism is something I find neither verifiable nor especially useful.

As for being a teleological argument for God, I consider that a non-starter.
 
^ Good thought, Vegan.

Rachamim, I'll look into the Jewish mysticism books you recommended, thanks.

As for logging in tropical countries, I'll be very frank, I think it's a reprehensible business for anybody to be in. That's all I've got to say about that.

Hey Jamshyd! Long time no see. You still in Indonesia?
 
Jam: I)"Pick any university website to see that Hydrology is a sub-discipline of Atmospheric Science!": Aaaaah precious youth, the impulsiveness, recklessness and a whole bunch of other "s." You know, you would be right...IF I had been saying it was not. You evidently saw "ocean salinity" and equated it with "Hydrology." I aimed for OCEANOGRAPHY." Indeed I specifically said so but perhaps in your exuberance [cough] you just did not see THAT word.

The "starfish" quip did not point you in the right direction? I know that you certainly saw THAT word.

Hydrology, Hydrography, Meteorology...and yes...OCEANOGRAPHY. Shall we once again discuss "sub" versus "related" disciplines?`

II)"Jam offers a hyper-link to the FACE page of the University of Western Ontario as 'proof' that Hydrology is a sub-discipline of Physical Geography, which is itself a sub-discipline of Geography.": Thanks, I guess. However, you did not need to do that since noone [least of all me] was stating otherwise. I have to add by the way, that linking to a Facepage is not really "proving" anything you said [though since I already agree about Hydrology>Phys.Geo.>Geography it was a doubly wasted effort].

III)"Atmospheric Science is a sub-discipline of Physical Geography which is itself a sub-discipline of Geography.": OK, thanks again.

IV)"As Points I through III prove, Hydrology and Atmospheric Science are inter-related.": And?

V)"The current trend in academia is to integrate disciplines.": Which proves nothing about nothing but for the record, since we are bandying about subjective observations, is a huge mistake in my view. Furthermore, what Administrations do as cost cutting measures has absolutely no bearing on what academics do and perceive with regard to taxonomy. That must await Academic Consensus.

VI)"Rachamim's taxanomic rhetoric is misinformed and irrelevant.": You have not moved one iota towards proving the former and it is impossible to prove the latter.
 
Jam,The Sequel

VII)"Jam agrees with Rachamim that Thermohalline is an aspect that illustrates the inter-dependance of sytems, ergo disciplines.": Cool.

VIII)"If Rachamim and Jam agreed on Point VII, why were they arguing?": I did not know that we were. I considered it a "discussion." Why were we discussing it without agreement? Please refer to..."OCEANOGRAPHY."

IX)"Can Rachamim provide a source on his assertion that ocean salinity effects circulation?": Are you serious? It is extremely basic. Picking one off the top of my head, Birchfield made his name on the issue.

I will illustrate quite simply; Does salinity effect rate of evaporation? Does roe effect circulation?
 
Last edited:
Yougene: I) "Gaia's entire claim of homeostasis centers on the atmosphere.": I don't want insult youbut have you ever even read the work firsthand? Let us look at what one of today's best known proponents of Gaia, Prof.Stephen H.Schneider of Stanford has to say about the core descrption; Quoting from"Scientists in Gaia,"co-authored with Dr.Boston of the New Mexico Inst. of Mining and Technology. He descibes it, in its simplest terms as,"PLANETWIDE HOMEOSTASIS."

II) "Gaia's claim to be homeostasis centers on how the atmosphere interacts with biological processes.": In other words, it is NOT about the atmosphere BUT RATHER the atmosphere AND biological systems?

III)"Gaia is NOT an 'emanation' in the sense that Rachamim is saying but rather an 'emergence'.": Since an "emanation" would be of more directly linked to the source how is it incc-correct?

IV)"Homeostatic processes in the physiosphere and the biosphere are qualitatvely distinct.": Yep, so what? The question SHOULD be, are both spheres interlinked in symbiosis?

V)"Since concepts like homeostasis, holism and cybernetics were introduced to science prior to the 1950s, how can Rachamim state that Lovelock capitalised on nascent New Age eco-philoophies [since Lovelock began forming this view distinctly in the 1960s]?": Is there a substantiative difference between SCIENCE and PHILOSOPHY? Furthermore, do you somehow imagine that anything develops or exists within a vacuuum?

[Edited for spelling]
 
Last edited:
Ah, so now your argument changed: now I have not made the very subtle but apparently vitally-important distinction between hydrology and oceanography.

I will ignore the ad-homs such as your criticism of my link, because they simply aren't worth my time.

The argument remains the same: Hydrology, Oceanography, AND atmospheric science are all subdisciplines of physical geography.

Try again.

EDIT: Actually, to be fair I'll correct myself: Oceanography is in and of itself multidisciplinary, Geography being one of the several other disciplines it integrates. But I don't think this fairness works to your favour.... it is still both a sub-, inter- and a related discipline: Sub- as in it cannot even exist without the tools of the geographer, inter- as in it integrates aspects of hydrology, ecology, amongst other things, and related as in they both study aspects of the earth, amongst other things.

My main purpose in this thread was to correct you on the misinformation that the study of oceans (sorry, OCEANOGRAPHY) is not interrelated with atmospheric science, and I did. To your credit, I give you that I did, indeed, mistake you for speaking of hydrology. But that does not change the argument, it simply shows that I am prepared to admit to errors.

Now, if you personally do not like the fact that oceanography and atmospheric science and geography are all integrated today (as you point out in (V)), that simply says that you prefer to be outdated as unfortunately integration and multidisciplinarity IS the current academic trend, whether certain academics like it or not.
 
Last edited:
And btw rach, minutae like "does salinity affect evaporation" are irrelevant. It may not affect it directly, but evaporation and condensation in the Pamirs affects the flow of the Amu Daria and Syr Daria which in turn affects the drainage in the Aral and Caspian (Soucek 2006), which is one of the many reasons the caspian's salinity is shocking in its variety from time to time and place to place.

To drive the point further home, the above actually affects roe as well - it can be argued that the caspian's unstable salinity affects the rate of production of caviar!

Does salinity affect a cartographer's ability to draw? Maybe not. But salinity seems to have had a strange effect on cartographer's depictions of the dead sea over time.
 
Wow, I really like this juxtaposition (regardless of the topic at hand) and have never considered it before... Makes for a lovely new thread for discussion if you ask me .
Click to expand...
I may have started one long ago but it didn't get far.
I'm notoriously bad at starting threads though.


I'm not sure where this talk of salinity came from but salinity has a direct effect on evaporation.
wikipedia said:
Boiling-point elevation describes the phenomenon that the boiling point of a liquid (a solvent) will be higher when another compound is added, meaning that a solution has a higher boiling point than a pure solvent. This happens whenever a non-volatile solute, such as a salt, is added to a pure solvent, such as water.
Click to expand...
 
I don't quite grasp how the constant evolution the ecosystem has faced over the past billions of years, with its constantly evolving network of competition and cooperation points towards a cohesive system fighting to maintain any sort of "balance", there seems to be, in the Gaia hypothesis, a natural force pushing against entropy. But it seems to me that conflict, that invasive forces, that ecological crisis, are all as natural as coherence and cooperation between systems/entities... I just feel that oftentimes, as I have seen the Gaia Hypothesis proposed people argue that balance and cooperation is the natural order of things, but the fact of the matter is 99.99 percent of all the species that ever existed are now extinct... I could be mistaken and perhaps the Gaia Hypothesis accounts for the constantly shifting, constantly competing forces which push evolution forward.
 
^ What if I were to tell you that most of the cells that have ever made up your body, including whole classes of cells and tissue types, are long dead? Life is a dynamic, ever-changing Ship of Theseus at most levels.
 
MyDoor: EXACTLY

Jam: I hesitate to ask, but how did Yougene's last post prove you right when all he did was concur with my statement on salinity effecting evaporation?

I ask by the way, not out of dic* sizing but out of an effort to understand your point of view. I see you as incorrect but then you agree with my statement when offered by 3rd party.

In fact, your "battle" over integrated disciplines only serves to further my primary pov, that Gaia views the world as a singular and self-regulating entity.

The point of contention with Yougene is that Gaia concerns the atmosphere above and beyond othere spheres.

Your whole crusade here is rather curious.
 
This whole discussions stems from you claiming ocean salinity isn't part of atmospheric science. This is an example of how ocean salinity is part of atmospheric science.

Yougene: I)"Ocean salinity is in the realm of Atmospheric SCIENCE.": WRONG. It is absolutely an aspect of Oceanography which is itself a RELATED discipline (to Atmospheric Science) . It is NOT part and parcel of Atmospheric Science.
Click to expand...



In fact, your "battle" over integrated disciplines only serves to further my primary pov, that Gaia views the world as a singular and self-regulating entity.
Click to expand...
As it stands, the schema is systems embedded within systems embedded within systems embedded within...( think russian nested dolls )

If you ignore this aspect of system theory( which new age adaptations of Gaia do ) you are excluding a fundamental component that leads to all sorts of conflated thinking.

From a scientific point of view, Gaia theory only identifies one type of system, relationships between atmosphere and biosphere.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top