Philosophy of Ecology as a Specific and Direct Method of Ecological and Humanistic Research and Management
Main Article Content
Abstract
The philosophy of ecology is an intersectional, multi-discursive foundation, which covers a vast area characterised by an extensive research agenda, connecting a number of established scientific disciplines. It is our aim to highlight the interdisciplinary character of the problem under discussion, as well as the fact that different conceptions of the philosophy of ecology would be hard to sustain and hard to respect if they did not respond to the findings of latest research, be it in the field of ecology or in the field of philosophy. In order to be able to envisage a future for the Earth that would be sustainable in the long term, we need knowledge and we need to internalise a method for evaluating information, which would enable us to discard irrelevant information in times of critical change.
Article Details
How to Cite
Vladyková, L. (2015). Philosophy of Ecology as a Specific and Direct Method of Ecological and Humanistic Research and Management. Envigogika, 10(4). https://doi.org/10.14712/18023061.498
Issue
Section
Reviewed Papers
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
References
1. Clemens F. E. 1935. Social origins and processes among plants. In. C. Murchison (ed.) A Handbook of Social Psychology Vol 1, pp 22-48. Clark University Press: Worcester.
2. Clemens F. E. 1943. Succession in the plant community. In. R. D. McKenzie (ed). Readings in Human Eco-logy, pp. 439-440. George Wahr: Ann Arbor.
3. deLaplante, K., Brown, B., Peacock K. A. (eds. ) 2011. Handbook of the Philosophy of Science. Volume 11. Philosophy of Ecology. ELSEVIER.
4. Gleason, H. A. 1926. The individualistic concept of the plant association. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 53: 7-26.
5. Jacobsen, J. B.; Hanley, N. 2009. Are there income effects on global willingness to pay for biodiversity conservation? In. Environmental and Resource Economies 43: 137-160.
6. Keller, D. R.; Golley, F. B. (eds.) 2000. The Philosophy of Ecology: From Science to Synthesis. Uni-versity of Georgia Press: Athens, Georgia.
7. Kingsland S. E. 2005. The Evolution of American Ecology, 1890-2000. Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore.
8. Kuhn, T. 1977. Essential Tension. University of Chicago Press: Chicago.
9. Latour, B. 2003. Nikdy sme neboli moderní. Kalligram: Bratislava.
10. Malet, S. 2012. From Knowledge to Ontological Awakening: Thinking Nature as Relatedness. In. The Trumpeter, Volume 28, N. 1.
11. McIntosh R. P. 1985. The Background of Ecology: Concept and Theory. Cambridge University Press: Ca-mbridge.
12. Passmore, J. 1975. Attitudes to Nature. In. R. S. Peters (ed.) Nature and Conduct. Macmillan: London.
13. Rudwidk, M. J. S. 2007. Bursting the Limits of Time: The Reconstruction of Geohistory in the Age of Re-volution. University of Chicago Press: Chicago.
14. Shrader-Frechette, K., McCoy, E. D. 1993. Method of Ecology: Strategies for Conservati-on. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
15. Shrader-Frechette, K. 2001. Ecology. In: Dale Jamieson (ed.). A Companion to Environmental Philosophy. Blackwell . 304-315.
16. Shepard, P. 1969. Ecology and Man: A Viewpoint. In: P. Shepard, D. McKinley (eds.), The Subversive Science. Houghton Miffin: Boston.
17. Šmajs, J. 1995. Ohrožená kultura. Zvláštní vydáni...: Brno.
18. Tansley, A. G. 1935. The use and abuse of vegetational concepts and terms. In. Ecology 16: 284-307.
19. Taylor, P. J. 2005. Unruly Complexity: Ecology, Interpretation, Engagement. University of Chicago Press: Chicago.
2. Clemens F. E. 1943. Succession in the plant community. In. R. D. McKenzie (ed). Readings in Human Eco-logy, pp. 439-440. George Wahr: Ann Arbor.
3. deLaplante, K., Brown, B., Peacock K. A. (eds. ) 2011. Handbook of the Philosophy of Science. Volume 11. Philosophy of Ecology. ELSEVIER.
4. Gleason, H. A. 1926. The individualistic concept of the plant association. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 53: 7-26.
5. Jacobsen, J. B.; Hanley, N. 2009. Are there income effects on global willingness to pay for biodiversity conservation? In. Environmental and Resource Economies 43: 137-160.
6. Keller, D. R.; Golley, F. B. (eds.) 2000. The Philosophy of Ecology: From Science to Synthesis. Uni-versity of Georgia Press: Athens, Georgia.
7. Kingsland S. E. 2005. The Evolution of American Ecology, 1890-2000. Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore.
8. Kuhn, T. 1977. Essential Tension. University of Chicago Press: Chicago.
9. Latour, B. 2003. Nikdy sme neboli moderní. Kalligram: Bratislava.
10. Malet, S. 2012. From Knowledge to Ontological Awakening: Thinking Nature as Relatedness. In. The Trumpeter, Volume 28, N. 1.
11. McIntosh R. P. 1985. The Background of Ecology: Concept and Theory. Cambridge University Press: Ca-mbridge.
12. Passmore, J. 1975. Attitudes to Nature. In. R. S. Peters (ed.) Nature and Conduct. Macmillan: London.
13. Rudwidk, M. J. S. 2007. Bursting the Limits of Time: The Reconstruction of Geohistory in the Age of Re-volution. University of Chicago Press: Chicago.
14. Shrader-Frechette, K., McCoy, E. D. 1993. Method of Ecology: Strategies for Conservati-on. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
15. Shrader-Frechette, K. 2001. Ecology. In: Dale Jamieson (ed.). A Companion to Environmental Philosophy. Blackwell . 304-315.
16. Shepard, P. 1969. Ecology and Man: A Viewpoint. In: P. Shepard, D. McKinley (eds.), The Subversive Science. Houghton Miffin: Boston.
17. Šmajs, J. 1995. Ohrožená kultura. Zvláštní vydáni...: Brno.
18. Tansley, A. G. 1935. The use and abuse of vegetational concepts and terms. In. Ecology 16: 284-307.
19. Taylor, P. J. 2005. Unruly Complexity: Ecology, Interpretation, Engagement. University of Chicago Press: Chicago.