Reply to Betts et al. “When are hypotheses useful in ecology and
conservation?”
Meredith Root-Bernstein1, 2, 3
- UMR CESCO, CNRS, Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France
- Center of Applied Ecology and Sustainability, Santiago, Chile
- Institute of Ecology and Biodiversity, Santiago, Chile
Words: 2045
It is difficult to disagree with Betts et al. (2021) when they claim
that hypotheses are often useful but sometimes not necessary. The
difficulty with Betts et al. does not lie with any of their individual
points, but rather with the lack of a clear argument giving them
structure. This is not just a critique of style. It is relevant because
it is an example of what I think is the real problem in ecological
research. In my view, the lack of hypotheses in ecology and conservation
is not just about the rise of big data approaches, or the documentation
of applied work. More generally, I argue that the low use of hypotheses
reflects the failure of ecology and conservation to value and develop
discipline-specific forms of argument, logic and reasoning. I first
address the particular nature of the hypothesis as an argument form, and
then the question of whether there are specifically ecological argument
forms. Finally I argue that we need a broad set of arguments and logics
suitable to the broad set of phenomona in ecology, and that hypotheses
are usually derived from non-hypothetico-deductive reasoning and logic.
If we want more or better hypotheses, we need more and better forms of
non-hypothetico-deductive ecological reasoning.
A hypothesis is a form of argument structured so that it can be answered
in only one of two ways: rejection or non-rejection. Hypotheses are also
characterized by particular ways of framing questions that are
considered legitimate, interesting, or elegant, which varies by the
discipline or subject matter. I will illustrate my points about the need
for forms of argument that fit a subject matter with the Betts et al.
paper itself. Betts et al. present their argument about why ecologists
should use hypotheses in the form of a couple of hypotheses, the
predictions of which they test in a hypothetico-deductive manner on
quantitative data using statistical reasoning. They structure their
hypothesis as though it were an evolutionary argument: they identify
potential discrete individual benefits of adopting a behaviour within a
specific environment.