There are almost always scientists who do such a thing. Humanities and social scientists or philoso

The Gaia hypothesis, beaker according to which the Earth or the biosphere is a living being, is therefore untenable because (1) to flow equilibria leading feedback loops that emanate from living beings, not a sufficient condition for this is, the totality of living organisms (or their ecosystem) to name a living being, and (2) because the concept of self-organization is used by the proponents beaker of the Gaia hypothesis, in another sense, as it can be used for the characterization of organisms. I have been asked, a lexicon contribution to the "Gaia hypothesis" to write, probably because I encountered a lot of so-called super-organism theories in ecology. The Gaia hypothesis is greatly shortened, that the earth is a living being, or at least something similar. The superorganism theories in ecology argue that biological entities (communities, biotic communities, ecological beaker communities), or those considered as a unit with their environment, ie as ecosystems, organisms are higher order. One can then write these properties überorganismischen units such as health, since they in turn are organisms. One can, does that apply concepts to them that on other than on organisms can not be applied unless metaphorically. With the world it behaves according to the Gaia hypothesis as well, and it can for example be sick or they can defend themselves.
With this hypothesis, I have never dealt with me, otherwise beaker than by the superorganism theories. These were for decades until the mid-20th Century, not only as a respectable views, but had in the theoretical discussions of ecology clear supremacy (in the eco-ideology they have this today). Since then they have receded into the background, but not gone. The idea that interacting organisms in turn form organisms, ie higher order, so to speak, one of the poles that organize the dynamics theory of this science from the beginning. The Gaia hypothesis, which has been in existence a little over 30 years, met a changing frequently in my profession, but it seemed to me already at first sight so much as esoteric nonsense seen that I meant to have me not bother with her . Now I have, leads me through that request, but a little look around, not thorough enough to be the topic a publishable in the normal beaker way text can though by far. But this is an advantage of the blog: You can also make half-baked ideas for discussion.
"Esoteric" I have just written. In fact, this hypothesis has come mainly in Esoterikerkreisen (see below references to internet pages). In science, however, had almost only scorn for them left. [1] But the hypothesis comes from scientists, notably by the chemist James Lovelock and microbiologist Lynn Margulis. I can not say anything, I am too far on the performance of Lovelock in his field. Margulis is me, however, known to be very meritorious scientist, beaker primarily through its work on Endosymbiosetheorie.
Now you know the drill: Meritorious scientists try more times in areas that are beyond their disciplinary boundaries. There is nothing wrong objection. You can even incorporate into other subjects and then contribute beaker to their questions something. There is usually no matter what comes of it, but it may be sufficiently robust to not be denied to have. (That is what I try in this blog, too.) Finster is usual, however, to be, if not incorporate the scientists in other disciplines, but of their from tray, with its tailored to specific objects methods to have a say elsewhere try, yes, mostly not only a say but to give some basic door shielded tungsten halogen beaker on its own.
There are almost always scientists who do such a thing. Humanities and social scientists or philosophers there is hardly, if ever, want to correct into your mind, scientists on their territory. This has several reasons certainly under the that they have learned beaker that there are disciplinary boundaries, beaker precisely because they are often forced to reach beyond it. Scientists, however, the latter hardly happens, which is why they like their areas - to be mistaken with the boundaries of science in general beaker and the limits of its subject matter in the world - at least the science as a whole. Max Weber has reviewed a book