Picturing a Forest: Using Images to Illuminate Concepts

Laura Landen
Philosophy, Providence College

     Full text: Not available
     Last modified: February 14, 2005
     Presentation date: 07/14/2005 11:00 AM in MACK 238
     (View Schedule)

Abstract
Session: Imagery in Science and Science Imagery
Title: Picturing a Forest: Using Images to Illuminate Concepts

With the aid of photographs, I examine the mode of existence of a forest, as a representative ecosystem. The two positions commonly invoked in discussions of the reality of ecosystems are ontological reductionism and ontological dualism, each problematic in its own way. To stand well within a forest—a deciduous, temperate forest such as found in Eastern North America, for example—is to experience the forest, not merely trees. The claim that a forest is nothing more than the sum of its components fails adequately to account for this experience. On the other hand, the claim that a forest is much more than the sum of its parts bespeaks a sort of dualism, which is equally unsatisfying. A forest has more cohesiveness than the ontological reductionist allows, but less cohesiveness than the ontological dualist asserts.

The “whole” which is the forest has, I suggest, relational integrity. The forest is not identical with its parts; neither does it encompass them as parts. Rather, the forest is the effect of the interactions of its components. To the extent that the causal interactions of the components of a forest—the trees, the flora and fauna, the decomposers, etc.—are real, so is the forest. Yet, to the extent that a forest lacks the integrity of any of its components, the forest is not real.

The forest is dynamic, always changing, yet somehow the same. It has readily identifiable characteristics, but not clearly defined boundaries. That the forest is the combined effects of the interactions of its components accounts for its dynamism. Yet, to the extent that those components have consistency accounts for its sameness. That the forest results from the causal relationships of its components makes it identifiable. Yet, to the extent that those components are not one accounts for its lack of boundaries.

A forest is more than the sum of its parts; yet, it does not contain its components as parts. A better concept is that the forest is the effect of the interactions of its parts.

Multiple Paper Session:
Other papers in this session:
Just who do they think we are? Imagery in Advertising in Science and Nature
A Question of the Organism: The colonial hydroids and 19th century Biology
Imaging the Brain, Imagining the Brain: The Popularity and Power of Neuroimages