4.5 Article

Science, systems and geomorphologies: why LESS may be more

Journal

EARTH SURFACE PROCESSES AND LANDFORMS
Volume 33, Issue 9, Pages 1323-1340

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/esp.1718

Keywords

Earth systems science; geomorphology; general system theory; sociology of scientific knowledge; local environmental systems science

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper has been stimulated by a debate triggered by the then British Geomorphological Research Group (now the British Society for Geomorphology) about the connections between geomorphology and Earth system science (ESS). Its purpose is to expand on some arguments we have already made about these connections, amongst other things drawing attention to neglected historical antecedents, and to the questionable status of the science implied by ESS. A premise of this further paper is that such a debate cannot be assumed to mirror conventional assessments of the content of a science, since it is about scientific institutional structures, names, boundaries and relationships. This implies that the terms of reference go well beyond critical scientific appraisal, extending to matters of evaluating a social organization, and to politics, policies, purposes and practices. We therefore begin by considering the sociology of science, scientific knowledge and technology, before moving to a consideration of the historical relationship amongst geomorphology, geology and physical geography; and to some perspectives this might offer for the current debate. Epistemological issues, arising both from the use of systems theory over multiple spatial and temporal scales, and from the demands of contemporary environmental science, are then introduced, and these lead to a conclusion that geomorphology might more appropriately be assessed against (or seen as part of) a more locally orientated ESS, which we term LESS. Copyright (c) 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available