Interactive Comment on ” Darwinian Hydrology: Can the Methodology Charles Darwin Pioneered Help Hydrologic Science?” By C. Harman and P.A. Troch. Baker, V. 10:C3324-C3325.
Interactive Comment on ” Darwinian Hydrology: Can the Methodology Charles Darwin Pioneered Help Hydrologic Science?” By C. Harman and P.A. Troch [pdf]Paper  abstract   bibtex   
This paper (Harman and Troch, 2013) is a well-­-structured and generally clear presentation that is also well referenced in regard to what I take to be the current paradigm for hydrological science. Because the paper is largely philosophical in nature, the usual criteria for the review original scientific research results are not applicable, so instead emphasis will be placed on philosophical commentary. Philosophy can be defined as the raising of questions about concepts that are generally presumed without question when going about some activity (Nagel, 1987), which in this case is the activity of scientifically pursuing hydrological understanding, particularly for watersheds. Thus, my review comments will be in the spirit of philosophical questioning, as productively invited by this paper. My comments will necessarily extend beyond the specific points raised in the paper to question presumptions underlying those points, presenting contrary positions that, in some cases, are well established in the contemporary philosophy of science literature, but, in other cases, are matters of ongoing philosophical debate. Some of this material may be unfamiliar to practicing scientists, many of whom seem to ascribe unquestioningly to philosophical doctrines that were popular in the mid-twentieth century but have since been largely discredited by contemporary philosophical work. For those interested Godfrey-Smith (2003) provides an authoritative and useful review of the latter.
@article{bakerInteractiveCommentDarwinian2013,
  title = {Interactive Comment on ” {{Darwinian}} Hydrology: Can the Methodology {{Charles Darwin}} Pioneered Help Hydrologic Science?” By {{C}}. {{Harman}} and {{P}}.{{A}}. {{Troch}}},
  author = {Baker, V.},
  date = {2013},
  journaltitle = {Hydrology and Earth System Sciences Discussion},
  volume = {10},
  pages = {C3324-C3325},
  issn = {1812-2116},
  url = {http://hydrol-earth-syst-sci-discuss.net/10/C3324/2013/hessd-10-C3324-2013-supplement.pdf},
  abstract = {This paper (Harman and Troch, 2013) is a well-­-structured and generally clear presentation that is also well referenced in regard to what I take to be the current paradigm for hydrological science. Because the paper is largely philosophical in nature, the usual criteria for the review original scientific research results are not applicable, so instead emphasis will be placed on philosophical commentary. Philosophy can be defined as the raising of questions about concepts that are generally presumed without question when going about some activity (Nagel, 1987), which in this case is the activity of scientifically pursuing hydrological understanding, particularly for watersheds. Thus, my review comments will be in the spirit of philosophical questioning, as productively invited by this paper. My comments will necessarily extend beyond the specific points raised in the paper to question presumptions underlying those points, presenting contrary positions that, in some cases, are well established in the contemporary philosophy of science literature, but, in other cases, are matters of ongoing philosophical debate. Some of this material may be unfamiliar to practicing scientists, many of whom seem to ascribe unquestioningly to philosophical doctrines that were popular in the mid-twentieth century but have since been largely discredited by contemporary philosophical work. For those interested Godfrey-Smith (2003) provides an authoritative and useful review of the latter.},
  keywords = {*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-13317422,epistemology,hydrology}
}
Downloads: 0