Many biologists, when they turn to philosophical (epistemological or ontological) questions, abandon the standards of accuracy that, at least in the layman’s view, ought to govern their discourse as scientists. Simberloff’s argument forms an unusually flagrant example of this practice. If ecology does in fact rely on incompatible models,1 that fact may suggest interesting problems about scientific discovery and the structure of scientific theories. If such discussion is to be useful, however, some of Simberloff’s misunderstandings and misinformation should be cleared away. The following comments are intended in this spirit.