Re: [ecopath] What happened to all the Naturalists?
David W. Potter wrote: Jeff: Without having the article in front of me I can't be sure, but I think the article you refer to ignores two facts. First, there are ecologists whose work in the field of biology goes much deeper into the relationships between organisms and their environment than mere natural history. Yes, ecology has done a good job of digging into the details while maintaining an overview of all the connections and relationships. I don't remember how the article treated this dichotomy (magazine was a library copy) but do know that dichotomies are often not the best way to approach a topic. Our world is complex and has more shades of grey than black and white issues. In fact, the pace and depth of ecology and biological research has so far outstripped what was practiced as natural history that the latter would be regarded as obsolete. Imagine if doctors only practiced medicine with a thermometer and stethoscope, ignoring all the wealth of detailed medical research that is now available. I sometimes wonder if we approach nature and science too narrowly. Using the medical science example, we have made great progress but our populations are overweight, stressed, and suffering from new diseases or industrial pollution. Did we miss something along the way? We might respond that the stress and bad health are due to other factors, that are not in the domain of medical science. Why is this? Can't we go beyond medical cures and put more emphasis on prevention? The answer might be that we have placed medical science in a box and defined its scope. It mostly supports doctors and problems doctors encounter. It can not include economics, politics, agriculture, and other areas connected to health. So, if we say natural science is obsolete we also need to acknowledge that current approaches have limitations. This leads to many questions about why some problems are never solved and how could science address them? Too many open questions and ideas for my mind to sort through grin. jeff
Re: [ecopath] What happened to all the Naturalists?
Jeff: Without having the article in front of me I can't be sure, but I think the acticle you refer to ignores two facts. First, there are ecologists whose work in the field of biology goes much deeper into the relationships between organisms and their environment than mere natural history.In fact, the pace and depth of ecology and biological research has so far outstripped what was practiced as natural history that the latter would be regarded as obsolete. Imagine if doctors only practiced medicine with a thermometer and stethoscope, ignoring all the wealth of detailed medical research that is now available. Second, there are people around the world who work in parks and reserves whose purpose is to provide natural history information to visitors. I am sure many of them think of themselves as naturalists. David W. Potter [EMAIL PROTECTED] The only really good advice that holds up in all situations is: Always make friends with the cook. Gene Logsdon, The Contrary Farmer - Original Message - From: jeff owens [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, 14 November, 2001 1141 Subject: What happened to all the Naturalists? The Autumn 2001 issue of Orion magazine has a interesting article titled The Rise and Fall of Natural History It traces the early popularity of natural history up to the present. It then explains why todays universities and schools ignore natural science and focus on hard science. Natural History is the study of our world in its natural environment. It assumes we can't take a butterfly to the lab and understand a butterfly. All the interactions and connections around the butterfly help form and support the butterfly. Three things contributed to the demise of natural history: 1. The shift of population from farms and countryside to the present domination by cities. The majority of industrialized people (over 80 percent) now live in a city and are isolated from nature. 2. World War II and the cold war pushed scientific enquiry away for natural sciences toward the hard sciences that support war and survival. 3. The universities became specialists in narrow areas and funding required detailed proposals. The hard sciences fit this bureaucratic mold and the natural sciences did not. Generally, the natural sciences explored the whole and tests could not be controlled. The hard sciences focused on a single item and separated it from everything else for expiremental purposes. The focus on hard science has produced many problems in our world. It tends to marginalize the human experience and earth care. It would happily produce pesticides without looking at all consequences. The issue we now face is balance. Do we need to bring back more natural history? Is it possible in todays job oriented education? jeff
