> He then says, "Why do I tell you this little boy's story of medusas,
rays,
> and sea monsters, nearly 60 years after the fact? Because it illustrates
I
> think, how a naturalist is created. A child comes to the edge of deep
water
> with a mind prepared for wonder. Hands on experience at the critical
time,
> not systematic knowledge, is what counts in the making of a naturalist.
> Better to be an untutored for a while, not to know the names or
anatomical
> detail. Better to spend long stretches of time just searching and
> dreaming."
Awhile ago I saw a special on Jane Goodall, PBS of course, in which she was
chosen specifically because of her lack of "scientific" experience. The
scientist that chose her felt that previous observation of chimps were
hindered because of the theory and systematic knowledge of prior
scientists. For example, the text books said chimps could do a,b, and c
but not x,y, and z and that knowledge affected what they observed. As far
as tutoring goes, Jane credited her parenting abilities to years of
watching a particular female chimp raise her child. The reaearch did seem
to challenge or at least bring to question some of the "uniqueness" of
humans including love, goal directed tool use, and violence and war. I
often wonder if a researcher that was specifically trained in the text book
sense had done the research how different it would be. I suspect our
knowledge of chimps would be quite different.
Nate
> Wilson, E. O. (1994). Naturalist. Washington, D.C.: Island
Press/Shearwater
> Books.
>