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
