[APWG] Ecosystem Restoration: On Humans and Ecosystems

[Wayne Tyson]

Gena y compadres:

I'm inserting my [[comments in double-bracketts]].

WT
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Gena Fleming 
  To: apwg at lists.plantconservation.org 
  Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2012 10:58 AM
  Subject: Re: [APWG] Ecosystem Restoration: On Humans and Ecosystems

  [clip]


  from Wayne Tyson: What might be worthy of discussion is the value of intuition in assessments, and the pitfalls of intuition. 

  [clip]

  I am so glad the topic of intuition has come up.  First of all, we are all intuitive beings.  Hopefully, all scientists, the surgeon, your mechanic, parents, are all taking their knowledge as far as they can go but remain open to guidance from intuition.  [[In many cases: Not if they can help it! WT]]

  That being, said, qualtitative assessment, although it is subjective, is not to be confused with intuition.   If I were walking through the woods wih Ty Harrison, he looked at some leaves and said he expected neo-tropical migrant birds during the breeding season, he would not be able to prove it but he would probably be right.  Although the same image of leaves may have fallen on my retina, I wouldn't have perceived the connection, and may have been inclined to dismiss him as some kind of eco-sorcerer.  He might explain that he is basing his opinion on insects, but then I might stupidly say "What insects? I don't see any insects."  Wow, this is eactly what I was talking about with respect to perceiving functional relationships in traditional medicine and Ty has immediately produced an example of using it in ecology. 

  [["Intuition" might not be the right word, but we may have to settle for it until a better one comes along, such is the limitation of language. Integration is almost intuitive, but ignoring it, suppressing it, nay, PROHIBITING it is considered by many to be necessary "to do real science." Is this a problem? Is this not a problem? WT]]

  I think we can trust he would also be aware that this was a limited observation, and he would want to check more trees, other plants, other elements, look for additional signs and correlate it with many other observations before he became too confident of his prognosis.   This constitutes a constellation of symptoms, only in this case he is focussing on system health, not system dysfunction. 

  [[The "ability" to do this is a function of courageous honesty (intellectual integrity) and, yes, experience, but not experience simply in terms of the passage of time. It is a result of using both sides of the brain, and especially the part that processes infinite inputs without our "knowing" it. That might be called a qualitative quality. As I type this, if I think about the keyboard, my error rate goes up and my speed goes down. And I'm not error-free nor fast. WT]]

  Ty Harrison:  When I lead children on field trips to urban natural areas, we look for as my KINDS of birds, plants and insects as we can find.  I suggest, not very originally, that diversity might the touch-stone assessment of ecosystem health  In fact,  this is an example of just such a correlated observation.  His single observation about an insect sign must be integrated into the whole complex of other observations regarding the system's biodiversity and biocomplexity, an indicator of resilience.   Each observation weighed for itself as well as integration in the whole context, his analysis fluxing with each new revelation.   

  [[This is an example of using the whole brain. Note that out there where the outliers lie, lies the truth. WT]]

  Thinking qualitative is not thinking stupid; it takes a lot of knowledge, higher order synthesis skills, and heartfelt experience. 

  [[And, it takes the attitude toward understanding that is not limited to, but ironically limited by, "knowledge." WT]]

  Back to the traditional medicine metaphor, when we feel the pulse, we are not counting beats (quantitative).  We are expected to find 3 pulses on each wrist where western medicine finds 1, feel them at 3 different levels and assess them with respect to various qualities such as wiry, slippery, choppy, etc.  The tongue color and fur are inspected as reflections of organ function, we look at the quality of the nails and hair,  assess the complexion, tone of voice, ask about urine color and frequency and a minutiae of many other subclinical symptoms.  So the point is, in order to make a qualitative analyis, one must be trained to discern more in terms of qualitative observation than what is required in a more quantitative, technological system.  Just like Ty's perception of a few holes in tree leaves,  ridges on a fingernail may tell us something, but we are not jumping to big conclusions based on one sign alone.   We just keep looking . . . and touching... and asking ....

  [[The big "problem" in (quantitative) ecology is that so few variables can be considered at once. Denying that it just isn't possible to understand an infinitely complex phenomenon with numbers alone is a huge elephant in the room. The habit of defending a "position" is unfortunately common, if not prevalent, in ecology. The problem remains--how does one measure such a squishy subject with such rigid tools? WT]]

  But even In western medicine, hospital nurses are required to be able to perceive more than physicians, as they are responsible for noticing subtle signs and symptoms in order to know when to contact a physician or order new tests.  They spend more time with the patient.   

  Back to Wayne's question about the pitfalls of intuition, if we substitute that with the pitfalls of qualitative, sensorial assessment, I do not see any pitfalls.  I do see limitations, just as I see limitations to "objective" assessment.  

  [[Quite. But let's try to name a few of the limitations and see where that little exercise takes us. The devil is in the details. WT]]

  As I walked along a local wetland last year, I began to observe more and more fish disease.  Eventually, my heart was broken by a  turtle covered with an orange slime who swam up to where I was standing and repeatedly looked up at me.   I sent a photo to a retired professor who researches turtles and he had never seen such a pathologic growth.  Had we been able to capture the turtle, we could have gotten a lab analysis, which would certainly have been useful.  Since that wasn't possible, I did a freedom of information request to get information on the pesticide and fertilizer use of the university's golf course that drains into the area.  A water analysis would be nice.  There's no need to exclude objective assessment.  But that does not require discrediting the value of subjective assessment.  [[Any assessment can be "tested," but beware of GIGO! In EITHER case. WT]]

  In David Abram's book The Spell of the Sensuous:  Perception and Language in a More-than-Human World  (note this is why I put "more than human world" in quotes in my previous message), he speaks of how we have been systematically trained to turn off and discredit our sensory experience, our only connection to truly experiencing the natural world.   [[Quite. But bucking the holey writ can get you uncommunicated. Come on in, the water's awful. WT]]

  Subjective sensorial experience is our only way of knowing the world.  Pretending we are outside and disconnected from this living, pulsing Gaia organism of a world, constrained by the pretense and false premise of objectivity, analyzing isolated variables we have wrenched from their vital connections to their life-giving whole,  how can we expect to arrive at any type of insight truly useful or even relevant to perpetuating the dynamic connections of life-connected-to-life? [[Said better than I just did. WT]]

  best regards,

  Gena Fleming 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.plantconservation.org/pipermail/apwg_lists.plantconservation.org/attachments/20120306/ce379aa2/attachment.html>