<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2180" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=4>Gena y compadres:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=4>I'm inserting my [[comments in
double-bracketts]].</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=4>WT</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=genafleming@gmail.com href="mailto:genafleming@gmail.com">Gena
Fleming</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=apwg@lists.plantconservation.org
href="mailto:apwg@lists.plantconservation.org">apwg@lists.plantconservation.org</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, March 06, 2012 10:58
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [APWG] Ecosystem
Restoration: On Humans and Ecosystems</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">[clip]</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>from Wayne Tyson: <STRONG>What might be worthy of discussion is the value
of intuition in assessments, and the pitfalls of intuition. </STRONG></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>[clip]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>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]]</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>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 <EM>perceived</EM> 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. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>[["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]]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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 <EM><STRONG>constellation of symptoms</STRONG></EM>, only in
this case he is focussing on system health, not system dysfunction. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>[[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 <EM>qualitative</EM>
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]]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Ty Harrison: <FONT color=#000099> <STRONG>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</STRONG></FONT> 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. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>[[This is an example of using the whole brain.
Note that out there where the outliers lie, lies the truth. WT]]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Thinking <EM>qualitative</EM> is not thinking <EM>stupid;</EM> it takes a
lot of knowledge, higher order synthesis skills, and heartfelt
experience. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>[[And, it takes the attitude toward understanding
that is not limited to, but ironically limited by, "knowledge."
WT]]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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
<EM><STRONG>qualities</STRONG></EM> 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 <EM>something</EM>, but we
are not jumping to big conclusions based on one sign alone. We
just keep looking . . . and touching... and asking ....</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>[[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 <EM>measure</EM> such a squishy subject with such rigid tools?
WT]]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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. <EM>They spend more time with the patient. </EM>
</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>[[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]]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>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]]</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>In David Abram's book <U>The Spell of the Sensuous: Perception and
Language in a More-than-Human World </U>(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]]</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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
<EM>false premise</EM> 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]]</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>best regards,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Gena Fleming </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>