Letters to the Editor
-
Find them all and crush them
http://www.ibiblio.org/Dave/Dr-Fun/df200107/df20010719.jpg
-
Paradoxical?
Leonard rightly encourages science education that is grounded in facts and taxonomy here, but then somehow manages to turn it into an anti-intelligent design rant. So much for learning multiple perspectives and allowing others to learn them, whether you agree with them or not. (I don't believe in intelligent design, for the record.) Kind of smacks of fascism.
-
I wonder if Wilson really agrees with his own statement
I already put in my two cents, but I feel very strongly that Wilson's statement is indefensible. And I don't mean the obvious hyperbole or the reference to soccer moms.
First off, of course it's a wonderful experience for a kid to explore nature without any direct adult supervision. Or (in Wilson's scenario) to have a knowledgable adult on call the whole time to answer questions and only reveal the names after the child has attempted to understand things alone. It's also probably true that there is less opportunity now and our child's lives are poorer for it.
But as much as I remember exploring my backyard and surrounding fields as a child, I also remember times spent reading through books about nature. The books were merely words written about things with names, but they were still fascinating and only whetted my appetite for more observation. Though (like most curious children) I did not actually pursue a career in natural science, I appreciate both the words and the reality.
But real experience is extremely costly and the fact remains that time spent naively in the field is highly unlikely to turn up any novelty whatsoever. Once you understand that your paths of discovery are well-trod by others, the most reasonable next step is to absorb their collected knowledge as efficiently as possible. Only then do you have any hope of expanding on this base.
So by all means, let kids explore nature. But let them learn names too. Wilson's students are all presumably highly competitive members of a scientific elite. Did they really spend their whole childhood looking at shells, or did they spend a good bit of it in the library too? I just think, as I suggested earlier, that Wilson presents an appealing fantasy and it is hard to imagine that a scientist of his maturity could possibly see it any other way.
-
@Electro Robot
I'm glad I wasn't the only one who immediately thought of the late, lamented Dr. Fun. He will forever be entwined with E.O. Wilson in my mind.
-
he ought to know
If Wilson was raised a creationist yet still found a way to become an inquisitive, reality-based scientist, and thinks that overprotective "liberal" values are the bigger threat to science, maybe you should, like, listen to him (instead of telling him what you think).
-
Let's Distribute Some Free Acid and Get Back to the Garden
I had not heard of E.O. Wilson until I read this particular quote, so thanks to the posters who have mentioned his books and works. I suppose in the best of all possible worlds children would run around like little deer, wondering at the natural beauty of the world, and then willingly run back to their personal fonts of knowledge in order to soak up more detailed information on their discoveries. You know, like a really good acid trip or Disney movie.
The reality is that if any parent(s) even let his or her child run more than six feet away from them, say at the beach, probably half the posters here would whip out their cell phones and call the cops on them. Remember the woman arrested in front of the Wal Mart for leaving her sleeping toddler in the van? She took two older kids to a Salvation Army kettle ten feet away and was arrested within minutes.
In the meantime, I'm sure many parents would gladly take Wilson's critique to heart and spend a Sunday afternoon at the park or catching up on the laundry while the kids play in the back yard. I know I would have. And I'm sure that all the nature conservatories and botanical gardens in the country are so grateful to him for pointing out how useless they are. Funny how Wilson denigrates the people who tour these places rather than the people who built them in the first place.
-
What an easy slam
Seriously, this is just lazy. Take a cultural signifier that is safe to make fun of, and make fun of it. So much easier to insult "soccer moms" than consider where nature has gone and why. Or to implicate people in power. Ass.
-
This is standard cranky old man stuff
I remember a visiting speaker ripping into us 2nd graders for knowing the names of all sorts of sharks, but not knowing how many scutes there were on a turtle's carapace. The criticism being that our book learnin' was inferior to going out and messing about in ponds and creeks.
So I've heard this before. It was true then and it's true now, but being cranky about it doesn't help the message get heard (my reaction in 2nd grade? Who is this guy, anyway?).
E.O. Wilson's a giant; like Rev. Wright, the soundbite does not mark the man.
-
Chimpygro
Those suburban yards you hate are where most kids experience nature. There are bugs and weeds, and trees and flowers. If you live in a city, you have to go to the park -- chaperoned unless you're old enough to walk there by yourself.
In the park, you're not supposed to take sticks, leaves, flowers to study.
-
missing the point
you're missing the point and- oddly- almost deliberately pointing it out with your choice of quote.
the guy that said there's too much info to learn to waste time "discovering" things misses the point too...
and it's exactly those attitudes and false understandings of knowledge and the natural world that eo wilson is on about.
-
Leonard Gives Wilson A Bum Rap
Wilson was obviously being hyperbolic but you're taking him completely literally, which is retarded (but not literally!).
His point is to let kids interact in a sincere self-motivated way with nature rather than having some over-ambitious yuppie mom buying them Baby Darwin CD's so they can be more competitive in the elite grade school admissions contest.