Subject: ornithological meaninglessness
Date: Jun 1 16:26:55 1995
From: Dennis Paulson - dpaulson at ups.edu


Nate Sutter wrote: "I'm not very interested in Byron's distinction between
'listers' and 'watchers' since I believe most of us are largely both. And
I don't know what he means by "ornithologically meaningless." So what? I
can't
think of how many experiences I've had out in the field which were
completely meaningless ornithologically but very meaningful and even
powerful aesthetically and even philosophically. That carries the real
weight for me."


I agree with Nate that field experiences can be "very meaningful and even
powerful aesthetically and even philosophically," and I suspect that many
of Byron's experiences are likewise, as are those of all of us. But I'll
express my strong feelings (thoughts) that "so what?" isn't exactly the
best attitude toward ornithological meaningfulness.

I've had trouble for years understanding a particular set of mixed signals
from the birding community. On the one hand, most birders are fairly
committed environmentalists (maybe I'm being naive?). But on the other
hand, many seem to have absolutely no concern that what they learn about
birds in the field, if duly recorded and shared, could be not only of value
to ornithology but also to environmentalism. I still don't think this
point has been made adequately, and I think that both Byron and I will
continue to expend energy trying to make it. There almost seems to be a
resistance to think of birding/birdwatching and ornithology/science in the
same context.

I don't know how this relates to the fact that there is a really strong
antiscience movement in our society (Stuart, I *barely* managed to resist
commenting on your description of a scientist), and to some extent it's
correlated with a metaphysical approach that places more importance on
feelings than knowledge. Nothing's wrong with feelings; I've got a few
myself. But feelings aren't what gave us the wheel, penicillin, the space
shuttle, binoculars, or bird identification guides. There's an
element--larger or smaller--of knowledge that underlies just about
everything we do, and to disdain this is to disdain much of what is good,
and special, about Homo sapiens.

Sorry, Nate, no offense meant to you, but your statement pushed one of my
bigger buttons. I don't know if you meant to imply that your experiences
in the field were rich in aesthetics and philosophy but lacking in
information, but that's what your message seemed to say. If you receive
information from your experience, then sharing that information with others
gives it even greater intrinsic value. In a loose sense, that's sort of
what ornithology does. "Ornithologically meaningful" means not only the
observer but all the rest of us have gained something from the experience.

If anyone thinks I'm giving aesthetics, philosophy, or meaningful
experiences short shrift, or would like to discuss science further, please
mail me directly, or we'll get into another "what, no birds again?" thread.
Thanks.

Dennis Paulson, Director phone: (206) 756-3798
Slater Museum of Natural History fax: (206) 756-3352
University of Puget Sound e-mail: dpaulson at ups.edu
Tacoma, WA 98416