next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
family: HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, He --001a113f95720a7ee5051e2087c2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 David and David, Sam, Dr. S.P. VanderKloet, maintained that a basic separation existed between natural history and natural philosophy. The natural historian observed and described while the natural philosopher asked why, sought explanation and this lead to testing of hypotheses and the science of ecology. Both are important, the former can provide the basis for the study by the latter and usually does. But we don't need to assign ourselves to any one camp and the natural historian, like Darwin, can do ecology and the ecologist should be a natural historian (Donald Worster's Natural Economy is well worth reading but introduces Darwin as the Dismal Science). It should be hand and glove and the practice of natural history shows us the on going wonder of this world and the reason to not let it go. Nick Hill On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 10:03 PM, David Patriquin <davidgpatriquin@yahoo.ca> wrote: > > Thanks David W. . I concur with your views. > > Given the fairly common use of the term natural history, it seems odd > that formal definitions of NH are hard to find. For example, neither my > Collins Dictionary of Botany nor my Oxford Dictionary of Ecology provide a > definition. My Oxford English Reference Dictionary describes NH as 1. the > study of animals or plants, esp. as set forth for popular use. 2. an > aggregate of the facts concerning the flora and fauna etc. of a particular > place or class (*a natural history of the Isle of Wright*). > > I do think that both "observation" and "explanation" should be a part of > any definition and thus I doubt that anyone will ever supplant Charles > Darwin as the pre-eminent naturalist of all time - so your deference to 18th > and 19th Century science is well placed! From more recent times, I would > rank E.O. Wilson at the top. > > However NH is defined, I have a long way to go to be as conversant in the > subject as many who post on NatureNS, including yourself. > > - David P > > > > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* David & Alison Webster <dwebster@glinx.com> > *To:* NatureNS@chebucto.ns.ca > *Sent:* Monday, August 24, 2015 9:05 PM > *Subject:* [NatureNS] Natural History > > Hi Dave P. & All, Aug 24, 2015 > I enjoyed your article in today's paper > > http://thechronicleherald.ca/thenovascotian/1306838-nova-scotia-naturally-a-love-of-the-natural-world > > I wondered about your definition of Natural History but find that it > is > not seriously different from the one in my 1914 Webster's dictionary. > "Formerly, the study, description and classification of animals, plants, > minerals and other natural objects, thus including the modern sciences of > zoology, botany, mineralogy, etc., in so far as they existed at that time. > Now commonly restricted to a study of these subjects in a more or less > superficial way... and usually further restricted to the study of animals > and plants, esp. the former, and their habits." > > I would be inclined to be more inclusive and disinclined to formulate > a > rigid definition of Natural History because I think it should ideally > include all ground truth and this is still possible only to a limited > degree. > > For example, if animals are arbitrarily taken as the focus of Natural > History then clearly this should include some comprehension of climatic > effects past and present, vegetative cover past and present and since > vegetative cover is a function of soil parent material, climatic history, > time, phytogeography and chance this quickly spins into a need for some > level of comprehension of all scientific and technical knowledge which at > the very least would include elementary physics, inorganic chemistry, > physical chemistry, thermodynamic phase diagrams, intermolecular forces... > > But why would one want to take animals as the sole focus of Natural > History ? Surely it should include all life forms, including the origin of > life, all aspects of Astronomy including the origin of stars, planets, > matter..., all aspects of Physics and (gasp) even all aspects of man-made > materials and devices. > > In practice many, including myself, are still trying to grasp key > findings of 18th and 19th Century science so I expect the day when the > typical student of Natural History really understands the background of > the > observed will be sometime after that elusive pot of Gold at the end of the > rainbow is located. > > Yours truly, Dave Webster, Kentville > > > > > > --001a113f95720a7ee5051e2087c2 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <div dir=3D"ltr"><div>David and David,</div><div>Sam, Dr. S.P. VanderKloet,= maintained that a basic separation existed between natural history and nat= ural philosophy. The natural historian observed and described while the nat= ural philosopher asked why, sought explanation and this lead to testing of = hypotheses and the science of ecology. Both are important, the former can p= rovide the basis for the study by the latter and usually does. But we don&#= 39;t need to assign ourselves to any one camp and the natural historian, li= ke Darwin, can do ecology and the ecologist should be a natural historian (= Donald Worster's Natural Economy is well worth reading but=C2=A0introdu= ces=C2=A0Darwin as the Dismal Science). It should be hand and glove and the= practice of natural history shows us the on going wonder of this world and= the reason to not let it go. </div><div><br></div><div>Nick Hill</div><div= ><br></div></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">= On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 10:03 PM, David Patriquin <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a = href=3D"mailto:davidgpatriquin@yahoo.ca" target=3D"_blank">davidgpatriquin@= yahoo.ca</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style= =3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><di= v style=3D"color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:HelveticaNeue,Helvetica Neue,Helvet= ica,Arial,Lucida Grande,sans-serif;font-size:13px;background-color:rgb(255,= 255,255)"><div><span></span></div><div></div><div>=C2=A0</div><div>Thanks D= avid W. . I concur with your views.=C2=A0</div><div><br></div><div>Given th= e fairly common use of =C2=A0the term natural history, it seems odd that fo= rmal definitions of NH are hard to find.=C2=A0 For example, =C2=A0neither = =C2=A0my Collins Dictionary of Botany nor my Oxford Dictionary of Ecology p= rovide a definition. My Oxford English Reference Dictionary describes NH as= 1. the study of animals or plants, esp. as set forth for popular use. 2. a= n aggregate of the facts concerning the flora and fauna etc. of a particula= r place or class (<i>a natural history of the Isle of Wright</i>).=C2=A0</d= iv><div><br></div><div dir=3D"ltr">I do think that both "observation&q= uot; and "explanation" should be a part of any definition and thu= s I doubt that anyone will ever supplant Charles Darwin as the pre-eminent = naturalist of all time - so your deference to=C2=A0<span><font size=3D"2">1= 8th and 19th Century science is well placed! =C2=A0 From more recent times,= I would rank E.O. Wilson at the top.</font></span></div><div><br></div><di= v dir=3D"ltr">However NH is defined, I have a long way to go to be as conve= rsant in the subject as many who post on NatureNS, including yourself.</div= ><div dir=3D"ltr"><br></div><div dir=3D"ltr">- David P</div><div dir=3D"ltr= "><br></div><div dir=3D"ltr"><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><br> = <div style=3D"font-family:HelveticaNeue,Helvetica Neue,Helvetica,Arial,Luci= da Grande,sans-serif;font-size:13px"> <div style=3D"font-family:HelveticaNe= ue,Helvetica Neue,Helvetica,Arial,Lucida Grande,sans-serif;font-size:16px">= <div dir=3D"ltr"> <hr size=3D"1"> <font face=3D"Arial" size=3D"2"> <b><sp= an style=3D"font-weight:bold">From:</span></b> David & Alison Webster &= lt;<a href=3D"mailto:dwebster@glinx.com" target=3D"_blank">dwebster@glinx.c= om</a>><br> <b><span style=3D"font-weight:bold">To:</span></b> <a href= =3D"mailto:NatureNS@chebucto.ns.ca" target=3D"_blank">NatureNS@chebucto.ns.= ca</a> <br> <b><span style=3D"font-weight:bold">Sent:</span></b> Monday, Au= gust 24, 2015 9:05 PM<br> <b><span style=3D"font-weight:bold">Subject:</spa= n></b> [NatureNS] Natural History<br> </font> </div> <div><br>Hi Dave P. &a= mp; All,=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Aug 24, 2015<br>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 I enjoyed your article in t= oday's paper<br><a href=3D"http://thechronicleherald.ca/thenovascotian/= 1306838-nova-scotia-naturally-a-love-of-the-natural-world" target=3D"_blank= ">http://thechronicleherald.ca/thenovascotian/1306838-nova-scotia-naturally= -a-love-of-the-natural-world</a><br><br>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 I wondered about your= definition of Natural History but find that it is <br>not seriously differ= ent from the one in my 1914 Webster's dictionary. <br>"Formerly, t= he study, description and classification of animals, plants, <br>minerals a= nd other natural objects, thus including the modern sciences of <br>zoology= , botany, mineralogy, etc., in so far as they existed at that time. <br>Now= commonly restricted to a study of these subjects in a more or less <br>sup= erficial way... and usually further restricted to the study of animals <br>= and plants, esp. the former, and their habits."<br><br>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 I= would be inclined to be more inclusive and disinclined to formulate a <br>= rigid definition of Natural History because I think it should ideally <br>i= nclude all ground truth and this is still possible only to a limited <br>de= gree.<br><br>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 For example, if animals are arbitrarily taken as= the focus of Natural <br>History then clearly this should include some com= prehension of climatic <br>effects past and present, vegetative cover past = and present and since <br>vegetative cover is a function of soil parent mat= erial, climatic history, <br>time, phytogeography and chance this quickly s= pins into a need for some <br>level of comprehension of all scientific and = technical knowledge which at <br>the very least would include elementary ph= ysics, inorganic chemistry, <br>physical chemistry, thermodynamic phase dia= grams, intermolecular forces...<br><br>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 But why would one want= to take animals as the sole focus of Natural <br>History ? Surely it shoul= d include all life forms, including the origin of <br>life, all aspects of = Astronomy including the origin of stars, planets, <br>matter..., all aspect= s of Physics and (gasp) even all aspects of man-made <br>materials and devi= ces.<br><br>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 In practice many, including myself, are still try= ing to grasp key <br>findings of 18th and 19th Century science so I expect = the day when the <br>typical student of Natural History really understands= =C2=A0 the background of the <br>observed will be sometime after that elusi= ve pot of Gold at the end of the <br>rainbow is located.<br><br>Yours truly= , Dave Webster, Kentville<br><br> <br><br><br><br></div> </div> </div> </d= iv></div></blockquote></div><br></div> --001a113f95720a7ee5051e2087c2--
next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects