[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: good science vs. diplomas....and other things !
> Not to get into a lengthy debate but your previous statement about
> uneducated and untrained folks makeing the rules is a bad
> thing makes me
> nervous. I think the better barometer is do folks follow a
> good science
> model. Given your example most of the great naturalist our
> country has
> produced would not count because they were "untrained".
I didn't say or imply anything about naturalists. I wouldn't even know
where to start, but I wouldn't say most of the greatest were untrained.
Our country has produced tens of thousands or more of naturalists with a
range of "training". The early ones had it easiest in many respects.
They didn't have access to the knowledge and methods we have today, so
they made a lot of observations and did a lot of guesswork. Holy cow,
they got famous for exploring and writing about what they saw, the lucky
stiffs! It's fun to read the writings of people like Muir and Leopold
> If you judge a person by their diplomas or lack of diplomas instead of
> the content of their charactor or their actions you are makeing a very
> serious mistake.
And I never said that....? I didn't say anything about "judging"
anyone. The discussion was about who is best equipped to handle
biological issues-- politicians or biologists.