- Home
- Recreation and Leisure
- Health Education
- Principles of Sustainable Living
Principles of Sustainable Living
A New Vision for Health, Happiness, and Prosperity
328 Pages, 8.5
No one can argue against wanting a better quality of life—and Principles of Sustainable Living: A New Vision for Health, Happiness, and Prosperity provides keen insight into how to achieve that so that individuals, communities, and the environment all come out winners.
This transdisciplinary text presents principles of sustainability, develops environmental literacy, and expands awareness of sustainable practices that will steer readers toward a lifestyle that they, as well as the entire planet, will benefit from.
Author Richard Jurin, an expert in sustainable living, has written numerous publications on sustainable development, business leadership for sustainability, and related issues. He takes students beyond sustainability's traditional “triple bottom line" of people, profit, and planet to a quadruple paradigm that includes economic, sociocultural, psychological, and ecological aspects of sustainability.
This text is supported by its own website, which includes an instructor guide, test package, study guide, and presentation package. The book's 36 illustrations and tables are all included in the presentation package. The text offers
• principles of sustainability that support a range of university courses in multiple disciplines;
• a systems approach to sustainability that reflects worldwide views and values;
• case studies, personal reflections, and applications that help students understand their status and the challenges of the future; and
• guidelines for developing sustainable living through daily choices.
The book explores the mind-sets that have created the modern, consumer-based world we live in, exposing environmental and societal global problems as it does; lays out new ways of thinking, championing sustainable thinking as a prerequisite for living a healthy, happy, vibrant life that benefits the planet; and details positive options for living a sustainable lifestyle. Readers will be able to understand sustainability from a broad perspective—how it can improve their lives, resolve environmental problems, and improve the condition of the planet for all life.
Principles of Sustainable Living points out the problems and challenges we face individually and as caretakers of our planet and offers lifestyle approaches that can sustain quality of life long into the future.
Chapter 1 Moving Toward a New Way of Living
Attaining Sustainability
Understanding What Is Important
Worldviews That Shaped Our Thinking
Barriers to Change
Changing Our Thinking
Summary
Learning Activities
Glossary
References and Resources
Chapter 2 Social and Cultural Trends
Trends That Shape Our Lives
Consequences of Current Trends
Catalysts for Future Trends
Creating New Trends
Summary
Learning Activities
Glossary
References and Resources
Chapter 3 Standard of Living versus Quality of Life
Waking Up From the Illusion of the American Dream
Redefining Progress
All-Encompassing Consumerism
Advertising
Marketing
Adjusting Our Attitude
Summary
Learning Activities
Glossary
References and Resources
Chapter 4 Thinking Systemically and Sustainably
Systemic Versus Symptomatic Thinking
Critical Thinking
Analyzing Root Problems
Thinking Sustainably
Barriers to Changing our thinking
Summary
Learning Activities
Glossary
References and Resources
Chapter 5 Economics, Prosperity, and Sustainability
Brief History of Economics
Types of Economies
Our Current High Standard of Living
Measures of Current Wealth
Economics Undermining Community
Managing and Avoiding Personal Debt
Improving Economic Practices to Enhance Quality of Life
New Measures of Prosperity
Reshaping the Global Economy
Summary
Learning Activities
Glossary
References and Resources
Chapter 6 Choosing a Healthy, Sustainable Lifestyle
Reasons for Poor Health
Industrial Farming
Sustainable Farming Methods
Corporate Agriculture versus Community Supported Agriculture
Healthy Lifestyle Choices
Summary
Learning Activities
Glossary
References and Resources
Chapter 7 Happiness and Well-Being
Determinants of Happiness and Well-Being
Ranking Happiness and Well-Being
Emotional Well-Being
Social Well-Being
Ecological and Spiritual Well-Being
Summary
Learning Activities
Glossary
References and Resources
Chapter 8 Education
Education in the 21st Century
Becoming an Informed Citizen
Communicating Effectively
Reforming Education
Summary
Learning Activities
Glossary
References and Resources
Chapter 9 Technology and Industrial Ecology
Shifting Toward a Sustainability Paradigm
Technology Involves Risk
Industrial Ecology
Green Energy and Society
Biommicry
The Future of Electrical Energy
Managing and Eliminating Waste
Summary
Learning Activities
Glossary
References and Resources
Chapter 10 Community
Types of Communities
What Makes Up a Community
Community Resilience
Social Benefits of Community
Substitute Communities
Urban Renewal
Postmodern Communities
Economic Community
Urban and Community Gardens
Civic Agency
Moving Toward Sustainable Communities
Summary
Learning Activities
Glossary
References and Resources
Chapter 11 Transitioning to Sustainable Living
Transitional Communities
Ecovillages
Relocalization and Resilience
New Urbanism
Summary
Learning Activities
Glossary
References and Resources
Chapter 12 On the Edge of Change
Change Is Possible
Transitioning to a New Culture
Cultivating New Perspectives
Adopting New Ideas
Becoming Cultural Critics
Facilitating Discussion
Affecting Change
Improving Policy-Making
Creating a Cooperative World
Achieving Empowerment
Summary
Learning Activities
Glossary
References and Resources
Richard Jurin, PhD, is an associate professor in the College of Natural and Health Sciences at the University of Northern Colorado. His research interests include worldviews as barriers to sustainability, sustainable development, business leadership for sustainability, and sustainability in tourism and interpretation.
Dr. Jurin has two other books to his credit as well as book chapters and numerous articles on sustainability and related issues. He has made dozens of professional presentations on sustainability, including keynote presentations at national conferences. He received the University of Northern Colorado Academic Leadership Excellence Award for 2010-11.
Think critically about new information, past assumptions, and your own thought process
Most modern environmental issues are frequently driven and fueled by emotional rhetoric. Environmental science and the integration of sustainability principles is based on science and is rational, yet relies on a transdisciplinary base since it involves natural sciences, social sciences, humanities, and arts to comprehend the big picture.
Changing Your Thinking
Most modern environmental issues are frequently driven and fueled by emotional rhetoric. Environmental science and the integration of sustainability principles is based on science and is rational, yet relies on a transdisciplinary base since it involves natural sciences, social sciences, humanities, and arts to comprehend the big picture. Environmentalism and sustainability are very different. Environmental activism protects nature and people from the ravages of the human economy while sustainability works to redesign the economy itself.
The Nature of Scientific Thinking
Science is a process of asking questions about the universe and searching for answers through rational means. You can disprove a line of thinking, but you can never actually prove anything; you merely collect evidence based on other lines of similar thinking that your ideas hold true under certain parameters. As ideas become more flushed out, you gain more confidence that your conclusions are true within the parameters that you set. If you do this in a transparent environment where everyone can view and question your thinking, a discussion can ensue that allows a broader group of thinkers to agree or debate the validity of any information. Such is the process of science.
- Science research is logical and objective in order to validate the procedures employed, the data collected, and any conclusions reached. Personal feelings, conviction, and bias are considered and then eliminated in order to suppress bias and emotion in the analysis. No attempt is made to persuade or to prove an emotionally held conviction without valid data to confirm its potential
authenticity. - Scientists weigh the evidence, test or explore ideas, and explain observations in a rational manner.
- Scientists use the scientific method where appropriate (figure 1.1).
- Once data are found and analyzed, scientists write up their results and openly publish the findings. Then they participate in open discourse, revise their ideas or hypotheses, and practice theory building to explain phenomena.
- Peer review ensures that all findings are open for scrutiny and reevaluation by all people—usually scientists in the same field, but sometimes in general journals and other science publications. Good information passes through the knowledge filter while less valid or unreliable information is filtered out.
- Data found in experiments and scientific studies can only disprove hypotheses and predictions, yet can offer evidence that builds on theory formation (repeated and rigorous testing by many different research teams in many different ways to create a comprehensive and widely accepted explanation of one or more cause-effect observations). Therefore, there is no such thing as scientific proof, only best evidence that supports a scientific theory or a set of conclusions to support the development of a scientific theory.
- Research sometimes requires courage of conviction to pursue conclusions that may be unpopular and may bring social disapproval. Copernicus (1473-1543) was condemned by church authorities when he announced his conclusion concerning the nature of the solar system: His theory that the sun, not the Earth, was the center of the solar system was in direct conflict with prevailing religious dogma. Despite hundreds of years of scientific advancement, people are still prone to look at many systems in a dogmatic way, especially when it contradicts what they would like to believe.
Thinking Critically About Scientific Information
While scientists strive to be as unbiased as possible, one must never forget that they are human and subject to all the foibles of humanity. A scientist may experience many levels of pressure to either conform to peer and social expectations (e.g., if a scientist's compensation depends on finding results), or to push ideas they are convinced are correct despite little validated evidence to the contrary. Recognizing that scientists are human, it is pertinent to the educated layperson that sometimes all results should be questioned from a critical perspective to sift the valid results from the not-so-valid ones and to understand how the data may have been influenced by outside agencies with a vested interest in finding desired outcomes or ignoring specific findings.When you come across scientific evidence, think about it critically by asking these
questions:
- Who is the source of the information?
- Are the alleged facts placed in a context of accepted knowledge?
- Does the argument make sense?
- How was the information obtained?
- What kind of study was reported or used?
- Correlational research—Res
- earch where a logical connection is made between variables and extensive exploration or testing reveal patterns or trends of change. It is also called cause-inference research.
- Experimental research—Research in which all variables are controlled during a treatment so that any changes can be attributed to a specific variable that has been manipulated. It is also called cause-effect research.
- Were measurements and statistics used properly?
- Did you examine the big picture and avoid simplistic (i.e., not recognizing complexity in systems) and dualistic (i.e., thinking that everything is either one or the other, right or wrong) thinking?
These questions emphasize that when you understand how scientists work, you can determine the level of reliability of information derived from the scientific process. You do not need to either totally accept or deny what a scientist has found. Rather, you should remain mildly skeptical and understand the findings in context of the bigger picture in which the findings are couched. A scientist claims not proof, but rather evidence, in support of an idea or scientific theory. Scientists do not simply guess; they use educated analyses and either inductive or deductive reasoning to reach logical conclusions. Revolutions in science occur when someone gains a new crucial piece of evidence or sees something in a new way that was obscure before. Various levels of filtering occur through the scientific process (see figure 1.2). Unfortunately, scientific information most readily available to the lay public is usually the more sensational information that catches the attention of the media—generally from nearer the top of the knowledge filter. These sources, along with the Internet, are where most adults learn about new scientific discoveries. Because this information is often at the debating stage, it unfortunately gives the public the view that science is unsure about what it is finding.
Working together to reform education
Several aspects must be considered in education reform. One such aspect is whether the education leads to better citizens.
Reforming Education
Several aspects must be considered in education reform. One such aspect is whether the education leads to better citizens. It should mean that all people have a better understanding of why nature needs to be considered as a central part of their thinking and education. People must understand and comprehend resource flows such as food, energy, water, materials, and waste at different ecosystem levels from small and local to global. Academic institutions must promote a holistic transdisciplinary view of the world in which people, planet, and profit are interconnected with an expanding view of interrelated tiered systems.
As a student, you have the power to request and expect change. The academic institution is there to serve you, not vice-versa. You can ask your institution to establish a self-evaluative structure for an ongoing study of internal processes and their education as it relates to the rest of society including contributions, responsibilities, and even how academic freedom is exercised. Higher education institutions with research programs should establish a department for the study of the social and global crises from a transdisciplinary perspective. This department would encourage the reordering of research within individual disciplines to create interactive and transdisciplinary research interest groups. It would heighten awareness for how ecological and sociocultural relationships do not really have defined disciplinary boundaries. To counter the hegemony of simple gross domestic product being used in measuring economic progress, it is necessary to include education about using more measures that point to social and ecological indicators as of equal or even greater importance than they are currently given.
This is not to say that current academic systems teach us badly, but that the context and framework about what is taught are misplaced because of the assumptions of an antiquated business-as-usual model. At stake are many things on which your future health and well-being depend—systems such as climate stability, the resilience and productivity of natural systems, the beauty of the natural world, and biological diversity, to name but a few of the major issues facing the world today. The Holocaust during World War II is said to have been carried out by one of the most educated populations on the planet that had the philosophies of enlightened philosophers like Kant and Goethe to guide them. The problem with the education that allowed such barbarism was that “[their education] emphasized theories instead of values, concepts rather than human beings, abstraction rather than consciousness, answers instead of questions, ideology and efficiency rather than conscience” (Wiesel, as quoted in Orr 1994, p.8). Considering that indigenous peoples managed to live for thousands of years without the benefits of modern education, it becomes obvious that the problem is not the content but what has been omitted in order to avoid the specific teaching and discussion of values and interrelated systems. At some point, concepts such as common decency, prudence, mindful thinking, loss of the cultural commons, and ecological wisdom need to be discussed. Education must be evaluated against a different yardstick than simply the amount of knowledge gained and tests passed with a standardized score. It is important to consider not simply education, but education of a certain kind.
The modern human disconnect with nature has been discussed throughout this text. The concepts of the triple bottom line, the quad stack, and the 3P model all emphasize that nature and the natural connection must be a primary concept in people's lives. However, people have developed a society and culture that increasingly sees nature as something apart from humans and something merely to be used as resources to serve human needs. While all people's needs come from nature, people must never lose sight of the many ecological systems that work to give them the life-giving planet they presently take for granted. A major step in reforming education must be to recognize the value of nature in people's lives from multiple levels.
Nature-Deficit Disorder
Children who spend more than 95 percent of their lives indoors are hard pressed to develop empathy and knowledge of natural environments even when those environments are right outside their own doors. They become detached from ecosystems and nature's services, they fail to see connections between abiotic (mineral world) and biotic (organic living world) components, and they are unlikely to develop systemic thinking skills. The term nature-deficit disorder was created to capture this disconnect between children and nature (Louv 2008). It is probable that already at least one but probably two generations of nature-deficient children have now become adults and carry the burdens of the deficit with them. This deficit manifests as many mental, psychological, and even physical problems, such as rising rates of childhood depression, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and rampant childhood obesity (Louv 2008).
Recognition of this problem in the United States has created enough concern to create a national legislative bill in congress called No Child Left Inside, whichwould create environmental education within classrooms. No Child Left Inside has three components (NCLI 2009):
- Fund the training of teachers in environmental education and operate model outdoor classroom programs.
- Give funding to each state that submits a complete environmental literacy plan, to ensure high school graduates are environmentally literate.
- Award grants at national, state, and local levels to build the capacity to expand environmental literacy.
The benefits for students would be to develop school programs that teach about systemic models of understanding about the world—sustainability edu-
cation. This sustainability education allows society to move from a set of symptomatic solutions of industrialization and globalization to a systemic focus of diversification, biological and sociocultural diversity, and an understanding of localized (community-level) economics. To live well in the future will require that people understand certain fundamentals about the world, such as the laws of thermodynamics; the basic principles of ecology; carrying capacity; energetic, basic, and steady-state economics; how to live well in a place; limits of technology; appropriate scale of development; sustainable agriculture and forestry; and environmental ethics; and much, much more.
It is now being well-established that being outside in nature creates formative experiences for children, and has immense benefits for adults as well. It is important for children to interact with nature for it influences their overall well-being as they grow up. Just a few of the many benefits that research has shown are that children who play outdoors regularly show more advanced motor skills; are fitter; have better coordination, balance, and agility; have better study abilities; are sick less often; and exhibit better social skills (White 2011).
Examples of bio-inspired solutions that are more efficient than current ones
Biomimicry derives its name from two Greek words: bios, meaning life, and mimesis, meaning imitation. As such it is about human systems mimicking life’s systems, or more generally, nature. Biomimicry is a term that explains innovation inspired by nature where engineers, who understand mechanics and dynamic flow systems of industrial processes, link with biologists, who understand the mechanics and dynamic flow characteristics of living processes.
Changing Your Thinking
Most modern environmental issues are frequently driven and fueled by emotional rhetoric. Environmental science and the integration of sustainability principles is based on science and is rational, yet relies on a transdisciplinary base since it involves natural sciences, social sciences, humanities, and arts to comprehend the big picture. Environmentalism and sustainability are very different. Environmental activism protects nature and people from the ravages of the human economy while sustainability works to redesign the economy itself.
The Nature of Scientific Thinking
Science is a process of asking questions about the universe and searching for answers through rational means. You can disprove a line of thinking, but you can never actually prove anything; you merely collect evidence based on other lines of similar thinking that your ideas hold true under certain parameters. As ideas become more flushed out, you gain more confidence that your conclusions are true within the parameters that you set. If you do this in a transparent environment where everyone can view and question your thinking, a discussion can ensue that allows a broader group of thinkers to agree or debate the validity of any information. Such is the process of science.
- Science research is logical and objective in order to validate the procedures employed, the data collected, and any conclusions reached. Personal feelings, conviction, and bias are considered and then eliminated in order to suppress bias and emotion in the analysis. No attempt is made to persuade or to prove an emotionally held conviction without valid data to confirm its potential
authenticity. - Scientists weigh the evidence, test or explore ideas, and explain observations in a rational manner.
- Scientists use the scientific method where appropriate (figure 1.1).
- Once data are found and analyzed, scientists write up their results and openly publish the findings. Then they participate in open discourse, revise their ideas or hypotheses, and practice theory building to explain phenomena.
- Peer review ensures that all findings are open for scrutiny and reevaluation by all people—usually scientists in the same field, but sometimes in general journals and other science publications. Good information passes through the knowledge filter while less valid or unreliable information is filtered out.
- Data found in experiments and scientific studies can only disprove hypotheses and predictions, yet can offer evidence that builds on theory formation (repeated and rigorous testing by many different research teams in many different ways to create a comprehensive and widely accepted explanation of one or more cause-effect observations). Therefore, there is no such thing as scientific proof, only best evidence that supports a scientific theory or a set of conclusions to support the development of a scientific theory.
- Research sometimes requires courage of conviction to pursue conclusions that may be unpopular and may bring social disapproval. Copernicus (1473-1543) was condemned by church authorities when he announced his conclusion concerning the nature of the solar system: His theory that the sun, not the Earth, was the center of the solar system was in direct conflict with prevailing religious dogma. Despite hundreds of years of scientific advancement, people are still prone to look at many systems in a dogmatic way, especially when it contradicts what they would like to believe.
Thinking Critically About Scientific Information
While scientists strive to be as unbiased as possible, one must never forget that they are human and subject to all the foibles of humanity. A scientist may experience many levels of pressure to either conform to peer and social expectations (e.g., if a scientist's compensation depends on finding results), or to push ideas they are convinced are correct despite little validated evidence to the contrary. Recognizing that scientists are human, it is pertinent to the educated layperson that sometimes all results should be questioned from a critical perspective to sift the valid results from the not-so-valid ones and to understand how the data may have been influenced by outside agencies with a vested interest in finding desired outcomes or ignoring specific findings.When you come across scientific evidence, think about it critically by asking these
questions:
- Who is the source of the information?
- Are the alleged facts placed in a context of accepted knowledge?
- Does the argument make sense?
- How was the information obtained?
- What kind of study was reported or used?
- Correlational research—Res
- earch where a logical connection is made between variables and extensive exploration or testing reveal patterns or trends of change. It is also called cause-inference research.
- Experimental research—Research in which all variables are controlled during a treatment so that any changes can be attributed to a specific variable that has been manipulated. It is also called cause-effect research.
- Were measurements and statistics used properly?
- Did you examine the big picture and avoid simplistic (i.e., not recognizing complexity in systems) and dualistic (i.e., thinking that everything is either one or the other, right or wrong) thinking?
These questions emphasize that when you understand how scientists work, you can determine the level of reliability of information derived from the scientific process. You do not need to either totally accept or deny what a scientist has found. Rather, you should remain mildly skeptical and understand the findings in context of the bigger picture in which the findings are couched. A scientist claims not proof, but rather evidence, in support of an idea or scientific theory. Scientists do not simply guess; they use educated analyses and either inductive or deductive reasoning to reach logical conclusions. Revolutions in science occur when someone gains a new crucial piece of evidence or sees something in a new way that was obscure before. Various levels of filtering occur through the scientific process (see figure 1.2). Unfortunately, scientific information most readily available to the lay public is usually the more sensational information that catches the attention of the media—generally from nearer the top of the knowledge filter. These sources, along with the Internet, are where most adults learn about new scientific discoveries. Because this information is often at the debating stage, it unfortunately gives the public the view that science is unsure about what it is finding.
Think critically about new information, past assumptions, and your own thought process
Most modern environmental issues are frequently driven and fueled by emotional rhetoric. Environmental science and the integration of sustainability principles is based on science and is rational, yet relies on a transdisciplinary base since it involves natural sciences, social sciences, humanities, and arts to comprehend the big picture.
Changing Your Thinking
Most modern environmental issues are frequently driven and fueled by emotional rhetoric. Environmental science and the integration of sustainability principles is based on science and is rational, yet relies on a transdisciplinary base since it involves natural sciences, social sciences, humanities, and arts to comprehend the big picture. Environmentalism and sustainability are very different. Environmental activism protects nature and people from the ravages of the human economy while sustainability works to redesign the economy itself.
The Nature of Scientific Thinking
Science is a process of asking questions about the universe and searching for answers through rational means. You can disprove a line of thinking, but you can never actually prove anything; you merely collect evidence based on other lines of similar thinking that your ideas hold true under certain parameters. As ideas become more flushed out, you gain more confidence that your conclusions are true within the parameters that you set. If you do this in a transparent environment where everyone can view and question your thinking, a discussion can ensue that allows a broader group of thinkers to agree or debate the validity of any information. Such is the process of science.
- Science research is logical and objective in order to validate the procedures employed, the data collected, and any conclusions reached. Personal feelings, conviction, and bias are considered and then eliminated in order to suppress bias and emotion in the analysis. No attempt is made to persuade or to prove an emotionally held conviction without valid data to confirm its potential
authenticity. - Scientists weigh the evidence, test or explore ideas, and explain observations in a rational manner.
- Scientists use the scientific method where appropriate (figure 1.1).
- Once data are found and analyzed, scientists write up their results and openly publish the findings. Then they participate in open discourse, revise their ideas or hypotheses, and practice theory building to explain phenomena.
- Peer review ensures that all findings are open for scrutiny and reevaluation by all people—usually scientists in the same field, but sometimes in general journals and other science publications. Good information passes through the knowledge filter while less valid or unreliable information is filtered out.
- Data found in experiments and scientific studies can only disprove hypotheses and predictions, yet can offer evidence that builds on theory formation (repeated and rigorous testing by many different research teams in many different ways to create a comprehensive and widely accepted explanation of one or more cause-effect observations). Therefore, there is no such thing as scientific proof, only best evidence that supports a scientific theory or a set of conclusions to support the development of a scientific theory.
- Research sometimes requires courage of conviction to pursue conclusions that may be unpopular and may bring social disapproval. Copernicus (1473-1543) was condemned by church authorities when he announced his conclusion concerning the nature of the solar system: His theory that the sun, not the Earth, was the center of the solar system was in direct conflict with prevailing religious dogma. Despite hundreds of years of scientific advancement, people are still prone to look at many systems in a dogmatic way, especially when it contradicts what they would like to believe.
Thinking Critically About Scientific Information
While scientists strive to be as unbiased as possible, one must never forget that they are human and subject to all the foibles of humanity. A scientist may experience many levels of pressure to either conform to peer and social expectations (e.g., if a scientist's compensation depends on finding results), or to push ideas they are convinced are correct despite little validated evidence to the contrary. Recognizing that scientists are human, it is pertinent to the educated layperson that sometimes all results should be questioned from a critical perspective to sift the valid results from the not-so-valid ones and to understand how the data may have been influenced by outside agencies with a vested interest in finding desired outcomes or ignoring specific findings.When you come across scientific evidence, think about it critically by asking these
questions:
- Who is the source of the information?
- Are the alleged facts placed in a context of accepted knowledge?
- Does the argument make sense?
- How was the information obtained?
- What kind of study was reported or used?
- Correlational research—Res
- earch where a logical connection is made between variables and extensive exploration or testing reveal patterns or trends of change. It is also called cause-inference research.
- Experimental research—Research in which all variables are controlled during a treatment so that any changes can be attributed to a specific variable that has been manipulated. It is also called cause-effect research.
- Were measurements and statistics used properly?
- Did you examine the big picture and avoid simplistic (i.e., not recognizing complexity in systems) and dualistic (i.e., thinking that everything is either one or the other, right or wrong) thinking?
These questions emphasize that when you understand how scientists work, you can determine the level of reliability of information derived from the scientific process. You do not need to either totally accept or deny what a scientist has found. Rather, you should remain mildly skeptical and understand the findings in context of the bigger picture in which the findings are couched. A scientist claims not proof, but rather evidence, in support of an idea or scientific theory. Scientists do not simply guess; they use educated analyses and either inductive or deductive reasoning to reach logical conclusions. Revolutions in science occur when someone gains a new crucial piece of evidence or sees something in a new way that was obscure before. Various levels of filtering occur through the scientific process (see figure 1.2). Unfortunately, scientific information most readily available to the lay public is usually the more sensational information that catches the attention of the media—generally from nearer the top of the knowledge filter. These sources, along with the Internet, are where most adults learn about new scientific discoveries. Because this information is often at the debating stage, it unfortunately gives the public the view that science is unsure about what it is finding.
Working together to reform education
Several aspects must be considered in education reform. One such aspect is whether the education leads to better citizens.
Reforming Education
Several aspects must be considered in education reform. One such aspect is whether the education leads to better citizens. It should mean that all people have a better understanding of why nature needs to be considered as a central part of their thinking and education. People must understand and comprehend resource flows such as food, energy, water, materials, and waste at different ecosystem levels from small and local to global. Academic institutions must promote a holistic transdisciplinary view of the world in which people, planet, and profit are interconnected with an expanding view of interrelated tiered systems.
As a student, you have the power to request and expect change. The academic institution is there to serve you, not vice-versa. You can ask your institution to establish a self-evaluative structure for an ongoing study of internal processes and their education as it relates to the rest of society including contributions, responsibilities, and even how academic freedom is exercised. Higher education institutions with research programs should establish a department for the study of the social and global crises from a transdisciplinary perspective. This department would encourage the reordering of research within individual disciplines to create interactive and transdisciplinary research interest groups. It would heighten awareness for how ecological and sociocultural relationships do not really have defined disciplinary boundaries. To counter the hegemony of simple gross domestic product being used in measuring economic progress, it is necessary to include education about using more measures that point to social and ecological indicators as of equal or even greater importance than they are currently given.
This is not to say that current academic systems teach us badly, but that the context and framework about what is taught are misplaced because of the assumptions of an antiquated business-as-usual model. At stake are many things on which your future health and well-being depend—systems such as climate stability, the resilience and productivity of natural systems, the beauty of the natural world, and biological diversity, to name but a few of the major issues facing the world today. The Holocaust during World War II is said to have been carried out by one of the most educated populations on the planet that had the philosophies of enlightened philosophers like Kant and Goethe to guide them. The problem with the education that allowed such barbarism was that “[their education] emphasized theories instead of values, concepts rather than human beings, abstraction rather than consciousness, answers instead of questions, ideology and efficiency rather than conscience” (Wiesel, as quoted in Orr 1994, p.8). Considering that indigenous peoples managed to live for thousands of years without the benefits of modern education, it becomes obvious that the problem is not the content but what has been omitted in order to avoid the specific teaching and discussion of values and interrelated systems. At some point, concepts such as common decency, prudence, mindful thinking, loss of the cultural commons, and ecological wisdom need to be discussed. Education must be evaluated against a different yardstick than simply the amount of knowledge gained and tests passed with a standardized score. It is important to consider not simply education, but education of a certain kind.
The modern human disconnect with nature has been discussed throughout this text. The concepts of the triple bottom line, the quad stack, and the 3P model all emphasize that nature and the natural connection must be a primary concept in people's lives. However, people have developed a society and culture that increasingly sees nature as something apart from humans and something merely to be used as resources to serve human needs. While all people's needs come from nature, people must never lose sight of the many ecological systems that work to give them the life-giving planet they presently take for granted. A major step in reforming education must be to recognize the value of nature in people's lives from multiple levels.
Nature-Deficit Disorder
Children who spend more than 95 percent of their lives indoors are hard pressed to develop empathy and knowledge of natural environments even when those environments are right outside their own doors. They become detached from ecosystems and nature's services, they fail to see connections between abiotic (mineral world) and biotic (organic living world) components, and they are unlikely to develop systemic thinking skills. The term nature-deficit disorder was created to capture this disconnect between children and nature (Louv 2008). It is probable that already at least one but probably two generations of nature-deficient children have now become adults and carry the burdens of the deficit with them. This deficit manifests as many mental, psychological, and even physical problems, such as rising rates of childhood depression, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and rampant childhood obesity (Louv 2008).
Recognition of this problem in the United States has created enough concern to create a national legislative bill in congress called No Child Left Inside, whichwould create environmental education within classrooms. No Child Left Inside has three components (NCLI 2009):
- Fund the training of teachers in environmental education and operate model outdoor classroom programs.
- Give funding to each state that submits a complete environmental literacy plan, to ensure high school graduates are environmentally literate.
- Award grants at national, state, and local levels to build the capacity to expand environmental literacy.
The benefits for students would be to develop school programs that teach about systemic models of understanding about the world—sustainability edu-
cation. This sustainability education allows society to move from a set of symptomatic solutions of industrialization and globalization to a systemic focus of diversification, biological and sociocultural diversity, and an understanding of localized (community-level) economics. To live well in the future will require that people understand certain fundamentals about the world, such as the laws of thermodynamics; the basic principles of ecology; carrying capacity; energetic, basic, and steady-state economics; how to live well in a place; limits of technology; appropriate scale of development; sustainable agriculture and forestry; and environmental ethics; and much, much more.
It is now being well-established that being outside in nature creates formative experiences for children, and has immense benefits for adults as well. It is important for children to interact with nature for it influences their overall well-being as they grow up. Just a few of the many benefits that research has shown are that children who play outdoors regularly show more advanced motor skills; are fitter; have better coordination, balance, and agility; have better study abilities; are sick less often; and exhibit better social skills (White 2011).
Examples of bio-inspired solutions that are more efficient than current ones
Biomimicry derives its name from two Greek words: bios, meaning life, and mimesis, meaning imitation. As such it is about human systems mimicking life’s systems, or more generally, nature. Biomimicry is a term that explains innovation inspired by nature where engineers, who understand mechanics and dynamic flow systems of industrial processes, link with biologists, who understand the mechanics and dynamic flow characteristics of living processes.
Changing Your Thinking
Most modern environmental issues are frequently driven and fueled by emotional rhetoric. Environmental science and the integration of sustainability principles is based on science and is rational, yet relies on a transdisciplinary base since it involves natural sciences, social sciences, humanities, and arts to comprehend the big picture. Environmentalism and sustainability are very different. Environmental activism protects nature and people from the ravages of the human economy while sustainability works to redesign the economy itself.
The Nature of Scientific Thinking
Science is a process of asking questions about the universe and searching for answers through rational means. You can disprove a line of thinking, but you can never actually prove anything; you merely collect evidence based on other lines of similar thinking that your ideas hold true under certain parameters. As ideas become more flushed out, you gain more confidence that your conclusions are true within the parameters that you set. If you do this in a transparent environment where everyone can view and question your thinking, a discussion can ensue that allows a broader group of thinkers to agree or debate the validity of any information. Such is the process of science.
- Science research is logical and objective in order to validate the procedures employed, the data collected, and any conclusions reached. Personal feelings, conviction, and bias are considered and then eliminated in order to suppress bias and emotion in the analysis. No attempt is made to persuade or to prove an emotionally held conviction without valid data to confirm its potential
authenticity. - Scientists weigh the evidence, test or explore ideas, and explain observations in a rational manner.
- Scientists use the scientific method where appropriate (figure 1.1).
- Once data are found and analyzed, scientists write up their results and openly publish the findings. Then they participate in open discourse, revise their ideas or hypotheses, and practice theory building to explain phenomena.
- Peer review ensures that all findings are open for scrutiny and reevaluation by all people—usually scientists in the same field, but sometimes in general journals and other science publications. Good information passes through the knowledge filter while less valid or unreliable information is filtered out.
- Data found in experiments and scientific studies can only disprove hypotheses and predictions, yet can offer evidence that builds on theory formation (repeated and rigorous testing by many different research teams in many different ways to create a comprehensive and widely accepted explanation of one or more cause-effect observations). Therefore, there is no such thing as scientific proof, only best evidence that supports a scientific theory or a set of conclusions to support the development of a scientific theory.
- Research sometimes requires courage of conviction to pursue conclusions that may be unpopular and may bring social disapproval. Copernicus (1473-1543) was condemned by church authorities when he announced his conclusion concerning the nature of the solar system: His theory that the sun, not the Earth, was the center of the solar system was in direct conflict with prevailing religious dogma. Despite hundreds of years of scientific advancement, people are still prone to look at many systems in a dogmatic way, especially when it contradicts what they would like to believe.
Thinking Critically About Scientific Information
While scientists strive to be as unbiased as possible, one must never forget that they are human and subject to all the foibles of humanity. A scientist may experience many levels of pressure to either conform to peer and social expectations (e.g., if a scientist's compensation depends on finding results), or to push ideas they are convinced are correct despite little validated evidence to the contrary. Recognizing that scientists are human, it is pertinent to the educated layperson that sometimes all results should be questioned from a critical perspective to sift the valid results from the not-so-valid ones and to understand how the data may have been influenced by outside agencies with a vested interest in finding desired outcomes or ignoring specific findings.When you come across scientific evidence, think about it critically by asking these
questions:
- Who is the source of the information?
- Are the alleged facts placed in a context of accepted knowledge?
- Does the argument make sense?
- How was the information obtained?
- What kind of study was reported or used?
- Correlational research—Res
- earch where a logical connection is made between variables and extensive exploration or testing reveal patterns or trends of change. It is also called cause-inference research.
- Experimental research—Research in which all variables are controlled during a treatment so that any changes can be attributed to a specific variable that has been manipulated. It is also called cause-effect research.
- Were measurements and statistics used properly?
- Did you examine the big picture and avoid simplistic (i.e., not recognizing complexity in systems) and dualistic (i.e., thinking that everything is either one or the other, right or wrong) thinking?
These questions emphasize that when you understand how scientists work, you can determine the level of reliability of information derived from the scientific process. You do not need to either totally accept or deny what a scientist has found. Rather, you should remain mildly skeptical and understand the findings in context of the bigger picture in which the findings are couched. A scientist claims not proof, but rather evidence, in support of an idea or scientific theory. Scientists do not simply guess; they use educated analyses and either inductive or deductive reasoning to reach logical conclusions. Revolutions in science occur when someone gains a new crucial piece of evidence or sees something in a new way that was obscure before. Various levels of filtering occur through the scientific process (see figure 1.2). Unfortunately, scientific information most readily available to the lay public is usually the more sensational information that catches the attention of the media—generally from nearer the top of the knowledge filter. These sources, along with the Internet, are where most adults learn about new scientific discoveries. Because this information is often at the debating stage, it unfortunately gives the public the view that science is unsure about what it is finding.
Think critically about new information, past assumptions, and your own thought process
Most modern environmental issues are frequently driven and fueled by emotional rhetoric. Environmental science and the integration of sustainability principles is based on science and is rational, yet relies on a transdisciplinary base since it involves natural sciences, social sciences, humanities, and arts to comprehend the big picture.
Changing Your Thinking
Most modern environmental issues are frequently driven and fueled by emotional rhetoric. Environmental science and the integration of sustainability principles is based on science and is rational, yet relies on a transdisciplinary base since it involves natural sciences, social sciences, humanities, and arts to comprehend the big picture. Environmentalism and sustainability are very different. Environmental activism protects nature and people from the ravages of the human economy while sustainability works to redesign the economy itself.
The Nature of Scientific Thinking
Science is a process of asking questions about the universe and searching for answers through rational means. You can disprove a line of thinking, but you can never actually prove anything; you merely collect evidence based on other lines of similar thinking that your ideas hold true under certain parameters. As ideas become more flushed out, you gain more confidence that your conclusions are true within the parameters that you set. If you do this in a transparent environment where everyone can view and question your thinking, a discussion can ensue that allows a broader group of thinkers to agree or debate the validity of any information. Such is the process of science.
- Science research is logical and objective in order to validate the procedures employed, the data collected, and any conclusions reached. Personal feelings, conviction, and bias are considered and then eliminated in order to suppress bias and emotion in the analysis. No attempt is made to persuade or to prove an emotionally held conviction without valid data to confirm its potential
authenticity. - Scientists weigh the evidence, test or explore ideas, and explain observations in a rational manner.
- Scientists use the scientific method where appropriate (figure 1.1).
- Once data are found and analyzed, scientists write up their results and openly publish the findings. Then they participate in open discourse, revise their ideas or hypotheses, and practice theory building to explain phenomena.
- Peer review ensures that all findings are open for scrutiny and reevaluation by all people—usually scientists in the same field, but sometimes in general journals and other science publications. Good information passes through the knowledge filter while less valid or unreliable information is filtered out.
- Data found in experiments and scientific studies can only disprove hypotheses and predictions, yet can offer evidence that builds on theory formation (repeated and rigorous testing by many different research teams in many different ways to create a comprehensive and widely accepted explanation of one or more cause-effect observations). Therefore, there is no such thing as scientific proof, only best evidence that supports a scientific theory or a set of conclusions to support the development of a scientific theory.
- Research sometimes requires courage of conviction to pursue conclusions that may be unpopular and may bring social disapproval. Copernicus (1473-1543) was condemned by church authorities when he announced his conclusion concerning the nature of the solar system: His theory that the sun, not the Earth, was the center of the solar system was in direct conflict with prevailing religious dogma. Despite hundreds of years of scientific advancement, people are still prone to look at many systems in a dogmatic way, especially when it contradicts what they would like to believe.
Thinking Critically About Scientific Information
While scientists strive to be as unbiased as possible, one must never forget that they are human and subject to all the foibles of humanity. A scientist may experience many levels of pressure to either conform to peer and social expectations (e.g., if a scientist's compensation depends on finding results), or to push ideas they are convinced are correct despite little validated evidence to the contrary. Recognizing that scientists are human, it is pertinent to the educated layperson that sometimes all results should be questioned from a critical perspective to sift the valid results from the not-so-valid ones and to understand how the data may have been influenced by outside agencies with a vested interest in finding desired outcomes or ignoring specific findings.When you come across scientific evidence, think about it critically by asking these
questions:
- Who is the source of the information?
- Are the alleged facts placed in a context of accepted knowledge?
- Does the argument make sense?
- How was the information obtained?
- What kind of study was reported or used?
- Correlational research—Res
- earch where a logical connection is made between variables and extensive exploration or testing reveal patterns or trends of change. It is also called cause-inference research.
- Experimental research—Research in which all variables are controlled during a treatment so that any changes can be attributed to a specific variable that has been manipulated. It is also called cause-effect research.
- Were measurements and statistics used properly?
- Did you examine the big picture and avoid simplistic (i.e., not recognizing complexity in systems) and dualistic (i.e., thinking that everything is either one or the other, right or wrong) thinking?
These questions emphasize that when you understand how scientists work, you can determine the level of reliability of information derived from the scientific process. You do not need to either totally accept or deny what a scientist has found. Rather, you should remain mildly skeptical and understand the findings in context of the bigger picture in which the findings are couched. A scientist claims not proof, but rather evidence, in support of an idea or scientific theory. Scientists do not simply guess; they use educated analyses and either inductive or deductive reasoning to reach logical conclusions. Revolutions in science occur when someone gains a new crucial piece of evidence or sees something in a new way that was obscure before. Various levels of filtering occur through the scientific process (see figure 1.2). Unfortunately, scientific information most readily available to the lay public is usually the more sensational information that catches the attention of the media—generally from nearer the top of the knowledge filter. These sources, along with the Internet, are where most adults learn about new scientific discoveries. Because this information is often at the debating stage, it unfortunately gives the public the view that science is unsure about what it is finding.
Working together to reform education
Several aspects must be considered in education reform. One such aspect is whether the education leads to better citizens.
Reforming Education
Several aspects must be considered in education reform. One such aspect is whether the education leads to better citizens. It should mean that all people have a better understanding of why nature needs to be considered as a central part of their thinking and education. People must understand and comprehend resource flows such as food, energy, water, materials, and waste at different ecosystem levels from small and local to global. Academic institutions must promote a holistic transdisciplinary view of the world in which people, planet, and profit are interconnected with an expanding view of interrelated tiered systems.
As a student, you have the power to request and expect change. The academic institution is there to serve you, not vice-versa. You can ask your institution to establish a self-evaluative structure for an ongoing study of internal processes and their education as it relates to the rest of society including contributions, responsibilities, and even how academic freedom is exercised. Higher education institutions with research programs should establish a department for the study of the social and global crises from a transdisciplinary perspective. This department would encourage the reordering of research within individual disciplines to create interactive and transdisciplinary research interest groups. It would heighten awareness for how ecological and sociocultural relationships do not really have defined disciplinary boundaries. To counter the hegemony of simple gross domestic product being used in measuring economic progress, it is necessary to include education about using more measures that point to social and ecological indicators as of equal or even greater importance than they are currently given.
This is not to say that current academic systems teach us badly, but that the context and framework about what is taught are misplaced because of the assumptions of an antiquated business-as-usual model. At stake are many things on which your future health and well-being depend—systems such as climate stability, the resilience and productivity of natural systems, the beauty of the natural world, and biological diversity, to name but a few of the major issues facing the world today. The Holocaust during World War II is said to have been carried out by one of the most educated populations on the planet that had the philosophies of enlightened philosophers like Kant and Goethe to guide them. The problem with the education that allowed such barbarism was that “[their education] emphasized theories instead of values, concepts rather than human beings, abstraction rather than consciousness, answers instead of questions, ideology and efficiency rather than conscience” (Wiesel, as quoted in Orr 1994, p.8). Considering that indigenous peoples managed to live for thousands of years without the benefits of modern education, it becomes obvious that the problem is not the content but what has been omitted in order to avoid the specific teaching and discussion of values and interrelated systems. At some point, concepts such as common decency, prudence, mindful thinking, loss of the cultural commons, and ecological wisdom need to be discussed. Education must be evaluated against a different yardstick than simply the amount of knowledge gained and tests passed with a standardized score. It is important to consider not simply education, but education of a certain kind.
The modern human disconnect with nature has been discussed throughout this text. The concepts of the triple bottom line, the quad stack, and the 3P model all emphasize that nature and the natural connection must be a primary concept in people's lives. However, people have developed a society and culture that increasingly sees nature as something apart from humans and something merely to be used as resources to serve human needs. While all people's needs come from nature, people must never lose sight of the many ecological systems that work to give them the life-giving planet they presently take for granted. A major step in reforming education must be to recognize the value of nature in people's lives from multiple levels.
Nature-Deficit Disorder
Children who spend more than 95 percent of their lives indoors are hard pressed to develop empathy and knowledge of natural environments even when those environments are right outside their own doors. They become detached from ecosystems and nature's services, they fail to see connections between abiotic (mineral world) and biotic (organic living world) components, and they are unlikely to develop systemic thinking skills. The term nature-deficit disorder was created to capture this disconnect between children and nature (Louv 2008). It is probable that already at least one but probably two generations of nature-deficient children have now become adults and carry the burdens of the deficit with them. This deficit manifests as many mental, psychological, and even physical problems, such as rising rates of childhood depression, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and rampant childhood obesity (Louv 2008).
Recognition of this problem in the United States has created enough concern to create a national legislative bill in congress called No Child Left Inside, whichwould create environmental education within classrooms. No Child Left Inside has three components (NCLI 2009):
- Fund the training of teachers in environmental education and operate model outdoor classroom programs.
- Give funding to each state that submits a complete environmental literacy plan, to ensure high school graduates are environmentally literate.
- Award grants at national, state, and local levels to build the capacity to expand environmental literacy.
The benefits for students would be to develop school programs that teach about systemic models of understanding about the world—sustainability edu-
cation. This sustainability education allows society to move from a set of symptomatic solutions of industrialization and globalization to a systemic focus of diversification, biological and sociocultural diversity, and an understanding of localized (community-level) economics. To live well in the future will require that people understand certain fundamentals about the world, such as the laws of thermodynamics; the basic principles of ecology; carrying capacity; energetic, basic, and steady-state economics; how to live well in a place; limits of technology; appropriate scale of development; sustainable agriculture and forestry; and environmental ethics; and much, much more.
It is now being well-established that being outside in nature creates formative experiences for children, and has immense benefits for adults as well. It is important for children to interact with nature for it influences their overall well-being as they grow up. Just a few of the many benefits that research has shown are that children who play outdoors regularly show more advanced motor skills; are fitter; have better coordination, balance, and agility; have better study abilities; are sick less often; and exhibit better social skills (White 2011).
Examples of bio-inspired solutions that are more efficient than current ones
Biomimicry derives its name from two Greek words: bios, meaning life, and mimesis, meaning imitation. As such it is about human systems mimicking life’s systems, or more generally, nature. Biomimicry is a term that explains innovation inspired by nature where engineers, who understand mechanics and dynamic flow systems of industrial processes, link with biologists, who understand the mechanics and dynamic flow characteristics of living processes.
Changing Your Thinking
Most modern environmental issues are frequently driven and fueled by emotional rhetoric. Environmental science and the integration of sustainability principles is based on science and is rational, yet relies on a transdisciplinary base since it involves natural sciences, social sciences, humanities, and arts to comprehend the big picture. Environmentalism and sustainability are very different. Environmental activism protects nature and people from the ravages of the human economy while sustainability works to redesign the economy itself.
The Nature of Scientific Thinking
Science is a process of asking questions about the universe and searching for answers through rational means. You can disprove a line of thinking, but you can never actually prove anything; you merely collect evidence based on other lines of similar thinking that your ideas hold true under certain parameters. As ideas become more flushed out, you gain more confidence that your conclusions are true within the parameters that you set. If you do this in a transparent environment where everyone can view and question your thinking, a discussion can ensue that allows a broader group of thinkers to agree or debate the validity of any information. Such is the process of science.
- Science research is logical and objective in order to validate the procedures employed, the data collected, and any conclusions reached. Personal feelings, conviction, and bias are considered and then eliminated in order to suppress bias and emotion in the analysis. No attempt is made to persuade or to prove an emotionally held conviction without valid data to confirm its potential
authenticity. - Scientists weigh the evidence, test or explore ideas, and explain observations in a rational manner.
- Scientists use the scientific method where appropriate (figure 1.1).
- Once data are found and analyzed, scientists write up their results and openly publish the findings. Then they participate in open discourse, revise their ideas or hypotheses, and practice theory building to explain phenomena.
- Peer review ensures that all findings are open for scrutiny and reevaluation by all people—usually scientists in the same field, but sometimes in general journals and other science publications. Good information passes through the knowledge filter while less valid or unreliable information is filtered out.
- Data found in experiments and scientific studies can only disprove hypotheses and predictions, yet can offer evidence that builds on theory formation (repeated and rigorous testing by many different research teams in many different ways to create a comprehensive and widely accepted explanation of one or more cause-effect observations). Therefore, there is no such thing as scientific proof, only best evidence that supports a scientific theory or a set of conclusions to support the development of a scientific theory.
- Research sometimes requires courage of conviction to pursue conclusions that may be unpopular and may bring social disapproval. Copernicus (1473-1543) was condemned by church authorities when he announced his conclusion concerning the nature of the solar system: His theory that the sun, not the Earth, was the center of the solar system was in direct conflict with prevailing religious dogma. Despite hundreds of years of scientific advancement, people are still prone to look at many systems in a dogmatic way, especially when it contradicts what they would like to believe.
Thinking Critically About Scientific Information
While scientists strive to be as unbiased as possible, one must never forget that they are human and subject to all the foibles of humanity. A scientist may experience many levels of pressure to either conform to peer and social expectations (e.g., if a scientist's compensation depends on finding results), or to push ideas they are convinced are correct despite little validated evidence to the contrary. Recognizing that scientists are human, it is pertinent to the educated layperson that sometimes all results should be questioned from a critical perspective to sift the valid results from the not-so-valid ones and to understand how the data may have been influenced by outside agencies with a vested interest in finding desired outcomes or ignoring specific findings.When you come across scientific evidence, think about it critically by asking these
questions:
- Who is the source of the information?
- Are the alleged facts placed in a context of accepted knowledge?
- Does the argument make sense?
- How was the information obtained?
- What kind of study was reported or used?
- Correlational research—Res
- earch where a logical connection is made between variables and extensive exploration or testing reveal patterns or trends of change. It is also called cause-inference research.
- Experimental research—Research in which all variables are controlled during a treatment so that any changes can be attributed to a specific variable that has been manipulated. It is also called cause-effect research.
- Were measurements and statistics used properly?
- Did you examine the big picture and avoid simplistic (i.e., not recognizing complexity in systems) and dualistic (i.e., thinking that everything is either one or the other, right or wrong) thinking?
These questions emphasize that when you understand how scientists work, you can determine the level of reliability of information derived from the scientific process. You do not need to either totally accept or deny what a scientist has found. Rather, you should remain mildly skeptical and understand the findings in context of the bigger picture in which the findings are couched. A scientist claims not proof, but rather evidence, in support of an idea or scientific theory. Scientists do not simply guess; they use educated analyses and either inductive or deductive reasoning to reach logical conclusions. Revolutions in science occur when someone gains a new crucial piece of evidence or sees something in a new way that was obscure before. Various levels of filtering occur through the scientific process (see figure 1.2). Unfortunately, scientific information most readily available to the lay public is usually the more sensational information that catches the attention of the media—generally from nearer the top of the knowledge filter. These sources, along with the Internet, are where most adults learn about new scientific discoveries. Because this information is often at the debating stage, it unfortunately gives the public the view that science is unsure about what it is finding.
Think critically about new information, past assumptions, and your own thought process
Most modern environmental issues are frequently driven and fueled by emotional rhetoric. Environmental science and the integration of sustainability principles is based on science and is rational, yet relies on a transdisciplinary base since it involves natural sciences, social sciences, humanities, and arts to comprehend the big picture.
Changing Your Thinking
Most modern environmental issues are frequently driven and fueled by emotional rhetoric. Environmental science and the integration of sustainability principles is based on science and is rational, yet relies on a transdisciplinary base since it involves natural sciences, social sciences, humanities, and arts to comprehend the big picture. Environmentalism and sustainability are very different. Environmental activism protects nature and people from the ravages of the human economy while sustainability works to redesign the economy itself.
The Nature of Scientific Thinking
Science is a process of asking questions about the universe and searching for answers through rational means. You can disprove a line of thinking, but you can never actually prove anything; you merely collect evidence based on other lines of similar thinking that your ideas hold true under certain parameters. As ideas become more flushed out, you gain more confidence that your conclusions are true within the parameters that you set. If you do this in a transparent environment where everyone can view and question your thinking, a discussion can ensue that allows a broader group of thinkers to agree or debate the validity of any information. Such is the process of science.
- Science research is logical and objective in order to validate the procedures employed, the data collected, and any conclusions reached. Personal feelings, conviction, and bias are considered and then eliminated in order to suppress bias and emotion in the analysis. No attempt is made to persuade or to prove an emotionally held conviction without valid data to confirm its potential
authenticity. - Scientists weigh the evidence, test or explore ideas, and explain observations in a rational manner.
- Scientists use the scientific method where appropriate (figure 1.1).
- Once data are found and analyzed, scientists write up their results and openly publish the findings. Then they participate in open discourse, revise their ideas or hypotheses, and practice theory building to explain phenomena.
- Peer review ensures that all findings are open for scrutiny and reevaluation by all people—usually scientists in the same field, but sometimes in general journals and other science publications. Good information passes through the knowledge filter while less valid or unreliable information is filtered out.
- Data found in experiments and scientific studies can only disprove hypotheses and predictions, yet can offer evidence that builds on theory formation (repeated and rigorous testing by many different research teams in many different ways to create a comprehensive and widely accepted explanation of one or more cause-effect observations). Therefore, there is no such thing as scientific proof, only best evidence that supports a scientific theory or a set of conclusions to support the development of a scientific theory.
- Research sometimes requires courage of conviction to pursue conclusions that may be unpopular and may bring social disapproval. Copernicus (1473-1543) was condemned by church authorities when he announced his conclusion concerning the nature of the solar system: His theory that the sun, not the Earth, was the center of the solar system was in direct conflict with prevailing religious dogma. Despite hundreds of years of scientific advancement, people are still prone to look at many systems in a dogmatic way, especially when it contradicts what they would like to believe.
Thinking Critically About Scientific Information
While scientists strive to be as unbiased as possible, one must never forget that they are human and subject to all the foibles of humanity. A scientist may experience many levels of pressure to either conform to peer and social expectations (e.g., if a scientist's compensation depends on finding results), or to push ideas they are convinced are correct despite little validated evidence to the contrary. Recognizing that scientists are human, it is pertinent to the educated layperson that sometimes all results should be questioned from a critical perspective to sift the valid results from the not-so-valid ones and to understand how the data may have been influenced by outside agencies with a vested interest in finding desired outcomes or ignoring specific findings.When you come across scientific evidence, think about it critically by asking these
questions:
- Who is the source of the information?
- Are the alleged facts placed in a context of accepted knowledge?
- Does the argument make sense?
- How was the information obtained?
- What kind of study was reported or used?
- Correlational research—Res
- earch where a logical connection is made between variables and extensive exploration or testing reveal patterns or trends of change. It is also called cause-inference research.
- Experimental research—Research in which all variables are controlled during a treatment so that any changes can be attributed to a specific variable that has been manipulated. It is also called cause-effect research.
- Were measurements and statistics used properly?
- Did you examine the big picture and avoid simplistic (i.e., not recognizing complexity in systems) and dualistic (i.e., thinking that everything is either one or the other, right or wrong) thinking?
These questions emphasize that when you understand how scientists work, you can determine the level of reliability of information derived from the scientific process. You do not need to either totally accept or deny what a scientist has found. Rather, you should remain mildly skeptical and understand the findings in context of the bigger picture in which the findings are couched. A scientist claims not proof, but rather evidence, in support of an idea or scientific theory. Scientists do not simply guess; they use educated analyses and either inductive or deductive reasoning to reach logical conclusions. Revolutions in science occur when someone gains a new crucial piece of evidence or sees something in a new way that was obscure before. Various levels of filtering occur through the scientific process (see figure 1.2). Unfortunately, scientific information most readily available to the lay public is usually the more sensational information that catches the attention of the media—generally from nearer the top of the knowledge filter. These sources, along with the Internet, are where most adults learn about new scientific discoveries. Because this information is often at the debating stage, it unfortunately gives the public the view that science is unsure about what it is finding.
Working together to reform education
Several aspects must be considered in education reform. One such aspect is whether the education leads to better citizens.
Reforming Education
Several aspects must be considered in education reform. One such aspect is whether the education leads to better citizens. It should mean that all people have a better understanding of why nature needs to be considered as a central part of their thinking and education. People must understand and comprehend resource flows such as food, energy, water, materials, and waste at different ecosystem levels from small and local to global. Academic institutions must promote a holistic transdisciplinary view of the world in which people, planet, and profit are interconnected with an expanding view of interrelated tiered systems.
As a student, you have the power to request and expect change. The academic institution is there to serve you, not vice-versa. You can ask your institution to establish a self-evaluative structure for an ongoing study of internal processes and their education as it relates to the rest of society including contributions, responsibilities, and even how academic freedom is exercised. Higher education institutions with research programs should establish a department for the study of the social and global crises from a transdisciplinary perspective. This department would encourage the reordering of research within individual disciplines to create interactive and transdisciplinary research interest groups. It would heighten awareness for how ecological and sociocultural relationships do not really have defined disciplinary boundaries. To counter the hegemony of simple gross domestic product being used in measuring economic progress, it is necessary to include education about using more measures that point to social and ecological indicators as of equal or even greater importance than they are currently given.
This is not to say that current academic systems teach us badly, but that the context and framework about what is taught are misplaced because of the assumptions of an antiquated business-as-usual model. At stake are many things on which your future health and well-being depend—systems such as climate stability, the resilience and productivity of natural systems, the beauty of the natural world, and biological diversity, to name but a few of the major issues facing the world today. The Holocaust during World War II is said to have been carried out by one of the most educated populations on the planet that had the philosophies of enlightened philosophers like Kant and Goethe to guide them. The problem with the education that allowed such barbarism was that “[their education] emphasized theories instead of values, concepts rather than human beings, abstraction rather than consciousness, answers instead of questions, ideology and efficiency rather than conscience” (Wiesel, as quoted in Orr 1994, p.8). Considering that indigenous peoples managed to live for thousands of years without the benefits of modern education, it becomes obvious that the problem is not the content but what has been omitted in order to avoid the specific teaching and discussion of values and interrelated systems. At some point, concepts such as common decency, prudence, mindful thinking, loss of the cultural commons, and ecological wisdom need to be discussed. Education must be evaluated against a different yardstick than simply the amount of knowledge gained and tests passed with a standardized score. It is important to consider not simply education, but education of a certain kind.
The modern human disconnect with nature has been discussed throughout this text. The concepts of the triple bottom line, the quad stack, and the 3P model all emphasize that nature and the natural connection must be a primary concept in people's lives. However, people have developed a society and culture that increasingly sees nature as something apart from humans and something merely to be used as resources to serve human needs. While all people's needs come from nature, people must never lose sight of the many ecological systems that work to give them the life-giving planet they presently take for granted. A major step in reforming education must be to recognize the value of nature in people's lives from multiple levels.
Nature-Deficit Disorder
Children who spend more than 95 percent of their lives indoors are hard pressed to develop empathy and knowledge of natural environments even when those environments are right outside their own doors. They become detached from ecosystems and nature's services, they fail to see connections between abiotic (mineral world) and biotic (organic living world) components, and they are unlikely to develop systemic thinking skills. The term nature-deficit disorder was created to capture this disconnect between children and nature (Louv 2008). It is probable that already at least one but probably two generations of nature-deficient children have now become adults and carry the burdens of the deficit with them. This deficit manifests as many mental, psychological, and even physical problems, such as rising rates of childhood depression, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and rampant childhood obesity (Louv 2008).
Recognition of this problem in the United States has created enough concern to create a national legislative bill in congress called No Child Left Inside, whichwould create environmental education within classrooms. No Child Left Inside has three components (NCLI 2009):
- Fund the training of teachers in environmental education and operate model outdoor classroom programs.
- Give funding to each state that submits a complete environmental literacy plan, to ensure high school graduates are environmentally literate.
- Award grants at national, state, and local levels to build the capacity to expand environmental literacy.
The benefits for students would be to develop school programs that teach about systemic models of understanding about the world—sustainability edu-
cation. This sustainability education allows society to move from a set of symptomatic solutions of industrialization and globalization to a systemic focus of diversification, biological and sociocultural diversity, and an understanding of localized (community-level) economics. To live well in the future will require that people understand certain fundamentals about the world, such as the laws of thermodynamics; the basic principles of ecology; carrying capacity; energetic, basic, and steady-state economics; how to live well in a place; limits of technology; appropriate scale of development; sustainable agriculture and forestry; and environmental ethics; and much, much more.
It is now being well-established that being outside in nature creates formative experiences for children, and has immense benefits for adults as well. It is important for children to interact with nature for it influences their overall well-being as they grow up. Just a few of the many benefits that research has shown are that children who play outdoors regularly show more advanced motor skills; are fitter; have better coordination, balance, and agility; have better study abilities; are sick less often; and exhibit better social skills (White 2011).
Examples of bio-inspired solutions that are more efficient than current ones
Biomimicry derives its name from two Greek words: bios, meaning life, and mimesis, meaning imitation. As such it is about human systems mimicking life’s systems, or more generally, nature. Biomimicry is a term that explains innovation inspired by nature where engineers, who understand mechanics and dynamic flow systems of industrial processes, link with biologists, who understand the mechanics and dynamic flow characteristics of living processes.
Changing Your Thinking
Most modern environmental issues are frequently driven and fueled by emotional rhetoric. Environmental science and the integration of sustainability principles is based on science and is rational, yet relies on a transdisciplinary base since it involves natural sciences, social sciences, humanities, and arts to comprehend the big picture. Environmentalism and sustainability are very different. Environmental activism protects nature and people from the ravages of the human economy while sustainability works to redesign the economy itself.
The Nature of Scientific Thinking
Science is a process of asking questions about the universe and searching for answers through rational means. You can disprove a line of thinking, but you can never actually prove anything; you merely collect evidence based on other lines of similar thinking that your ideas hold true under certain parameters. As ideas become more flushed out, you gain more confidence that your conclusions are true within the parameters that you set. If you do this in a transparent environment where everyone can view and question your thinking, a discussion can ensue that allows a broader group of thinkers to agree or debate the validity of any information. Such is the process of science.
- Science research is logical and objective in order to validate the procedures employed, the data collected, and any conclusions reached. Personal feelings, conviction, and bias are considered and then eliminated in order to suppress bias and emotion in the analysis. No attempt is made to persuade or to prove an emotionally held conviction without valid data to confirm its potential
authenticity. - Scientists weigh the evidence, test or explore ideas, and explain observations in a rational manner.
- Scientists use the scientific method where appropriate (figure 1.1).
- Once data are found and analyzed, scientists write up their results and openly publish the findings. Then they participate in open discourse, revise their ideas or hypotheses, and practice theory building to explain phenomena.
- Peer review ensures that all findings are open for scrutiny and reevaluation by all people—usually scientists in the same field, but sometimes in general journals and other science publications. Good information passes through the knowledge filter while less valid or unreliable information is filtered out.
- Data found in experiments and scientific studies can only disprove hypotheses and predictions, yet can offer evidence that builds on theory formation (repeated and rigorous testing by many different research teams in many different ways to create a comprehensive and widely accepted explanation of one or more cause-effect observations). Therefore, there is no such thing as scientific proof, only best evidence that supports a scientific theory or a set of conclusions to support the development of a scientific theory.
- Research sometimes requires courage of conviction to pursue conclusions that may be unpopular and may bring social disapproval. Copernicus (1473-1543) was condemned by church authorities when he announced his conclusion concerning the nature of the solar system: His theory that the sun, not the Earth, was the center of the solar system was in direct conflict with prevailing religious dogma. Despite hundreds of years of scientific advancement, people are still prone to look at many systems in a dogmatic way, especially when it contradicts what they would like to believe.
Thinking Critically About Scientific Information
While scientists strive to be as unbiased as possible, one must never forget that they are human and subject to all the foibles of humanity. A scientist may experience many levels of pressure to either conform to peer and social expectations (e.g., if a scientist's compensation depends on finding results), or to push ideas they are convinced are correct despite little validated evidence to the contrary. Recognizing that scientists are human, it is pertinent to the educated layperson that sometimes all results should be questioned from a critical perspective to sift the valid results from the not-so-valid ones and to understand how the data may have been influenced by outside agencies with a vested interest in finding desired outcomes or ignoring specific findings.When you come across scientific evidence, think about it critically by asking these
questions:
- Who is the source of the information?
- Are the alleged facts placed in a context of accepted knowledge?
- Does the argument make sense?
- How was the information obtained?
- What kind of study was reported or used?
- Correlational research—Res
- earch where a logical connection is made between variables and extensive exploration or testing reveal patterns or trends of change. It is also called cause-inference research.
- Experimental research—Research in which all variables are controlled during a treatment so that any changes can be attributed to a specific variable that has been manipulated. It is also called cause-effect research.
- Were measurements and statistics used properly?
- Did you examine the big picture and avoid simplistic (i.e., not recognizing complexity in systems) and dualistic (i.e., thinking that everything is either one or the other, right or wrong) thinking?
These questions emphasize that when you understand how scientists work, you can determine the level of reliability of information derived from the scientific process. You do not need to either totally accept or deny what a scientist has found. Rather, you should remain mildly skeptical and understand the findings in context of the bigger picture in which the findings are couched. A scientist claims not proof, but rather evidence, in support of an idea or scientific theory. Scientists do not simply guess; they use educated analyses and either inductive or deductive reasoning to reach logical conclusions. Revolutions in science occur when someone gains a new crucial piece of evidence or sees something in a new way that was obscure before. Various levels of filtering occur through the scientific process (see figure 1.2). Unfortunately, scientific information most readily available to the lay public is usually the more sensational information that catches the attention of the media—generally from nearer the top of the knowledge filter. These sources, along with the Internet, are where most adults learn about new scientific discoveries. Because this information is often at the debating stage, it unfortunately gives the public the view that science is unsure about what it is finding.
Think critically about new information, past assumptions, and your own thought process
Most modern environmental issues are frequently driven and fueled by emotional rhetoric. Environmental science and the integration of sustainability principles is based on science and is rational, yet relies on a transdisciplinary base since it involves natural sciences, social sciences, humanities, and arts to comprehend the big picture.
Changing Your Thinking
Most modern environmental issues are frequently driven and fueled by emotional rhetoric. Environmental science and the integration of sustainability principles is based on science and is rational, yet relies on a transdisciplinary base since it involves natural sciences, social sciences, humanities, and arts to comprehend the big picture. Environmentalism and sustainability are very different. Environmental activism protects nature and people from the ravages of the human economy while sustainability works to redesign the economy itself.
The Nature of Scientific Thinking
Science is a process of asking questions about the universe and searching for answers through rational means. You can disprove a line of thinking, but you can never actually prove anything; you merely collect evidence based on other lines of similar thinking that your ideas hold true under certain parameters. As ideas become more flushed out, you gain more confidence that your conclusions are true within the parameters that you set. If you do this in a transparent environment where everyone can view and question your thinking, a discussion can ensue that allows a broader group of thinkers to agree or debate the validity of any information. Such is the process of science.
- Science research is logical and objective in order to validate the procedures employed, the data collected, and any conclusions reached. Personal feelings, conviction, and bias are considered and then eliminated in order to suppress bias and emotion in the analysis. No attempt is made to persuade or to prove an emotionally held conviction without valid data to confirm its potential
authenticity. - Scientists weigh the evidence, test or explore ideas, and explain observations in a rational manner.
- Scientists use the scientific method where appropriate (figure 1.1).
- Once data are found and analyzed, scientists write up their results and openly publish the findings. Then they participate in open discourse, revise their ideas or hypotheses, and practice theory building to explain phenomena.
- Peer review ensures that all findings are open for scrutiny and reevaluation by all people—usually scientists in the same field, but sometimes in general journals and other science publications. Good information passes through the knowledge filter while less valid or unreliable information is filtered out.
- Data found in experiments and scientific studies can only disprove hypotheses and predictions, yet can offer evidence that builds on theory formation (repeated and rigorous testing by many different research teams in many different ways to create a comprehensive and widely accepted explanation of one or more cause-effect observations). Therefore, there is no such thing as scientific proof, only best evidence that supports a scientific theory or a set of conclusions to support the development of a scientific theory.
- Research sometimes requires courage of conviction to pursue conclusions that may be unpopular and may bring social disapproval. Copernicus (1473-1543) was condemned by church authorities when he announced his conclusion concerning the nature of the solar system: His theory that the sun, not the Earth, was the center of the solar system was in direct conflict with prevailing religious dogma. Despite hundreds of years of scientific advancement, people are still prone to look at many systems in a dogmatic way, especially when it contradicts what they would like to believe.
Thinking Critically About Scientific Information
While scientists strive to be as unbiased as possible, one must never forget that they are human and subject to all the foibles of humanity. A scientist may experience many levels of pressure to either conform to peer and social expectations (e.g., if a scientist's compensation depends on finding results), or to push ideas they are convinced are correct despite little validated evidence to the contrary. Recognizing that scientists are human, it is pertinent to the educated layperson that sometimes all results should be questioned from a critical perspective to sift the valid results from the not-so-valid ones and to understand how the data may have been influenced by outside agencies with a vested interest in finding desired outcomes or ignoring specific findings.When you come across scientific evidence, think about it critically by asking these
questions:
- Who is the source of the information?
- Are the alleged facts placed in a context of accepted knowledge?
- Does the argument make sense?
- How was the information obtained?
- What kind of study was reported or used?
- Correlational research—Res
- earch where a logical connection is made between variables and extensive exploration or testing reveal patterns or trends of change. It is also called cause-inference research.
- Experimental research—Research in which all variables are controlled during a treatment so that any changes can be attributed to a specific variable that has been manipulated. It is also called cause-effect research.
- Were measurements and statistics used properly?
- Did you examine the big picture and avoid simplistic (i.e., not recognizing complexity in systems) and dualistic (i.e., thinking that everything is either one or the other, right or wrong) thinking?
These questions emphasize that when you understand how scientists work, you can determine the level of reliability of information derived from the scientific process. You do not need to either totally accept or deny what a scientist has found. Rather, you should remain mildly skeptical and understand the findings in context of the bigger picture in which the findings are couched. A scientist claims not proof, but rather evidence, in support of an idea or scientific theory. Scientists do not simply guess; they use educated analyses and either inductive or deductive reasoning to reach logical conclusions. Revolutions in science occur when someone gains a new crucial piece of evidence or sees something in a new way that was obscure before. Various levels of filtering occur through the scientific process (see figure 1.2). Unfortunately, scientific information most readily available to the lay public is usually the more sensational information that catches the attention of the media—generally from nearer the top of the knowledge filter. These sources, along with the Internet, are where most adults learn about new scientific discoveries. Because this information is often at the debating stage, it unfortunately gives the public the view that science is unsure about what it is finding.
Working together to reform education
Several aspects must be considered in education reform. One such aspect is whether the education leads to better citizens.
Reforming Education
Several aspects must be considered in education reform. One such aspect is whether the education leads to better citizens. It should mean that all people have a better understanding of why nature needs to be considered as a central part of their thinking and education. People must understand and comprehend resource flows such as food, energy, water, materials, and waste at different ecosystem levels from small and local to global. Academic institutions must promote a holistic transdisciplinary view of the world in which people, planet, and profit are interconnected with an expanding view of interrelated tiered systems.
As a student, you have the power to request and expect change. The academic institution is there to serve you, not vice-versa. You can ask your institution to establish a self-evaluative structure for an ongoing study of internal processes and their education as it relates to the rest of society including contributions, responsibilities, and even how academic freedom is exercised. Higher education institutions with research programs should establish a department for the study of the social and global crises from a transdisciplinary perspective. This department would encourage the reordering of research within individual disciplines to create interactive and transdisciplinary research interest groups. It would heighten awareness for how ecological and sociocultural relationships do not really have defined disciplinary boundaries. To counter the hegemony of simple gross domestic product being used in measuring economic progress, it is necessary to include education about using more measures that point to social and ecological indicators as of equal or even greater importance than they are currently given.
This is not to say that current academic systems teach us badly, but that the context and framework about what is taught are misplaced because of the assumptions of an antiquated business-as-usual model. At stake are many things on which your future health and well-being depend—systems such as climate stability, the resilience and productivity of natural systems, the beauty of the natural world, and biological diversity, to name but a few of the major issues facing the world today. The Holocaust during World War II is said to have been carried out by one of the most educated populations on the planet that had the philosophies of enlightened philosophers like Kant and Goethe to guide them. The problem with the education that allowed such barbarism was that “[their education] emphasized theories instead of values, concepts rather than human beings, abstraction rather than consciousness, answers instead of questions, ideology and efficiency rather than conscience” (Wiesel, as quoted in Orr 1994, p.8). Considering that indigenous peoples managed to live for thousands of years without the benefits of modern education, it becomes obvious that the problem is not the content but what has been omitted in order to avoid the specific teaching and discussion of values and interrelated systems. At some point, concepts such as common decency, prudence, mindful thinking, loss of the cultural commons, and ecological wisdom need to be discussed. Education must be evaluated against a different yardstick than simply the amount of knowledge gained and tests passed with a standardized score. It is important to consider not simply education, but education of a certain kind.
The modern human disconnect with nature has been discussed throughout this text. The concepts of the triple bottom line, the quad stack, and the 3P model all emphasize that nature and the natural connection must be a primary concept in people's lives. However, people have developed a society and culture that increasingly sees nature as something apart from humans and something merely to be used as resources to serve human needs. While all people's needs come from nature, people must never lose sight of the many ecological systems that work to give them the life-giving planet they presently take for granted. A major step in reforming education must be to recognize the value of nature in people's lives from multiple levels.
Nature-Deficit Disorder
Children who spend more than 95 percent of their lives indoors are hard pressed to develop empathy and knowledge of natural environments even when those environments are right outside their own doors. They become detached from ecosystems and nature's services, they fail to see connections between abiotic (mineral world) and biotic (organic living world) components, and they are unlikely to develop systemic thinking skills. The term nature-deficit disorder was created to capture this disconnect between children and nature (Louv 2008). It is probable that already at least one but probably two generations of nature-deficient children have now become adults and carry the burdens of the deficit with them. This deficit manifests as many mental, psychological, and even physical problems, such as rising rates of childhood depression, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and rampant childhood obesity (Louv 2008).
Recognition of this problem in the United States has created enough concern to create a national legislative bill in congress called No Child Left Inside, whichwould create environmental education within classrooms. No Child Left Inside has three components (NCLI 2009):
- Fund the training of teachers in environmental education and operate model outdoor classroom programs.
- Give funding to each state that submits a complete environmental literacy plan, to ensure high school graduates are environmentally literate.
- Award grants at national, state, and local levels to build the capacity to expand environmental literacy.
The benefits for students would be to develop school programs that teach about systemic models of understanding about the world—sustainability edu-
cation. This sustainability education allows society to move from a set of symptomatic solutions of industrialization and globalization to a systemic focus of diversification, biological and sociocultural diversity, and an understanding of localized (community-level) economics. To live well in the future will require that people understand certain fundamentals about the world, such as the laws of thermodynamics; the basic principles of ecology; carrying capacity; energetic, basic, and steady-state economics; how to live well in a place; limits of technology; appropriate scale of development; sustainable agriculture and forestry; and environmental ethics; and much, much more.
It is now being well-established that being outside in nature creates formative experiences for children, and has immense benefits for adults as well. It is important for children to interact with nature for it influences their overall well-being as they grow up. Just a few of the many benefits that research has shown are that children who play outdoors regularly show more advanced motor skills; are fitter; have better coordination, balance, and agility; have better study abilities; are sick less often; and exhibit better social skills (White 2011).
Examples of bio-inspired solutions that are more efficient than current ones
Biomimicry derives its name from two Greek words: bios, meaning life, and mimesis, meaning imitation. As such it is about human systems mimicking life’s systems, or more generally, nature. Biomimicry is a term that explains innovation inspired by nature where engineers, who understand mechanics and dynamic flow systems of industrial processes, link with biologists, who understand the mechanics and dynamic flow characteristics of living processes.
Changing Your Thinking
Most modern environmental issues are frequently driven and fueled by emotional rhetoric. Environmental science and the integration of sustainability principles is based on science and is rational, yet relies on a transdisciplinary base since it involves natural sciences, social sciences, humanities, and arts to comprehend the big picture. Environmentalism and sustainability are very different. Environmental activism protects nature and people from the ravages of the human economy while sustainability works to redesign the economy itself.
The Nature of Scientific Thinking
Science is a process of asking questions about the universe and searching for answers through rational means. You can disprove a line of thinking, but you can never actually prove anything; you merely collect evidence based on other lines of similar thinking that your ideas hold true under certain parameters. As ideas become more flushed out, you gain more confidence that your conclusions are true within the parameters that you set. If you do this in a transparent environment where everyone can view and question your thinking, a discussion can ensue that allows a broader group of thinkers to agree or debate the validity of any information. Such is the process of science.
- Science research is logical and objective in order to validate the procedures employed, the data collected, and any conclusions reached. Personal feelings, conviction, and bias are considered and then eliminated in order to suppress bias and emotion in the analysis. No attempt is made to persuade or to prove an emotionally held conviction without valid data to confirm its potential
authenticity. - Scientists weigh the evidence, test or explore ideas, and explain observations in a rational manner.
- Scientists use the scientific method where appropriate (figure 1.1).
- Once data are found and analyzed, scientists write up their results and openly publish the findings. Then they participate in open discourse, revise their ideas or hypotheses, and practice theory building to explain phenomena.
- Peer review ensures that all findings are open for scrutiny and reevaluation by all people—usually scientists in the same field, but sometimes in general journals and other science publications. Good information passes through the knowledge filter while less valid or unreliable information is filtered out.
- Data found in experiments and scientific studies can only disprove hypotheses and predictions, yet can offer evidence that builds on theory formation (repeated and rigorous testing by many different research teams in many different ways to create a comprehensive and widely accepted explanation of one or more cause-effect observations). Therefore, there is no such thing as scientific proof, only best evidence that supports a scientific theory or a set of conclusions to support the development of a scientific theory.
- Research sometimes requires courage of conviction to pursue conclusions that may be unpopular and may bring social disapproval. Copernicus (1473-1543) was condemned by church authorities when he announced his conclusion concerning the nature of the solar system: His theory that the sun, not the Earth, was the center of the solar system was in direct conflict with prevailing religious dogma. Despite hundreds of years of scientific advancement, people are still prone to look at many systems in a dogmatic way, especially when it contradicts what they would like to believe.
Thinking Critically About Scientific Information
While scientists strive to be as unbiased as possible, one must never forget that they are human and subject to all the foibles of humanity. A scientist may experience many levels of pressure to either conform to peer and social expectations (e.g., if a scientist's compensation depends on finding results), or to push ideas they are convinced are correct despite little validated evidence to the contrary. Recognizing that scientists are human, it is pertinent to the educated layperson that sometimes all results should be questioned from a critical perspective to sift the valid results from the not-so-valid ones and to understand how the data may have been influenced by outside agencies with a vested interest in finding desired outcomes or ignoring specific findings.When you come across scientific evidence, think about it critically by asking these
questions:
- Who is the source of the information?
- Are the alleged facts placed in a context of accepted knowledge?
- Does the argument make sense?
- How was the information obtained?
- What kind of study was reported or used?
- Correlational research—Res
- earch where a logical connection is made between variables and extensive exploration or testing reveal patterns or trends of change. It is also called cause-inference research.
- Experimental research—Research in which all variables are controlled during a treatment so that any changes can be attributed to a specific variable that has been manipulated. It is also called cause-effect research.
- Were measurements and statistics used properly?
- Did you examine the big picture and avoid simplistic (i.e., not recognizing complexity in systems) and dualistic (i.e., thinking that everything is either one or the other, right or wrong) thinking?
These questions emphasize that when you understand how scientists work, you can determine the level of reliability of information derived from the scientific process. You do not need to either totally accept or deny what a scientist has found. Rather, you should remain mildly skeptical and understand the findings in context of the bigger picture in which the findings are couched. A scientist claims not proof, but rather evidence, in support of an idea or scientific theory. Scientists do not simply guess; they use educated analyses and either inductive or deductive reasoning to reach logical conclusions. Revolutions in science occur when someone gains a new crucial piece of evidence or sees something in a new way that was obscure before. Various levels of filtering occur through the scientific process (see figure 1.2). Unfortunately, scientific information most readily available to the lay public is usually the more sensational information that catches the attention of the media—generally from nearer the top of the knowledge filter. These sources, along with the Internet, are where most adults learn about new scientific discoveries. Because this information is often at the debating stage, it unfortunately gives the public the view that science is unsure about what it is finding.
Think critically about new information, past assumptions, and your own thought process
Most modern environmental issues are frequently driven and fueled by emotional rhetoric. Environmental science and the integration of sustainability principles is based on science and is rational, yet relies on a transdisciplinary base since it involves natural sciences, social sciences, humanities, and arts to comprehend the big picture.
Changing Your Thinking
Most modern environmental issues are frequently driven and fueled by emotional rhetoric. Environmental science and the integration of sustainability principles is based on science and is rational, yet relies on a transdisciplinary base since it involves natural sciences, social sciences, humanities, and arts to comprehend the big picture. Environmentalism and sustainability are very different. Environmental activism protects nature and people from the ravages of the human economy while sustainability works to redesign the economy itself.
The Nature of Scientific Thinking
Science is a process of asking questions about the universe and searching for answers through rational means. You can disprove a line of thinking, but you can never actually prove anything; you merely collect evidence based on other lines of similar thinking that your ideas hold true under certain parameters. As ideas become more flushed out, you gain more confidence that your conclusions are true within the parameters that you set. If you do this in a transparent environment where everyone can view and question your thinking, a discussion can ensue that allows a broader group of thinkers to agree or debate the validity of any information. Such is the process of science.
- Science research is logical and objective in order to validate the procedures employed, the data collected, and any conclusions reached. Personal feelings, conviction, and bias are considered and then eliminated in order to suppress bias and emotion in the analysis. No attempt is made to persuade or to prove an emotionally held conviction without valid data to confirm its potential
authenticity. - Scientists weigh the evidence, test or explore ideas, and explain observations in a rational manner.
- Scientists use the scientific method where appropriate (figure 1.1).
- Once data are found and analyzed, scientists write up their results and openly publish the findings. Then they participate in open discourse, revise their ideas or hypotheses, and practice theory building to explain phenomena.
- Peer review ensures that all findings are open for scrutiny and reevaluation by all people—usually scientists in the same field, but sometimes in general journals and other science publications. Good information passes through the knowledge filter while less valid or unreliable information is filtered out.
- Data found in experiments and scientific studies can only disprove hypotheses and predictions, yet can offer evidence that builds on theory formation (repeated and rigorous testing by many different research teams in many different ways to create a comprehensive and widely accepted explanation of one or more cause-effect observations). Therefore, there is no such thing as scientific proof, only best evidence that supports a scientific theory or a set of conclusions to support the development of a scientific theory.
- Research sometimes requires courage of conviction to pursue conclusions that may be unpopular and may bring social disapproval. Copernicus (1473-1543) was condemned by church authorities when he announced his conclusion concerning the nature of the solar system: His theory that the sun, not the Earth, was the center of the solar system was in direct conflict with prevailing religious dogma. Despite hundreds of years of scientific advancement, people are still prone to look at many systems in a dogmatic way, especially when it contradicts what they would like to believe.
Thinking Critically About Scientific Information
While scientists strive to be as unbiased as possible, one must never forget that they are human and subject to all the foibles of humanity. A scientist may experience many levels of pressure to either conform to peer and social expectations (e.g., if a scientist's compensation depends on finding results), or to push ideas they are convinced are correct despite little validated evidence to the contrary. Recognizing that scientists are human, it is pertinent to the educated layperson that sometimes all results should be questioned from a critical perspective to sift the valid results from the not-so-valid ones and to understand how the data may have been influenced by outside agencies with a vested interest in finding desired outcomes or ignoring specific findings.When you come across scientific evidence, think about it critically by asking these
questions:
- Who is the source of the information?
- Are the alleged facts placed in a context of accepted knowledge?
- Does the argument make sense?
- How was the information obtained?
- What kind of study was reported or used?
- Correlational research—Res
- earch where a logical connection is made between variables and extensive exploration or testing reveal patterns or trends of change. It is also called cause-inference research.
- Experimental research—Research in which all variables are controlled during a treatment so that any changes can be attributed to a specific variable that has been manipulated. It is also called cause-effect research.
- Were measurements and statistics used properly?
- Did you examine the big picture and avoid simplistic (i.e., not recognizing complexity in systems) and dualistic (i.e., thinking that everything is either one or the other, right or wrong) thinking?
These questions emphasize that when you understand how scientists work, you can determine the level of reliability of information derived from the scientific process. You do not need to either totally accept or deny what a scientist has found. Rather, you should remain mildly skeptical and understand the findings in context of the bigger picture in which the findings are couched. A scientist claims not proof, but rather evidence, in support of an idea or scientific theory. Scientists do not simply guess; they use educated analyses and either inductive or deductive reasoning to reach logical conclusions. Revolutions in science occur when someone gains a new crucial piece of evidence or sees something in a new way that was obscure before. Various levels of filtering occur through the scientific process (see figure 1.2). Unfortunately, scientific information most readily available to the lay public is usually the more sensational information that catches the attention of the media—generally from nearer the top of the knowledge filter. These sources, along with the Internet, are where most adults learn about new scientific discoveries. Because this information is often at the debating stage, it unfortunately gives the public the view that science is unsure about what it is finding.
Working together to reform education
Several aspects must be considered in education reform. One such aspect is whether the education leads to better citizens.
Reforming Education
Several aspects must be considered in education reform. One such aspect is whether the education leads to better citizens. It should mean that all people have a better understanding of why nature needs to be considered as a central part of their thinking and education. People must understand and comprehend resource flows such as food, energy, water, materials, and waste at different ecosystem levels from small and local to global. Academic institutions must promote a holistic transdisciplinary view of the world in which people, planet, and profit are interconnected with an expanding view of interrelated tiered systems.
As a student, you have the power to request and expect change. The academic institution is there to serve you, not vice-versa. You can ask your institution to establish a self-evaluative structure for an ongoing study of internal processes and their education as it relates to the rest of society including contributions, responsibilities, and even how academic freedom is exercised. Higher education institutions with research programs should establish a department for the study of the social and global crises from a transdisciplinary perspective. This department would encourage the reordering of research within individual disciplines to create interactive and transdisciplinary research interest groups. It would heighten awareness for how ecological and sociocultural relationships do not really have defined disciplinary boundaries. To counter the hegemony of simple gross domestic product being used in measuring economic progress, it is necessary to include education about using more measures that point to social and ecological indicators as of equal or even greater importance than they are currently given.
This is not to say that current academic systems teach us badly, but that the context and framework about what is taught are misplaced because of the assumptions of an antiquated business-as-usual model. At stake are many things on which your future health and well-being depend—systems such as climate stability, the resilience and productivity of natural systems, the beauty of the natural world, and biological diversity, to name but a few of the major issues facing the world today. The Holocaust during World War II is said to have been carried out by one of the most educated populations on the planet that had the philosophies of enlightened philosophers like Kant and Goethe to guide them. The problem with the education that allowed such barbarism was that “[their education] emphasized theories instead of values, concepts rather than human beings, abstraction rather than consciousness, answers instead of questions, ideology and efficiency rather than conscience” (Wiesel, as quoted in Orr 1994, p.8). Considering that indigenous peoples managed to live for thousands of years without the benefits of modern education, it becomes obvious that the problem is not the content but what has been omitted in order to avoid the specific teaching and discussion of values and interrelated systems. At some point, concepts such as common decency, prudence, mindful thinking, loss of the cultural commons, and ecological wisdom need to be discussed. Education must be evaluated against a different yardstick than simply the amount of knowledge gained and tests passed with a standardized score. It is important to consider not simply education, but education of a certain kind.
The modern human disconnect with nature has been discussed throughout this text. The concepts of the triple bottom line, the quad stack, and the 3P model all emphasize that nature and the natural connection must be a primary concept in people's lives. However, people have developed a society and culture that increasingly sees nature as something apart from humans and something merely to be used as resources to serve human needs. While all people's needs come from nature, people must never lose sight of the many ecological systems that work to give them the life-giving planet they presently take for granted. A major step in reforming education must be to recognize the value of nature in people's lives from multiple levels.
Nature-Deficit Disorder
Children who spend more than 95 percent of their lives indoors are hard pressed to develop empathy and knowledge of natural environments even when those environments are right outside their own doors. They become detached from ecosystems and nature's services, they fail to see connections between abiotic (mineral world) and biotic (organic living world) components, and they are unlikely to develop systemic thinking skills. The term nature-deficit disorder was created to capture this disconnect between children and nature (Louv 2008). It is probable that already at least one but probably two generations of nature-deficient children have now become adults and carry the burdens of the deficit with them. This deficit manifests as many mental, psychological, and even physical problems, such as rising rates of childhood depression, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and rampant childhood obesity (Louv 2008).
Recognition of this problem in the United States has created enough concern to create a national legislative bill in congress called No Child Left Inside, whichwould create environmental education within classrooms. No Child Left Inside has three components (NCLI 2009):
- Fund the training of teachers in environmental education and operate model outdoor classroom programs.
- Give funding to each state that submits a complete environmental literacy plan, to ensure high school graduates are environmentally literate.
- Award grants at national, state, and local levels to build the capacity to expand environmental literacy.
The benefits for students would be to develop school programs that teach about systemic models of understanding about the world—sustainability edu-
cation. This sustainability education allows society to move from a set of symptomatic solutions of industrialization and globalization to a systemic focus of diversification, biological and sociocultural diversity, and an understanding of localized (community-level) economics. To live well in the future will require that people understand certain fundamentals about the world, such as the laws of thermodynamics; the basic principles of ecology; carrying capacity; energetic, basic, and steady-state economics; how to live well in a place; limits of technology; appropriate scale of development; sustainable agriculture and forestry; and environmental ethics; and much, much more.
It is now being well-established that being outside in nature creates formative experiences for children, and has immense benefits for adults as well. It is important for children to interact with nature for it influences their overall well-being as they grow up. Just a few of the many benefits that research has shown are that children who play outdoors regularly show more advanced motor skills; are fitter; have better coordination, balance, and agility; have better study abilities; are sick less often; and exhibit better social skills (White 2011).
Examples of bio-inspired solutions that are more efficient than current ones
Biomimicry derives its name from two Greek words: bios, meaning life, and mimesis, meaning imitation. As such it is about human systems mimicking life’s systems, or more generally, nature. Biomimicry is a term that explains innovation inspired by nature where engineers, who understand mechanics and dynamic flow systems of industrial processes, link with biologists, who understand the mechanics and dynamic flow characteristics of living processes.
Changing Your Thinking
Most modern environmental issues are frequently driven and fueled by emotional rhetoric. Environmental science and the integration of sustainability principles is based on science and is rational, yet relies on a transdisciplinary base since it involves natural sciences, social sciences, humanities, and arts to comprehend the big picture. Environmentalism and sustainability are very different. Environmental activism protects nature and people from the ravages of the human economy while sustainability works to redesign the economy itself.
The Nature of Scientific Thinking
Science is a process of asking questions about the universe and searching for answers through rational means. You can disprove a line of thinking, but you can never actually prove anything; you merely collect evidence based on other lines of similar thinking that your ideas hold true under certain parameters. As ideas become more flushed out, you gain more confidence that your conclusions are true within the parameters that you set. If you do this in a transparent environment where everyone can view and question your thinking, a discussion can ensue that allows a broader group of thinkers to agree or debate the validity of any information. Such is the process of science.
- Science research is logical and objective in order to validate the procedures employed, the data collected, and any conclusions reached. Personal feelings, conviction, and bias are considered and then eliminated in order to suppress bias and emotion in the analysis. No attempt is made to persuade or to prove an emotionally held conviction without valid data to confirm its potential
authenticity. - Scientists weigh the evidence, test or explore ideas, and explain observations in a rational manner.
- Scientists use the scientific method where appropriate (figure 1.1).
- Once data are found and analyzed, scientists write up their results and openly publish the findings. Then they participate in open discourse, revise their ideas or hypotheses, and practice theory building to explain phenomena.
- Peer review ensures that all findings are open for scrutiny and reevaluation by all people—usually scientists in the same field, but sometimes in general journals and other science publications. Good information passes through the knowledge filter while less valid or unreliable information is filtered out.
- Data found in experiments and scientific studies can only disprove hypotheses and predictions, yet can offer evidence that builds on theory formation (repeated and rigorous testing by many different research teams in many different ways to create a comprehensive and widely accepted explanation of one or more cause-effect observations). Therefore, there is no such thing as scientific proof, only best evidence that supports a scientific theory or a set of conclusions to support the development of a scientific theory.
- Research sometimes requires courage of conviction to pursue conclusions that may be unpopular and may bring social disapproval. Copernicus (1473-1543) was condemned by church authorities when he announced his conclusion concerning the nature of the solar system: His theory that the sun, not the Earth, was the center of the solar system was in direct conflict with prevailing religious dogma. Despite hundreds of years of scientific advancement, people are still prone to look at many systems in a dogmatic way, especially when it contradicts what they would like to believe.
Thinking Critically About Scientific Information
While scientists strive to be as unbiased as possible, one must never forget that they are human and subject to all the foibles of humanity. A scientist may experience many levels of pressure to either conform to peer and social expectations (e.g., if a scientist's compensation depends on finding results), or to push ideas they are convinced are correct despite little validated evidence to the contrary. Recognizing that scientists are human, it is pertinent to the educated layperson that sometimes all results should be questioned from a critical perspective to sift the valid results from the not-so-valid ones and to understand how the data may have been influenced by outside agencies with a vested interest in finding desired outcomes or ignoring specific findings.When you come across scientific evidence, think about it critically by asking these
questions:
- Who is the source of the information?
- Are the alleged facts placed in a context of accepted knowledge?
- Does the argument make sense?
- How was the information obtained?
- What kind of study was reported or used?
- Correlational research—Res
- earch where a logical connection is made between variables and extensive exploration or testing reveal patterns or trends of change. It is also called cause-inference research.
- Experimental research—Research in which all variables are controlled during a treatment so that any changes can be attributed to a specific variable that has been manipulated. It is also called cause-effect research.
- Were measurements and statistics used properly?
- Did you examine the big picture and avoid simplistic (i.e., not recognizing complexity in systems) and dualistic (i.e., thinking that everything is either one or the other, right or wrong) thinking?
These questions emphasize that when you understand how scientists work, you can determine the level of reliability of information derived from the scientific process. You do not need to either totally accept or deny what a scientist has found. Rather, you should remain mildly skeptical and understand the findings in context of the bigger picture in which the findings are couched. A scientist claims not proof, but rather evidence, in support of an idea or scientific theory. Scientists do not simply guess; they use educated analyses and either inductive or deductive reasoning to reach logical conclusions. Revolutions in science occur when someone gains a new crucial piece of evidence or sees something in a new way that was obscure before. Various levels of filtering occur through the scientific process (see figure 1.2). Unfortunately, scientific information most readily available to the lay public is usually the more sensational information that catches the attention of the media—generally from nearer the top of the knowledge filter. These sources, along with the Internet, are where most adults learn about new scientific discoveries. Because this information is often at the debating stage, it unfortunately gives the public the view that science is unsure about what it is finding.
Think critically about new information, past assumptions, and your own thought process
Most modern environmental issues are frequently driven and fueled by emotional rhetoric. Environmental science and the integration of sustainability principles is based on science and is rational, yet relies on a transdisciplinary base since it involves natural sciences, social sciences, humanities, and arts to comprehend the big picture.
Changing Your Thinking
Most modern environmental issues are frequently driven and fueled by emotional rhetoric. Environmental science and the integration of sustainability principles is based on science and is rational, yet relies on a transdisciplinary base since it involves natural sciences, social sciences, humanities, and arts to comprehend the big picture. Environmentalism and sustainability are very different. Environmental activism protects nature and people from the ravages of the human economy while sustainability works to redesign the economy itself.
The Nature of Scientific Thinking
Science is a process of asking questions about the universe and searching for answers through rational means. You can disprove a line of thinking, but you can never actually prove anything; you merely collect evidence based on other lines of similar thinking that your ideas hold true under certain parameters. As ideas become more flushed out, you gain more confidence that your conclusions are true within the parameters that you set. If you do this in a transparent environment where everyone can view and question your thinking, a discussion can ensue that allows a broader group of thinkers to agree or debate the validity of any information. Such is the process of science.
- Science research is logical and objective in order to validate the procedures employed, the data collected, and any conclusions reached. Personal feelings, conviction, and bias are considered and then eliminated in order to suppress bias and emotion in the analysis. No attempt is made to persuade or to prove an emotionally held conviction without valid data to confirm its potential
authenticity. - Scientists weigh the evidence, test or explore ideas, and explain observations in a rational manner.
- Scientists use the scientific method where appropriate (figure 1.1).
- Once data are found and analyzed, scientists write up their results and openly publish the findings. Then they participate in open discourse, revise their ideas or hypotheses, and practice theory building to explain phenomena.
- Peer review ensures that all findings are open for scrutiny and reevaluation by all people—usually scientists in the same field, but sometimes in general journals and other science publications. Good information passes through the knowledge filter while less valid or unreliable information is filtered out.
- Data found in experiments and scientific studies can only disprove hypotheses and predictions, yet can offer evidence that builds on theory formation (repeated and rigorous testing by many different research teams in many different ways to create a comprehensive and widely accepted explanation of one or more cause-effect observations). Therefore, there is no such thing as scientific proof, only best evidence that supports a scientific theory or a set of conclusions to support the development of a scientific theory.
- Research sometimes requires courage of conviction to pursue conclusions that may be unpopular and may bring social disapproval. Copernicus (1473-1543) was condemned by church authorities when he announced his conclusion concerning the nature of the solar system: His theory that the sun, not the Earth, was the center of the solar system was in direct conflict with prevailing religious dogma. Despite hundreds of years of scientific advancement, people are still prone to look at many systems in a dogmatic way, especially when it contradicts what they would like to believe.
Thinking Critically About Scientific Information
While scientists strive to be as unbiased as possible, one must never forget that they are human and subject to all the foibles of humanity. A scientist may experience many levels of pressure to either conform to peer and social expectations (e.g., if a scientist's compensation depends on finding results), or to push ideas they are convinced are correct despite little validated evidence to the contrary. Recognizing that scientists are human, it is pertinent to the educated layperson that sometimes all results should be questioned from a critical perspective to sift the valid results from the not-so-valid ones and to understand how the data may have been influenced by outside agencies with a vested interest in finding desired outcomes or ignoring specific findings.When you come across scientific evidence, think about it critically by asking these
questions:
- Who is the source of the information?
- Are the alleged facts placed in a context of accepted knowledge?
- Does the argument make sense?
- How was the information obtained?
- What kind of study was reported or used?
- Correlational research—Res
- earch where a logical connection is made between variables and extensive exploration or testing reveal patterns or trends of change. It is also called cause-inference research.
- Experimental research—Research in which all variables are controlled during a treatment so that any changes can be attributed to a specific variable that has been manipulated. It is also called cause-effect research.
- Were measurements and statistics used properly?
- Did you examine the big picture and avoid simplistic (i.e., not recognizing complexity in systems) and dualistic (i.e., thinking that everything is either one or the other, right or wrong) thinking?
These questions emphasize that when you understand how scientists work, you can determine the level of reliability of information derived from the scientific process. You do not need to either totally accept or deny what a scientist has found. Rather, you should remain mildly skeptical and understand the findings in context of the bigger picture in which the findings are couched. A scientist claims not proof, but rather evidence, in support of an idea or scientific theory. Scientists do not simply guess; they use educated analyses and either inductive or deductive reasoning to reach logical conclusions. Revolutions in science occur when someone gains a new crucial piece of evidence or sees something in a new way that was obscure before. Various levels of filtering occur through the scientific process (see figure 1.2). Unfortunately, scientific information most readily available to the lay public is usually the more sensational information that catches the attention of the media—generally from nearer the top of the knowledge filter. These sources, along with the Internet, are where most adults learn about new scientific discoveries. Because this information is often at the debating stage, it unfortunately gives the public the view that science is unsure about what it is finding.
Working together to reform education
Several aspects must be considered in education reform. One such aspect is whether the education leads to better citizens.
Reforming Education
Several aspects must be considered in education reform. One such aspect is whether the education leads to better citizens. It should mean that all people have a better understanding of why nature needs to be considered as a central part of their thinking and education. People must understand and comprehend resource flows such as food, energy, water, materials, and waste at different ecosystem levels from small and local to global. Academic institutions must promote a holistic transdisciplinary view of the world in which people, planet, and profit are interconnected with an expanding view of interrelated tiered systems.
As a student, you have the power to request and expect change. The academic institution is there to serve you, not vice-versa. You can ask your institution to establish a self-evaluative structure for an ongoing study of internal processes and their education as it relates to the rest of society including contributions, responsibilities, and even how academic freedom is exercised. Higher education institutions with research programs should establish a department for the study of the social and global crises from a transdisciplinary perspective. This department would encourage the reordering of research within individual disciplines to create interactive and transdisciplinary research interest groups. It would heighten awareness for how ecological and sociocultural relationships do not really have defined disciplinary boundaries. To counter the hegemony of simple gross domestic product being used in measuring economic progress, it is necessary to include education about using more measures that point to social and ecological indicators as of equal or even greater importance than they are currently given.
This is not to say that current academic systems teach us badly, but that the context and framework about what is taught are misplaced because of the assumptions of an antiquated business-as-usual model. At stake are many things on which your future health and well-being depend—systems such as climate stability, the resilience and productivity of natural systems, the beauty of the natural world, and biological diversity, to name but a few of the major issues facing the world today. The Holocaust during World War II is said to have been carried out by one of the most educated populations on the planet that had the philosophies of enlightened philosophers like Kant and Goethe to guide them. The problem with the education that allowed such barbarism was that “[their education] emphasized theories instead of values, concepts rather than human beings, abstraction rather than consciousness, answers instead of questions, ideology and efficiency rather than conscience” (Wiesel, as quoted in Orr 1994, p.8). Considering that indigenous peoples managed to live for thousands of years without the benefits of modern education, it becomes obvious that the problem is not the content but what has been omitted in order to avoid the specific teaching and discussion of values and interrelated systems. At some point, concepts such as common decency, prudence, mindful thinking, loss of the cultural commons, and ecological wisdom need to be discussed. Education must be evaluated against a different yardstick than simply the amount of knowledge gained and tests passed with a standardized score. It is important to consider not simply education, but education of a certain kind.
The modern human disconnect with nature has been discussed throughout this text. The concepts of the triple bottom line, the quad stack, and the 3P model all emphasize that nature and the natural connection must be a primary concept in people's lives. However, people have developed a society and culture that increasingly sees nature as something apart from humans and something merely to be used as resources to serve human needs. While all people's needs come from nature, people must never lose sight of the many ecological systems that work to give them the life-giving planet they presently take for granted. A major step in reforming education must be to recognize the value of nature in people's lives from multiple levels.
Nature-Deficit Disorder
Children who spend more than 95 percent of their lives indoors are hard pressed to develop empathy and knowledge of natural environments even when those environments are right outside their own doors. They become detached from ecosystems and nature's services, they fail to see connections between abiotic (mineral world) and biotic (organic living world) components, and they are unlikely to develop systemic thinking skills. The term nature-deficit disorder was created to capture this disconnect between children and nature (Louv 2008). It is probable that already at least one but probably two generations of nature-deficient children have now become adults and carry the burdens of the deficit with them. This deficit manifests as many mental, psychological, and even physical problems, such as rising rates of childhood depression, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and rampant childhood obesity (Louv 2008).
Recognition of this problem in the United States has created enough concern to create a national legislative bill in congress called No Child Left Inside, whichwould create environmental education within classrooms. No Child Left Inside has three components (NCLI 2009):
- Fund the training of teachers in environmental education and operate model outdoor classroom programs.
- Give funding to each state that submits a complete environmental literacy plan, to ensure high school graduates are environmentally literate.
- Award grants at national, state, and local levels to build the capacity to expand environmental literacy.
The benefits for students would be to develop school programs that teach about systemic models of understanding about the world—sustainability edu-
cation. This sustainability education allows society to move from a set of symptomatic solutions of industrialization and globalization to a systemic focus of diversification, biological and sociocultural diversity, and an understanding of localized (community-level) economics. To live well in the future will require that people understand certain fundamentals about the world, such as the laws of thermodynamics; the basic principles of ecology; carrying capacity; energetic, basic, and steady-state economics; how to live well in a place; limits of technology; appropriate scale of development; sustainable agriculture and forestry; and environmental ethics; and much, much more.
It is now being well-established that being outside in nature creates formative experiences for children, and has immense benefits for adults as well. It is important for children to interact with nature for it influences their overall well-being as they grow up. Just a few of the many benefits that research has shown are that children who play outdoors regularly show more advanced motor skills; are fitter; have better coordination, balance, and agility; have better study abilities; are sick less often; and exhibit better social skills (White 2011).
Examples of bio-inspired solutions that are more efficient than current ones
Biomimicry derives its name from two Greek words: bios, meaning life, and mimesis, meaning imitation. As such it is about human systems mimicking life’s systems, or more generally, nature. Biomimicry is a term that explains innovation inspired by nature where engineers, who understand mechanics and dynamic flow systems of industrial processes, link with biologists, who understand the mechanics and dynamic flow characteristics of living processes.
Changing Your Thinking
Most modern environmental issues are frequently driven and fueled by emotional rhetoric. Environmental science and the integration of sustainability principles is based on science and is rational, yet relies on a transdisciplinary base since it involves natural sciences, social sciences, humanities, and arts to comprehend the big picture. Environmentalism and sustainability are very different. Environmental activism protects nature and people from the ravages of the human economy while sustainability works to redesign the economy itself.
The Nature of Scientific Thinking
Science is a process of asking questions about the universe and searching for answers through rational means. You can disprove a line of thinking, but you can never actually prove anything; you merely collect evidence based on other lines of similar thinking that your ideas hold true under certain parameters. As ideas become more flushed out, you gain more confidence that your conclusions are true within the parameters that you set. If you do this in a transparent environment where everyone can view and question your thinking, a discussion can ensue that allows a broader group of thinkers to agree or debate the validity of any information. Such is the process of science.
- Science research is logical and objective in order to validate the procedures employed, the data collected, and any conclusions reached. Personal feelings, conviction, and bias are considered and then eliminated in order to suppress bias and emotion in the analysis. No attempt is made to persuade or to prove an emotionally held conviction without valid data to confirm its potential
authenticity. - Scientists weigh the evidence, test or explore ideas, and explain observations in a rational manner.
- Scientists use the scientific method where appropriate (figure 1.1).
- Once data are found and analyzed, scientists write up their results and openly publish the findings. Then they participate in open discourse, revise their ideas or hypotheses, and practice theory building to explain phenomena.
- Peer review ensures that all findings are open for scrutiny and reevaluation by all people—usually scientists in the same field, but sometimes in general journals and other science publications. Good information passes through the knowledge filter while less valid or unreliable information is filtered out.
- Data found in experiments and scientific studies can only disprove hypotheses and predictions, yet can offer evidence that builds on theory formation (repeated and rigorous testing by many different research teams in many different ways to create a comprehensive and widely accepted explanation of one or more cause-effect observations). Therefore, there is no such thing as scientific proof, only best evidence that supports a scientific theory or a set of conclusions to support the development of a scientific theory.
- Research sometimes requires courage of conviction to pursue conclusions that may be unpopular and may bring social disapproval. Copernicus (1473-1543) was condemned by church authorities when he announced his conclusion concerning the nature of the solar system: His theory that the sun, not the Earth, was the center of the solar system was in direct conflict with prevailing religious dogma. Despite hundreds of years of scientific advancement, people are still prone to look at many systems in a dogmatic way, especially when it contradicts what they would like to believe.
Thinking Critically About Scientific Information
While scientists strive to be as unbiased as possible, one must never forget that they are human and subject to all the foibles of humanity. A scientist may experience many levels of pressure to either conform to peer and social expectations (e.g., if a scientist's compensation depends on finding results), or to push ideas they are convinced are correct despite little validated evidence to the contrary. Recognizing that scientists are human, it is pertinent to the educated layperson that sometimes all results should be questioned from a critical perspective to sift the valid results from the not-so-valid ones and to understand how the data may have been influenced by outside agencies with a vested interest in finding desired outcomes or ignoring specific findings.When you come across scientific evidence, think about it critically by asking these
questions:
- Who is the source of the information?
- Are the alleged facts placed in a context of accepted knowledge?
- Does the argument make sense?
- How was the information obtained?
- What kind of study was reported or used?
- Correlational research—Res
- earch where a logical connection is made between variables and extensive exploration or testing reveal patterns or trends of change. It is also called cause-inference research.
- Experimental research—Research in which all variables are controlled during a treatment so that any changes can be attributed to a specific variable that has been manipulated. It is also called cause-effect research.
- Were measurements and statistics used properly?
- Did you examine the big picture and avoid simplistic (i.e., not recognizing complexity in systems) and dualistic (i.e., thinking that everything is either one or the other, right or wrong) thinking?
These questions emphasize that when you understand how scientists work, you can determine the level of reliability of information derived from the scientific process. You do not need to either totally accept or deny what a scientist has found. Rather, you should remain mildly skeptical and understand the findings in context of the bigger picture in which the findings are couched. A scientist claims not proof, but rather evidence, in support of an idea or scientific theory. Scientists do not simply guess; they use educated analyses and either inductive or deductive reasoning to reach logical conclusions. Revolutions in science occur when someone gains a new crucial piece of evidence or sees something in a new way that was obscure before. Various levels of filtering occur through the scientific process (see figure 1.2). Unfortunately, scientific information most readily available to the lay public is usually the more sensational information that catches the attention of the media—generally from nearer the top of the knowledge filter. These sources, along with the Internet, are where most adults learn about new scientific discoveries. Because this information is often at the debating stage, it unfortunately gives the public the view that science is unsure about what it is finding.
Think critically about new information, past assumptions, and your own thought process
Most modern environmental issues are frequently driven and fueled by emotional rhetoric. Environmental science and the integration of sustainability principles is based on science and is rational, yet relies on a transdisciplinary base since it involves natural sciences, social sciences, humanities, and arts to comprehend the big picture.
Changing Your Thinking
Most modern environmental issues are frequently driven and fueled by emotional rhetoric. Environmental science and the integration of sustainability principles is based on science and is rational, yet relies on a transdisciplinary base since it involves natural sciences, social sciences, humanities, and arts to comprehend the big picture. Environmentalism and sustainability are very different. Environmental activism protects nature and people from the ravages of the human economy while sustainability works to redesign the economy itself.
The Nature of Scientific Thinking
Science is a process of asking questions about the universe and searching for answers through rational means. You can disprove a line of thinking, but you can never actually prove anything; you merely collect evidence based on other lines of similar thinking that your ideas hold true under certain parameters. As ideas become more flushed out, you gain more confidence that your conclusions are true within the parameters that you set. If you do this in a transparent environment where everyone can view and question your thinking, a discussion can ensue that allows a broader group of thinkers to agree or debate the validity of any information. Such is the process of science.
- Science research is logical and objective in order to validate the procedures employed, the data collected, and any conclusions reached. Personal feelings, conviction, and bias are considered and then eliminated in order to suppress bias and emotion in the analysis. No attempt is made to persuade or to prove an emotionally held conviction without valid data to confirm its potential
authenticity. - Scientists weigh the evidence, test or explore ideas, and explain observations in a rational manner.
- Scientists use the scientific method where appropriate (figure 1.1).
- Once data are found and analyzed, scientists write up their results and openly publish the findings. Then they participate in open discourse, revise their ideas or hypotheses, and practice theory building to explain phenomena.
- Peer review ensures that all findings are open for scrutiny and reevaluation by all people—usually scientists in the same field, but sometimes in general journals and other science publications. Good information passes through the knowledge filter while less valid or unreliable information is filtered out.
- Data found in experiments and scientific studies can only disprove hypotheses and predictions, yet can offer evidence that builds on theory formation (repeated and rigorous testing by many different research teams in many different ways to create a comprehensive and widely accepted explanation of one or more cause-effect observations). Therefore, there is no such thing as scientific proof, only best evidence that supports a scientific theory or a set of conclusions to support the development of a scientific theory.
- Research sometimes requires courage of conviction to pursue conclusions that may be unpopular and may bring social disapproval. Copernicus (1473-1543) was condemned by church authorities when he announced his conclusion concerning the nature of the solar system: His theory that the sun, not the Earth, was the center of the solar system was in direct conflict with prevailing religious dogma. Despite hundreds of years of scientific advancement, people are still prone to look at many systems in a dogmatic way, especially when it contradicts what they would like to believe.
Thinking Critically About Scientific Information
While scientists strive to be as unbiased as possible, one must never forget that they are human and subject to all the foibles of humanity. A scientist may experience many levels of pressure to either conform to peer and social expectations (e.g., if a scientist's compensation depends on finding results), or to push ideas they are convinced are correct despite little validated evidence to the contrary. Recognizing that scientists are human, it is pertinent to the educated layperson that sometimes all results should be questioned from a critical perspective to sift the valid results from the not-so-valid ones and to understand how the data may have been influenced by outside agencies with a vested interest in finding desired outcomes or ignoring specific findings.When you come across scientific evidence, think about it critically by asking these
questions:
- Who is the source of the information?
- Are the alleged facts placed in a context of accepted knowledge?
- Does the argument make sense?
- How was the information obtained?
- What kind of study was reported or used?
- Correlational research—Res
- earch where a logical connection is made between variables and extensive exploration or testing reveal patterns or trends of change. It is also called cause-inference research.
- Experimental research—Research in which all variables are controlled during a treatment so that any changes can be attributed to a specific variable that has been manipulated. It is also called cause-effect research.
- Were measurements and statistics used properly?
- Did you examine the big picture and avoid simplistic (i.e., not recognizing complexity in systems) and dualistic (i.e., thinking that everything is either one or the other, right or wrong) thinking?
These questions emphasize that when you understand how scientists work, you can determine the level of reliability of information derived from the scientific process. You do not need to either totally accept or deny what a scientist has found. Rather, you should remain mildly skeptical and understand the findings in context of the bigger picture in which the findings are couched. A scientist claims not proof, but rather evidence, in support of an idea or scientific theory. Scientists do not simply guess; they use educated analyses and either inductive or deductive reasoning to reach logical conclusions. Revolutions in science occur when someone gains a new crucial piece of evidence or sees something in a new way that was obscure before. Various levels of filtering occur through the scientific process (see figure 1.2). Unfortunately, scientific information most readily available to the lay public is usually the more sensational information that catches the attention of the media—generally from nearer the top of the knowledge filter. These sources, along with the Internet, are where most adults learn about new scientific discoveries. Because this information is often at the debating stage, it unfortunately gives the public the view that science is unsure about what it is finding.
Working together to reform education
Several aspects must be considered in education reform. One such aspect is whether the education leads to better citizens.
Reforming Education
Several aspects must be considered in education reform. One such aspect is whether the education leads to better citizens. It should mean that all people have a better understanding of why nature needs to be considered as a central part of their thinking and education. People must understand and comprehend resource flows such as food, energy, water, materials, and waste at different ecosystem levels from small and local to global. Academic institutions must promote a holistic transdisciplinary view of the world in which people, planet, and profit are interconnected with an expanding view of interrelated tiered systems.
As a student, you have the power to request and expect change. The academic institution is there to serve you, not vice-versa. You can ask your institution to establish a self-evaluative structure for an ongoing study of internal processes and their education as it relates to the rest of society including contributions, responsibilities, and even how academic freedom is exercised. Higher education institutions with research programs should establish a department for the study of the social and global crises from a transdisciplinary perspective. This department would encourage the reordering of research within individual disciplines to create interactive and transdisciplinary research interest groups. It would heighten awareness for how ecological and sociocultural relationships do not really have defined disciplinary boundaries. To counter the hegemony of simple gross domestic product being used in measuring economic progress, it is necessary to include education about using more measures that point to social and ecological indicators as of equal or even greater importance than they are currently given.
This is not to say that current academic systems teach us badly, but that the context and framework about what is taught are misplaced because of the assumptions of an antiquated business-as-usual model. At stake are many things on which your future health and well-being depend—systems such as climate stability, the resilience and productivity of natural systems, the beauty of the natural world, and biological diversity, to name but a few of the major issues facing the world today. The Holocaust during World War II is said to have been carried out by one of the most educated populations on the planet that had the philosophies of enlightened philosophers like Kant and Goethe to guide them. The problem with the education that allowed such barbarism was that “[their education] emphasized theories instead of values, concepts rather than human beings, abstraction rather than consciousness, answers instead of questions, ideology and efficiency rather than conscience” (Wiesel, as quoted in Orr 1994, p.8). Considering that indigenous peoples managed to live for thousands of years without the benefits of modern education, it becomes obvious that the problem is not the content but what has been omitted in order to avoid the specific teaching and discussion of values and interrelated systems. At some point, concepts such as common decency, prudence, mindful thinking, loss of the cultural commons, and ecological wisdom need to be discussed. Education must be evaluated against a different yardstick than simply the amount of knowledge gained and tests passed with a standardized score. It is important to consider not simply education, but education of a certain kind.
The modern human disconnect with nature has been discussed throughout this text. The concepts of the triple bottom line, the quad stack, and the 3P model all emphasize that nature and the natural connection must be a primary concept in people's lives. However, people have developed a society and culture that increasingly sees nature as something apart from humans and something merely to be used as resources to serve human needs. While all people's needs come from nature, people must never lose sight of the many ecological systems that work to give them the life-giving planet they presently take for granted. A major step in reforming education must be to recognize the value of nature in people's lives from multiple levels.
Nature-Deficit Disorder
Children who spend more than 95 percent of their lives indoors are hard pressed to develop empathy and knowledge of natural environments even when those environments are right outside their own doors. They become detached from ecosystems and nature's services, they fail to see connections between abiotic (mineral world) and biotic (organic living world) components, and they are unlikely to develop systemic thinking skills. The term nature-deficit disorder was created to capture this disconnect between children and nature (Louv 2008). It is probable that already at least one but probably two generations of nature-deficient children have now become adults and carry the burdens of the deficit with them. This deficit manifests as many mental, psychological, and even physical problems, such as rising rates of childhood depression, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and rampant childhood obesity (Louv 2008).
Recognition of this problem in the United States has created enough concern to create a national legislative bill in congress called No Child Left Inside, whichwould create environmental education within classrooms. No Child Left Inside has three components (NCLI 2009):
- Fund the training of teachers in environmental education and operate model outdoor classroom programs.
- Give funding to each state that submits a complete environmental literacy plan, to ensure high school graduates are environmentally literate.
- Award grants at national, state, and local levels to build the capacity to expand environmental literacy.
The benefits for students would be to develop school programs that teach about systemic models of understanding about the world—sustainability edu-
cation. This sustainability education allows society to move from a set of symptomatic solutions of industrialization and globalization to a systemic focus of diversification, biological and sociocultural diversity, and an understanding of localized (community-level) economics. To live well in the future will require that people understand certain fundamentals about the world, such as the laws of thermodynamics; the basic principles of ecology; carrying capacity; energetic, basic, and steady-state economics; how to live well in a place; limits of technology; appropriate scale of development; sustainable agriculture and forestry; and environmental ethics; and much, much more.
It is now being well-established that being outside in nature creates formative experiences for children, and has immense benefits for adults as well. It is important for children to interact with nature for it influences their overall well-being as they grow up. Just a few of the many benefits that research has shown are that children who play outdoors regularly show more advanced motor skills; are fitter; have better coordination, balance, and agility; have better study abilities; are sick less often; and exhibit better social skills (White 2011).
Examples of bio-inspired solutions that are more efficient than current ones
Biomimicry derives its name from two Greek words: bios, meaning life, and mimesis, meaning imitation. As such it is about human systems mimicking life’s systems, or more generally, nature. Biomimicry is a term that explains innovation inspired by nature where engineers, who understand mechanics and dynamic flow systems of industrial processes, link with biologists, who understand the mechanics and dynamic flow characteristics of living processes.
Changing Your Thinking
Most modern environmental issues are frequently driven and fueled by emotional rhetoric. Environmental science and the integration of sustainability principles is based on science and is rational, yet relies on a transdisciplinary base since it involves natural sciences, social sciences, humanities, and arts to comprehend the big picture. Environmentalism and sustainability are very different. Environmental activism protects nature and people from the ravages of the human economy while sustainability works to redesign the economy itself.
The Nature of Scientific Thinking
Science is a process of asking questions about the universe and searching for answers through rational means. You can disprove a line of thinking, but you can never actually prove anything; you merely collect evidence based on other lines of similar thinking that your ideas hold true under certain parameters. As ideas become more flushed out, you gain more confidence that your conclusions are true within the parameters that you set. If you do this in a transparent environment where everyone can view and question your thinking, a discussion can ensue that allows a broader group of thinkers to agree or debate the validity of any information. Such is the process of science.
- Science research is logical and objective in order to validate the procedures employed, the data collected, and any conclusions reached. Personal feelings, conviction, and bias are considered and then eliminated in order to suppress bias and emotion in the analysis. No attempt is made to persuade or to prove an emotionally held conviction without valid data to confirm its potential
authenticity. - Scientists weigh the evidence, test or explore ideas, and explain observations in a rational manner.
- Scientists use the scientific method where appropriate (figure 1.1).
- Once data are found and analyzed, scientists write up their results and openly publish the findings. Then they participate in open discourse, revise their ideas or hypotheses, and practice theory building to explain phenomena.
- Peer review ensures that all findings are open for scrutiny and reevaluation by all people—usually scientists in the same field, but sometimes in general journals and other science publications. Good information passes through the knowledge filter while less valid or unreliable information is filtered out.
- Data found in experiments and scientific studies can only disprove hypotheses and predictions, yet can offer evidence that builds on theory formation (repeated and rigorous testing by many different research teams in many different ways to create a comprehensive and widely accepted explanation of one or more cause-effect observations). Therefore, there is no such thing as scientific proof, only best evidence that supports a scientific theory or a set of conclusions to support the development of a scientific theory.
- Research sometimes requires courage of conviction to pursue conclusions that may be unpopular and may bring social disapproval. Copernicus (1473-1543) was condemned by church authorities when he announced his conclusion concerning the nature of the solar system: His theory that the sun, not the Earth, was the center of the solar system was in direct conflict with prevailing religious dogma. Despite hundreds of years of scientific advancement, people are still prone to look at many systems in a dogmatic way, especially when it contradicts what they would like to believe.
Thinking Critically About Scientific Information
While scientists strive to be as unbiased as possible, one must never forget that they are human and subject to all the foibles of humanity. A scientist may experience many levels of pressure to either conform to peer and social expectations (e.g., if a scientist's compensation depends on finding results), or to push ideas they are convinced are correct despite little validated evidence to the contrary. Recognizing that scientists are human, it is pertinent to the educated layperson that sometimes all results should be questioned from a critical perspective to sift the valid results from the not-so-valid ones and to understand how the data may have been influenced by outside agencies with a vested interest in finding desired outcomes or ignoring specific findings.When you come across scientific evidence, think about it critically by asking these
questions:
- Who is the source of the information?
- Are the alleged facts placed in a context of accepted knowledge?
- Does the argument make sense?
- How was the information obtained?
- What kind of study was reported or used?
- Correlational research—Res
- earch where a logical connection is made between variables and extensive exploration or testing reveal patterns or trends of change. It is also called cause-inference research.
- Experimental research—Research in which all variables are controlled during a treatment so that any changes can be attributed to a specific variable that has been manipulated. It is also called cause-effect research.
- Were measurements and statistics used properly?
- Did you examine the big picture and avoid simplistic (i.e., not recognizing complexity in systems) and dualistic (i.e., thinking that everything is either one or the other, right or wrong) thinking?
These questions emphasize that when you understand how scientists work, you can determine the level of reliability of information derived from the scientific process. You do not need to either totally accept or deny what a scientist has found. Rather, you should remain mildly skeptical and understand the findings in context of the bigger picture in which the findings are couched. A scientist claims not proof, but rather evidence, in support of an idea or scientific theory. Scientists do not simply guess; they use educated analyses and either inductive or deductive reasoning to reach logical conclusions. Revolutions in science occur when someone gains a new crucial piece of evidence or sees something in a new way that was obscure before. Various levels of filtering occur through the scientific process (see figure 1.2). Unfortunately, scientific information most readily available to the lay public is usually the more sensational information that catches the attention of the media—generally from nearer the top of the knowledge filter. These sources, along with the Internet, are where most adults learn about new scientific discoveries. Because this information is often at the debating stage, it unfortunately gives the public the view that science is unsure about what it is finding.
Think critically about new information, past assumptions, and your own thought process
Most modern environmental issues are frequently driven and fueled by emotional rhetoric. Environmental science and the integration of sustainability principles is based on science and is rational, yet relies on a transdisciplinary base since it involves natural sciences, social sciences, humanities, and arts to comprehend the big picture.
Changing Your Thinking
Most modern environmental issues are frequently driven and fueled by emotional rhetoric. Environmental science and the integration of sustainability principles is based on science and is rational, yet relies on a transdisciplinary base since it involves natural sciences, social sciences, humanities, and arts to comprehend the big picture. Environmentalism and sustainability are very different. Environmental activism protects nature and people from the ravages of the human economy while sustainability works to redesign the economy itself.
The Nature of Scientific Thinking
Science is a process of asking questions about the universe and searching for answers through rational means. You can disprove a line of thinking, but you can never actually prove anything; you merely collect evidence based on other lines of similar thinking that your ideas hold true under certain parameters. As ideas become more flushed out, you gain more confidence that your conclusions are true within the parameters that you set. If you do this in a transparent environment where everyone can view and question your thinking, a discussion can ensue that allows a broader group of thinkers to agree or debate the validity of any information. Such is the process of science.
- Science research is logical and objective in order to validate the procedures employed, the data collected, and any conclusions reached. Personal feelings, conviction, and bias are considered and then eliminated in order to suppress bias and emotion in the analysis. No attempt is made to persuade or to prove an emotionally held conviction without valid data to confirm its potential
authenticity. - Scientists weigh the evidence, test or explore ideas, and explain observations in a rational manner.
- Scientists use the scientific method where appropriate (figure 1.1).
- Once data are found and analyzed, scientists write up their results and openly publish the findings. Then they participate in open discourse, revise their ideas or hypotheses, and practice theory building to explain phenomena.
- Peer review ensures that all findings are open for scrutiny and reevaluation by all people—usually scientists in the same field, but sometimes in general journals and other science publications. Good information passes through the knowledge filter while less valid or unreliable information is filtered out.
- Data found in experiments and scientific studies can only disprove hypotheses and predictions, yet can offer evidence that builds on theory formation (repeated and rigorous testing by many different research teams in many different ways to create a comprehensive and widely accepted explanation of one or more cause-effect observations). Therefore, there is no such thing as scientific proof, only best evidence that supports a scientific theory or a set of conclusions to support the development of a scientific theory.
- Research sometimes requires courage of conviction to pursue conclusions that may be unpopular and may bring social disapproval. Copernicus (1473-1543) was condemned by church authorities when he announced his conclusion concerning the nature of the solar system: His theory that the sun, not the Earth, was the center of the solar system was in direct conflict with prevailing religious dogma. Despite hundreds of years of scientific advancement, people are still prone to look at many systems in a dogmatic way, especially when it contradicts what they would like to believe.
Thinking Critically About Scientific Information
While scientists strive to be as unbiased as possible, one must never forget that they are human and subject to all the foibles of humanity. A scientist may experience many levels of pressure to either conform to peer and social expectations (e.g., if a scientist's compensation depends on finding results), or to push ideas they are convinced are correct despite little validated evidence to the contrary. Recognizing that scientists are human, it is pertinent to the educated layperson that sometimes all results should be questioned from a critical perspective to sift the valid results from the not-so-valid ones and to understand how the data may have been influenced by outside agencies with a vested interest in finding desired outcomes or ignoring specific findings.When you come across scientific evidence, think about it critically by asking these
questions:
- Who is the source of the information?
- Are the alleged facts placed in a context of accepted knowledge?
- Does the argument make sense?
- How was the information obtained?
- What kind of study was reported or used?
- Correlational research—Res
- earch where a logical connection is made between variables and extensive exploration or testing reveal patterns or trends of change. It is also called cause-inference research.
- Experimental research—Research in which all variables are controlled during a treatment so that any changes can be attributed to a specific variable that has been manipulated. It is also called cause-effect research.
- Were measurements and statistics used properly?
- Did you examine the big picture and avoid simplistic (i.e., not recognizing complexity in systems) and dualistic (i.e., thinking that everything is either one or the other, right or wrong) thinking?
These questions emphasize that when you understand how scientists work, you can determine the level of reliability of information derived from the scientific process. You do not need to either totally accept or deny what a scientist has found. Rather, you should remain mildly skeptical and understand the findings in context of the bigger picture in which the findings are couched. A scientist claims not proof, but rather evidence, in support of an idea or scientific theory. Scientists do not simply guess; they use educated analyses and either inductive or deductive reasoning to reach logical conclusions. Revolutions in science occur when someone gains a new crucial piece of evidence or sees something in a new way that was obscure before. Various levels of filtering occur through the scientific process (see figure 1.2). Unfortunately, scientific information most readily available to the lay public is usually the more sensational information that catches the attention of the media—generally from nearer the top of the knowledge filter. These sources, along with the Internet, are where most adults learn about new scientific discoveries. Because this information is often at the debating stage, it unfortunately gives the public the view that science is unsure about what it is finding.
Working together to reform education
Several aspects must be considered in education reform. One such aspect is whether the education leads to better citizens.
Reforming Education
Several aspects must be considered in education reform. One such aspect is whether the education leads to better citizens. It should mean that all people have a better understanding of why nature needs to be considered as a central part of their thinking and education. People must understand and comprehend resource flows such as food, energy, water, materials, and waste at different ecosystem levels from small and local to global. Academic institutions must promote a holistic transdisciplinary view of the world in which people, planet, and profit are interconnected with an expanding view of interrelated tiered systems.
As a student, you have the power to request and expect change. The academic institution is there to serve you, not vice-versa. You can ask your institution to establish a self-evaluative structure for an ongoing study of internal processes and their education as it relates to the rest of society including contributions, responsibilities, and even how academic freedom is exercised. Higher education institutions with research programs should establish a department for the study of the social and global crises from a transdisciplinary perspective. This department would encourage the reordering of research within individual disciplines to create interactive and transdisciplinary research interest groups. It would heighten awareness for how ecological and sociocultural relationships do not really have defined disciplinary boundaries. To counter the hegemony of simple gross domestic product being used in measuring economic progress, it is necessary to include education about using more measures that point to social and ecological indicators as of equal or even greater importance than they are currently given.
This is not to say that current academic systems teach us badly, but that the context and framework about what is taught are misplaced because of the assumptions of an antiquated business-as-usual model. At stake are many things on which your future health and well-being depend—systems such as climate stability, the resilience and productivity of natural systems, the beauty of the natural world, and biological diversity, to name but a few of the major issues facing the world today. The Holocaust during World War II is said to have been carried out by one of the most educated populations on the planet that had the philosophies of enlightened philosophers like Kant and Goethe to guide them. The problem with the education that allowed such barbarism was that “[their education] emphasized theories instead of values, concepts rather than human beings, abstraction rather than consciousness, answers instead of questions, ideology and efficiency rather than conscience” (Wiesel, as quoted in Orr 1994, p.8). Considering that indigenous peoples managed to live for thousands of years without the benefits of modern education, it becomes obvious that the problem is not the content but what has been omitted in order to avoid the specific teaching and discussion of values and interrelated systems. At some point, concepts such as common decency, prudence, mindful thinking, loss of the cultural commons, and ecological wisdom need to be discussed. Education must be evaluated against a different yardstick than simply the amount of knowledge gained and tests passed with a standardized score. It is important to consider not simply education, but education of a certain kind.
The modern human disconnect with nature has been discussed throughout this text. The concepts of the triple bottom line, the quad stack, and the 3P model all emphasize that nature and the natural connection must be a primary concept in people's lives. However, people have developed a society and culture that increasingly sees nature as something apart from humans and something merely to be used as resources to serve human needs. While all people's needs come from nature, people must never lose sight of the many ecological systems that work to give them the life-giving planet they presently take for granted. A major step in reforming education must be to recognize the value of nature in people's lives from multiple levels.
Nature-Deficit Disorder
Children who spend more than 95 percent of their lives indoors are hard pressed to develop empathy and knowledge of natural environments even when those environments are right outside their own doors. They become detached from ecosystems and nature's services, they fail to see connections between abiotic (mineral world) and biotic (organic living world) components, and they are unlikely to develop systemic thinking skills. The term nature-deficit disorder was created to capture this disconnect between children and nature (Louv 2008). It is probable that already at least one but probably two generations of nature-deficient children have now become adults and carry the burdens of the deficit with them. This deficit manifests as many mental, psychological, and even physical problems, such as rising rates of childhood depression, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and rampant childhood obesity (Louv 2008).
Recognition of this problem in the United States has created enough concern to create a national legislative bill in congress called No Child Left Inside, whichwould create environmental education within classrooms. No Child Left Inside has three components (NCLI 2009):
- Fund the training of teachers in environmental education and operate model outdoor classroom programs.
- Give funding to each state that submits a complete environmental literacy plan, to ensure high school graduates are environmentally literate.
- Award grants at national, state, and local levels to build the capacity to expand environmental literacy.
The benefits for students would be to develop school programs that teach about systemic models of understanding about the world—sustainability edu-
cation. This sustainability education allows society to move from a set of symptomatic solutions of industrialization and globalization to a systemic focus of diversification, biological and sociocultural diversity, and an understanding of localized (community-level) economics. To live well in the future will require that people understand certain fundamentals about the world, such as the laws of thermodynamics; the basic principles of ecology; carrying capacity; energetic, basic, and steady-state economics; how to live well in a place; limits of technology; appropriate scale of development; sustainable agriculture and forestry; and environmental ethics; and much, much more.
It is now being well-established that being outside in nature creates formative experiences for children, and has immense benefits for adults as well. It is important for children to interact with nature for it influences their overall well-being as they grow up. Just a few of the many benefits that research has shown are that children who play outdoors regularly show more advanced motor skills; are fitter; have better coordination, balance, and agility; have better study abilities; are sick less often; and exhibit better social skills (White 2011).
Examples of bio-inspired solutions that are more efficient than current ones
Biomimicry derives its name from two Greek words: bios, meaning life, and mimesis, meaning imitation. As such it is about human systems mimicking life’s systems, or more generally, nature. Biomimicry is a term that explains innovation inspired by nature where engineers, who understand mechanics and dynamic flow systems of industrial processes, link with biologists, who understand the mechanics and dynamic flow characteristics of living processes.
Changing Your Thinking
Most modern environmental issues are frequently driven and fueled by emotional rhetoric. Environmental science and the integration of sustainability principles is based on science and is rational, yet relies on a transdisciplinary base since it involves natural sciences, social sciences, humanities, and arts to comprehend the big picture. Environmentalism and sustainability are very different. Environmental activism protects nature and people from the ravages of the human economy while sustainability works to redesign the economy itself.
The Nature of Scientific Thinking
Science is a process of asking questions about the universe and searching for answers through rational means. You can disprove a line of thinking, but you can never actually prove anything; you merely collect evidence based on other lines of similar thinking that your ideas hold true under certain parameters. As ideas become more flushed out, you gain more confidence that your conclusions are true within the parameters that you set. If you do this in a transparent environment where everyone can view and question your thinking, a discussion can ensue that allows a broader group of thinkers to agree or debate the validity of any information. Such is the process of science.
- Science research is logical and objective in order to validate the procedures employed, the data collected, and any conclusions reached. Personal feelings, conviction, and bias are considered and then eliminated in order to suppress bias and emotion in the analysis. No attempt is made to persuade or to prove an emotionally held conviction without valid data to confirm its potential
authenticity. - Scientists weigh the evidence, test or explore ideas, and explain observations in a rational manner.
- Scientists use the scientific method where appropriate (figure 1.1).
- Once data are found and analyzed, scientists write up their results and openly publish the findings. Then they participate in open discourse, revise their ideas or hypotheses, and practice theory building to explain phenomena.
- Peer review ensures that all findings are open for scrutiny and reevaluation by all people—usually scientists in the same field, but sometimes in general journals and other science publications. Good information passes through the knowledge filter while less valid or unreliable information is filtered out.
- Data found in experiments and scientific studies can only disprove hypotheses and predictions, yet can offer evidence that builds on theory formation (repeated and rigorous testing by many different research teams in many different ways to create a comprehensive and widely accepted explanation of one or more cause-effect observations). Therefore, there is no such thing as scientific proof, only best evidence that supports a scientific theory or a set of conclusions to support the development of a scientific theory.
- Research sometimes requires courage of conviction to pursue conclusions that may be unpopular and may bring social disapproval. Copernicus (1473-1543) was condemned by church authorities when he announced his conclusion concerning the nature of the solar system: His theory that the sun, not the Earth, was the center of the solar system was in direct conflict with prevailing religious dogma. Despite hundreds of years of scientific advancement, people are still prone to look at many systems in a dogmatic way, especially when it contradicts what they would like to believe.
Thinking Critically About Scientific Information
While scientists strive to be as unbiased as possible, one must never forget that they are human and subject to all the foibles of humanity. A scientist may experience many levels of pressure to either conform to peer and social expectations (e.g., if a scientist's compensation depends on finding results), or to push ideas they are convinced are correct despite little validated evidence to the contrary. Recognizing that scientists are human, it is pertinent to the educated layperson that sometimes all results should be questioned from a critical perspective to sift the valid results from the not-so-valid ones and to understand how the data may have been influenced by outside agencies with a vested interest in finding desired outcomes or ignoring specific findings.When you come across scientific evidence, think about it critically by asking these
questions:
- Who is the source of the information?
- Are the alleged facts placed in a context of accepted knowledge?
- Does the argument make sense?
- How was the information obtained?
- What kind of study was reported or used?
- Correlational research—Res
- earch where a logical connection is made between variables and extensive exploration or testing reveal patterns or trends of change. It is also called cause-inference research.
- Experimental research—Research in which all variables are controlled during a treatment so that any changes can be attributed to a specific variable that has been manipulated. It is also called cause-effect research.
- Were measurements and statistics used properly?
- Did you examine the big picture and avoid simplistic (i.e., not recognizing complexity in systems) and dualistic (i.e., thinking that everything is either one or the other, right or wrong) thinking?
These questions emphasize that when you understand how scientists work, you can determine the level of reliability of information derived from the scientific process. You do not need to either totally accept or deny what a scientist has found. Rather, you should remain mildly skeptical and understand the findings in context of the bigger picture in which the findings are couched. A scientist claims not proof, but rather evidence, in support of an idea or scientific theory. Scientists do not simply guess; they use educated analyses and either inductive or deductive reasoning to reach logical conclusions. Revolutions in science occur when someone gains a new crucial piece of evidence or sees something in a new way that was obscure before. Various levels of filtering occur through the scientific process (see figure 1.2). Unfortunately, scientific information most readily available to the lay public is usually the more sensational information that catches the attention of the media—generally from nearer the top of the knowledge filter. These sources, along with the Internet, are where most adults learn about new scientific discoveries. Because this information is often at the debating stage, it unfortunately gives the public the view that science is unsure about what it is finding.
Think critically about new information, past assumptions, and your own thought process
Most modern environmental issues are frequently driven and fueled by emotional rhetoric. Environmental science and the integration of sustainability principles is based on science and is rational, yet relies on a transdisciplinary base since it involves natural sciences, social sciences, humanities, and arts to comprehend the big picture.
Changing Your Thinking
Most modern environmental issues are frequently driven and fueled by emotional rhetoric. Environmental science and the integration of sustainability principles is based on science and is rational, yet relies on a transdisciplinary base since it involves natural sciences, social sciences, humanities, and arts to comprehend the big picture. Environmentalism and sustainability are very different. Environmental activism protects nature and people from the ravages of the human economy while sustainability works to redesign the economy itself.
The Nature of Scientific Thinking
Science is a process of asking questions about the universe and searching for answers through rational means. You can disprove a line of thinking, but you can never actually prove anything; you merely collect evidence based on other lines of similar thinking that your ideas hold true under certain parameters. As ideas become more flushed out, you gain more confidence that your conclusions are true within the parameters that you set. If you do this in a transparent environment where everyone can view and question your thinking, a discussion can ensue that allows a broader group of thinkers to agree or debate the validity of any information. Such is the process of science.
- Science research is logical and objective in order to validate the procedures employed, the data collected, and any conclusions reached. Personal feelings, conviction, and bias are considered and then eliminated in order to suppress bias and emotion in the analysis. No attempt is made to persuade or to prove an emotionally held conviction without valid data to confirm its potential
authenticity. - Scientists weigh the evidence, test or explore ideas, and explain observations in a rational manner.
- Scientists use the scientific method where appropriate (figure 1.1).
- Once data are found and analyzed, scientists write up their results and openly publish the findings. Then they participate in open discourse, revise their ideas or hypotheses, and practice theory building to explain phenomena.
- Peer review ensures that all findings are open for scrutiny and reevaluation by all people—usually scientists in the same field, but sometimes in general journals and other science publications. Good information passes through the knowledge filter while less valid or unreliable information is filtered out.
- Data found in experiments and scientific studies can only disprove hypotheses and predictions, yet can offer evidence that builds on theory formation (repeated and rigorous testing by many different research teams in many different ways to create a comprehensive and widely accepted explanation of one or more cause-effect observations). Therefore, there is no such thing as scientific proof, only best evidence that supports a scientific theory or a set of conclusions to support the development of a scientific theory.
- Research sometimes requires courage of conviction to pursue conclusions that may be unpopular and may bring social disapproval. Copernicus (1473-1543) was condemned by church authorities when he announced his conclusion concerning the nature of the solar system: His theory that the sun, not the Earth, was the center of the solar system was in direct conflict with prevailing religious dogma. Despite hundreds of years of scientific advancement, people are still prone to look at many systems in a dogmatic way, especially when it contradicts what they would like to believe.
Thinking Critically About Scientific Information
While scientists strive to be as unbiased as possible, one must never forget that they are human and subject to all the foibles of humanity. A scientist may experience many levels of pressure to either conform to peer and social expectations (e.g., if a scientist's compensation depends on finding results), or to push ideas they are convinced are correct despite little validated evidence to the contrary. Recognizing that scientists are human, it is pertinent to the educated layperson that sometimes all results should be questioned from a critical perspective to sift the valid results from the not-so-valid ones and to understand how the data may have been influenced by outside agencies with a vested interest in finding desired outcomes or ignoring specific findings.When you come across scientific evidence, think about it critically by asking these
questions:
- Who is the source of the information?
- Are the alleged facts placed in a context of accepted knowledge?
- Does the argument make sense?
- How was the information obtained?
- What kind of study was reported or used?
- Correlational research—Res
- earch where a logical connection is made between variables and extensive exploration or testing reveal patterns or trends of change. It is also called cause-inference research.
- Experimental research—Research in which all variables are controlled during a treatment so that any changes can be attributed to a specific variable that has been manipulated. It is also called cause-effect research.
- Were measurements and statistics used properly?
- Did you examine the big picture and avoid simplistic (i.e., not recognizing complexity in systems) and dualistic (i.e., thinking that everything is either one or the other, right or wrong) thinking?
These questions emphasize that when you understand how scientists work, you can determine the level of reliability of information derived from the scientific process. You do not need to either totally accept or deny what a scientist has found. Rather, you should remain mildly skeptical and understand the findings in context of the bigger picture in which the findings are couched. A scientist claims not proof, but rather evidence, in support of an idea or scientific theory. Scientists do not simply guess; they use educated analyses and either inductive or deductive reasoning to reach logical conclusions. Revolutions in science occur when someone gains a new crucial piece of evidence or sees something in a new way that was obscure before. Various levels of filtering occur through the scientific process (see figure 1.2). Unfortunately, scientific information most readily available to the lay public is usually the more sensational information that catches the attention of the media—generally from nearer the top of the knowledge filter. These sources, along with the Internet, are where most adults learn about new scientific discoveries. Because this information is often at the debating stage, it unfortunately gives the public the view that science is unsure about what it is finding.
Working together to reform education
Several aspects must be considered in education reform. One such aspect is whether the education leads to better citizens.
Reforming Education
Several aspects must be considered in education reform. One such aspect is whether the education leads to better citizens. It should mean that all people have a better understanding of why nature needs to be considered as a central part of their thinking and education. People must understand and comprehend resource flows such as food, energy, water, materials, and waste at different ecosystem levels from small and local to global. Academic institutions must promote a holistic transdisciplinary view of the world in which people, planet, and profit are interconnected with an expanding view of interrelated tiered systems.
As a student, you have the power to request and expect change. The academic institution is there to serve you, not vice-versa. You can ask your institution to establish a self-evaluative structure for an ongoing study of internal processes and their education as it relates to the rest of society including contributions, responsibilities, and even how academic freedom is exercised. Higher education institutions with research programs should establish a department for the study of the social and global crises from a transdisciplinary perspective. This department would encourage the reordering of research within individual disciplines to create interactive and transdisciplinary research interest groups. It would heighten awareness for how ecological and sociocultural relationships do not really have defined disciplinary boundaries. To counter the hegemony of simple gross domestic product being used in measuring economic progress, it is necessary to include education about using more measures that point to social and ecological indicators as of equal or even greater importance than they are currently given.
This is not to say that current academic systems teach us badly, but that the context and framework about what is taught are misplaced because of the assumptions of an antiquated business-as-usual model. At stake are many things on which your future health and well-being depend—systems such as climate stability, the resilience and productivity of natural systems, the beauty of the natural world, and biological diversity, to name but a few of the major issues facing the world today. The Holocaust during World War II is said to have been carried out by one of the most educated populations on the planet that had the philosophies of enlightened philosophers like Kant and Goethe to guide them. The problem with the education that allowed such barbarism was that “[their education] emphasized theories instead of values, concepts rather than human beings, abstraction rather than consciousness, answers instead of questions, ideology and efficiency rather than conscience” (Wiesel, as quoted in Orr 1994, p.8). Considering that indigenous peoples managed to live for thousands of years without the benefits of modern education, it becomes obvious that the problem is not the content but what has been omitted in order to avoid the specific teaching and discussion of values and interrelated systems. At some point, concepts such as common decency, prudence, mindful thinking, loss of the cultural commons, and ecological wisdom need to be discussed. Education must be evaluated against a different yardstick than simply the amount of knowledge gained and tests passed with a standardized score. It is important to consider not simply education, but education of a certain kind.
The modern human disconnect with nature has been discussed throughout this text. The concepts of the triple bottom line, the quad stack, and the 3P model all emphasize that nature and the natural connection must be a primary concept in people's lives. However, people have developed a society and culture that increasingly sees nature as something apart from humans and something merely to be used as resources to serve human needs. While all people's needs come from nature, people must never lose sight of the many ecological systems that work to give them the life-giving planet they presently take for granted. A major step in reforming education must be to recognize the value of nature in people's lives from multiple levels.
Nature-Deficit Disorder
Children who spend more than 95 percent of their lives indoors are hard pressed to develop empathy and knowledge of natural environments even when those environments are right outside their own doors. They become detached from ecosystems and nature's services, they fail to see connections between abiotic (mineral world) and biotic (organic living world) components, and they are unlikely to develop systemic thinking skills. The term nature-deficit disorder was created to capture this disconnect between children and nature (Louv 2008). It is probable that already at least one but probably two generations of nature-deficient children have now become adults and carry the burdens of the deficit with them. This deficit manifests as many mental, psychological, and even physical problems, such as rising rates of childhood depression, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and rampant childhood obesity (Louv 2008).
Recognition of this problem in the United States has created enough concern to create a national legislative bill in congress called No Child Left Inside, whichwould create environmental education within classrooms. No Child Left Inside has three components (NCLI 2009):
- Fund the training of teachers in environmental education and operate model outdoor classroom programs.
- Give funding to each state that submits a complete environmental literacy plan, to ensure high school graduates are environmentally literate.
- Award grants at national, state, and local levels to build the capacity to expand environmental literacy.
The benefits for students would be to develop school programs that teach about systemic models of understanding about the world—sustainability edu-
cation. This sustainability education allows society to move from a set of symptomatic solutions of industrialization and globalization to a systemic focus of diversification, biological and sociocultural diversity, and an understanding of localized (community-level) economics. To live well in the future will require that people understand certain fundamentals about the world, such as the laws of thermodynamics; the basic principles of ecology; carrying capacity; energetic, basic, and steady-state economics; how to live well in a place; limits of technology; appropriate scale of development; sustainable agriculture and forestry; and environmental ethics; and much, much more.
It is now being well-established that being outside in nature creates formative experiences for children, and has immense benefits for adults as well. It is important for children to interact with nature for it influences their overall well-being as they grow up. Just a few of the many benefits that research has shown are that children who play outdoors regularly show more advanced motor skills; are fitter; have better coordination, balance, and agility; have better study abilities; are sick less often; and exhibit better social skills (White 2011).
Examples of bio-inspired solutions that are more efficient than current ones
Biomimicry derives its name from two Greek words: bios, meaning life, and mimesis, meaning imitation. As such it is about human systems mimicking life’s systems, or more generally, nature. Biomimicry is a term that explains innovation inspired by nature where engineers, who understand mechanics and dynamic flow systems of industrial processes, link with biologists, who understand the mechanics and dynamic flow characteristics of living processes.
Changing Your Thinking
Most modern environmental issues are frequently driven and fueled by emotional rhetoric. Environmental science and the integration of sustainability principles is based on science and is rational, yet relies on a transdisciplinary base since it involves natural sciences, social sciences, humanities, and arts to comprehend the big picture. Environmentalism and sustainability are very different. Environmental activism protects nature and people from the ravages of the human economy while sustainability works to redesign the economy itself.
The Nature of Scientific Thinking
Science is a process of asking questions about the universe and searching for answers through rational means. You can disprove a line of thinking, but you can never actually prove anything; you merely collect evidence based on other lines of similar thinking that your ideas hold true under certain parameters. As ideas become more flushed out, you gain more confidence that your conclusions are true within the parameters that you set. If you do this in a transparent environment where everyone can view and question your thinking, a discussion can ensue that allows a broader group of thinkers to agree or debate the validity of any information. Such is the process of science.
- Science research is logical and objective in order to validate the procedures employed, the data collected, and any conclusions reached. Personal feelings, conviction, and bias are considered and then eliminated in order to suppress bias and emotion in the analysis. No attempt is made to persuade or to prove an emotionally held conviction without valid data to confirm its potential
authenticity. - Scientists weigh the evidence, test or explore ideas, and explain observations in a rational manner.
- Scientists use the scientific method where appropriate (figure 1.1).
- Once data are found and analyzed, scientists write up their results and openly publish the findings. Then they participate in open discourse, revise their ideas or hypotheses, and practice theory building to explain phenomena.
- Peer review ensures that all findings are open for scrutiny and reevaluation by all people—usually scientists in the same field, but sometimes in general journals and other science publications. Good information passes through the knowledge filter while less valid or unreliable information is filtered out.
- Data found in experiments and scientific studies can only disprove hypotheses and predictions, yet can offer evidence that builds on theory formation (repeated and rigorous testing by many different research teams in many different ways to create a comprehensive and widely accepted explanation of one or more cause-effect observations). Therefore, there is no such thing as scientific proof, only best evidence that supports a scientific theory or a set of conclusions to support the development of a scientific theory.
- Research sometimes requires courage of conviction to pursue conclusions that may be unpopular and may bring social disapproval. Copernicus (1473-1543) was condemned by church authorities when he announced his conclusion concerning the nature of the solar system: His theory that the sun, not the Earth, was the center of the solar system was in direct conflict with prevailing religious dogma. Despite hundreds of years of scientific advancement, people are still prone to look at many systems in a dogmatic way, especially when it contradicts what they would like to believe.
Thinking Critically About Scientific Information
While scientists strive to be as unbiased as possible, one must never forget that they are human and subject to all the foibles of humanity. A scientist may experience many levels of pressure to either conform to peer and social expectations (e.g., if a scientist's compensation depends on finding results), or to push ideas they are convinced are correct despite little validated evidence to the contrary. Recognizing that scientists are human, it is pertinent to the educated layperson that sometimes all results should be questioned from a critical perspective to sift the valid results from the not-so-valid ones and to understand how the data may have been influenced by outside agencies with a vested interest in finding desired outcomes or ignoring specific findings.When you come across scientific evidence, think about it critically by asking these
questions:
- Who is the source of the information?
- Are the alleged facts placed in a context of accepted knowledge?
- Does the argument make sense?
- How was the information obtained?
- What kind of study was reported or used?
- Correlational research—Res
- earch where a logical connection is made between variables and extensive exploration or testing reveal patterns or trends of change. It is also called cause-inference research.
- Experimental research—Research in which all variables are controlled during a treatment so that any changes can be attributed to a specific variable that has been manipulated. It is also called cause-effect research.
- Were measurements and statistics used properly?
- Did you examine the big picture and avoid simplistic (i.e., not recognizing complexity in systems) and dualistic (i.e., thinking that everything is either one or the other, right or wrong) thinking?
These questions emphasize that when you understand how scientists work, you can determine the level of reliability of information derived from the scientific process. You do not need to either totally accept or deny what a scientist has found. Rather, you should remain mildly skeptical and understand the findings in context of the bigger picture in which the findings are couched. A scientist claims not proof, but rather evidence, in support of an idea or scientific theory. Scientists do not simply guess; they use educated analyses and either inductive or deductive reasoning to reach logical conclusions. Revolutions in science occur when someone gains a new crucial piece of evidence or sees something in a new way that was obscure before. Various levels of filtering occur through the scientific process (see figure 1.2). Unfortunately, scientific information most readily available to the lay public is usually the more sensational information that catches the attention of the media—generally from nearer the top of the knowledge filter. These sources, along with the Internet, are where most adults learn about new scientific discoveries. Because this information is often at the debating stage, it unfortunately gives the public the view that science is unsure about what it is finding.