The Caring Curiosity of (our) Nature

Growing Confidence with Loving Understanding

The very first step of all my service-centered art (learn more about it here) is growing understanding for that which I serve. That being said, the process of understanding nature turns out to be complex as it can be riddled by biases, projections, and flat-out missing pieces.

Enter the Scientific Method.

The Scientific Method has been developed to help us grow our understanding in ways that safeguard against our biases. This growing understanding is foundational to the heart that seeks to serve with ever-growing confidence and empowerment.

Have you ever done something that you thought was loving for someone only to find that their feelings got hurt by it? Have you ever tried to make something special for someone only to have it cause more problems? Without understanding, my most sincere efforts are liable to flop, and when they do, I’m liable to lose a little bit of trust in my heart; indeed, it can be hard to trust myself when my impact doesn’t hit my aim -nothing is more disheartening that the times when my good deeds backfire.

Thankfully, that’s what the Scientific Method is here to help as a very practical ally to the aim of my heart: to help our world thrive in peace. I build trust in my heart as I become more confident in my service to the world around me.

That being said, the learning process is bound to include plenty of misses, which is why, along the way, it helps to carry forgiveness. Indeed, scientists are the first to admit that they don’t always hit the bullseye.  In fact, it’s an important part of the process to question ourselves, backtrack, and go at it again!

With that in mind, seeking to understand is a tremendous first step to service-centered art. Have you ever received the medicine of being understood? Have you experienced the full-heart-melt of someone finally “getting” the parts of you that you thought were doomed to be forever misread? Though flawed (like all of us), this kind of caring understanding is at the heart of the scientific method, and therefore, to my practice of service-centered art and creative reflection.

So let’s look at how the scientific method helps me to care for the Earth and create meaningful metaphors by growing my understanding of the natural world.

The Construction of Understanding

My understanding of the world around me has come from two primary places:

Firstly, there’s understanding that is rooted in other people’s experiences. This includes cultural influences, religious influences, formal education and media experiences.

Secondly, I construct understanding based on my direct experience. That being said, even as I consider myself a bonafide nature-nerd, most of my understanding of the natural world has not come through my direct experience (though I’m working on it). This lack of direct experience is caused firstly by decreased to access to interaction with the natural world, primarily due to: urbanization, technological advances and a decrease in our direct connection to food production

However, even if I lived in direct contact with the natural world every day for the rest of my life, I could never gather enough direct experience to understand all of it. It takes time and patience to get to know the elements of nature, and there are many of them! From biology to ecology, chemistry to psychology, social science to astronomy, the understanding of life as a whole is a collective effort that requires us, to some degree, to put our trust in other people’s discoveries. That being said, relying on others’ for truth is a vulnerability that has never been more obvious than within the age of the internet (in which questions of truth and authority have never been more pertinent).

All things considered, in my quest to understand Earth, it has been essential for me to better understand the basics of science, including its limitations and gifts.

The Wonder of Science

At its heart, science is a method of inquiry that helps us to understand the world around us through a methodical process of wonder, experimentation and observation.  That being said, even science asserts that all constructions of truth are susceptible to bias, and/or a lack of essential information. Though science does present laws, facts and theories (that have been tested and proven to the greatest possible extent), the heart of science acknowledges that there is always the possibility of new discoveries that alter our understanding. In short, science is an approach to life that maintains open-mindedness and wonder at all times. Here’s its basic steps:

Steps for the Scientific Method of Inquiry

1. Observe: Notice interesting stuff that’s happening.

2. Hypothesize: Wonder about it and make an educated guess about what’s going on.

3. Experiment: Do an experiment or collect systematic observations to either support or not support your hypothesis.

4. Analyze: Process your results and form a conclusion.

5. Review: Have your peers review your work to check for any weakness.

Science’s Great Dedication to Humility

Within the scientific process, there’s potential for bias at every step¹. That being said, I gratefully applaud science’s humble awareness of its own vulnerability to bias. In fact, to a large extent, central to the purpose of science is questioning itself. With that in mind,

Here’s how bias can sneak into the scientific understanding of nature:

At the initial observation level, there can be a “bias of focus” that impacts what we choose to spend time observing (and what we tend to ignore). This is most obvious in the way that studies are funded or not. For example, there tends to be a bias towards funding studies of cute and quirky animals that are easy for humans to relate to² (cuz we’re all so darn adorable). Of course, not all animals are as charming as the baby hedgehog or flamboyant peacock, but that doesn’t mean they’re less worthy of understanding. Indeed, as everything in nature is interrelated, disregarding the point of view of an ordinarily slimy slug can throw our whole perspective off.

There can also be a bias with regards to the geographical regions that are studied³, with some areas being more funded for research than others, to the extent that “wealthy countries have seven times more observations per hectare than upper middle, lower middle, and low-income countries.⁴” This bias of focus can have an impact on our perspective of nature as the exclusion of any information taints our view of the whole in any context.

At the hypothesis level, guesses are generally influenced by what’s already known, which is both a gift and a hindrance. While a good hypothesis is one that is based on understanding current scientific research⁵, if we’re too bound by existing research, we may not have the open-mind that’s needed to grow our understanding. This can lead to research that is influenced by what’s called “confirmation bias” where we might conduct research that’s subconsciously designed to confirm pre-existing beliefs or biases⁶. This can influence the way experiments are constructed, making them lead towards an expected outcome. Imagine, as a somewhat ridiculous fictitious example, that you’re a big dog lover (who doesn’t care much for cats). So, you create a hypothesis that dogs are more caring than cats by doing an experiment that only compares their tendency to offer kisses (sorry kitties -your cuddles don’t count).

At the experiment or observation level, our bias can also influence the way that we perceive in our observations (often to confirm what we want to expect to see). This is referred to as “observational bias⁷” Imagine (as, again, a silly fictitious example), doing an experiment to test the hypothesis that sloths are prone to depression. Then, when you observe their slow movements, you use that as proof that their recent divorce has sent them spiraling into the dark void of motivation gone missing (rather than considering how other factors, like their food source and environment might play into their unhurried speed).

At the analysis level, we can have a bias towards interpreting our findings in ways that support our hypothesis. As a final absurdly fictitious example, imagine that you did an experiment to test the hypothesis that squirrels are super sneaky. So, to support your idea, you use the number of times that they run away from a big sound as proof that they’re definitely up to somethin’.

At the sharing level, there can be a bias in what we share, encouraging us to share findings where our hypothesis is correct and discouraging us from sharing findings that don’t support our hypothesis.

Of course, the examples I have provided here are purposefully unrealistic because it’s easier to illustrate them in the extreme -indeed, no serious scientist would ever be fooled by such obvious biases. That being said, it’s not always that obvious, and it’s a common blind-spot to think that others are more prone to bias than we are ourselves⁸. All that being said, science has humbly set up a lot of safeguards such as: making research replicable, doing blind observations, and having peer-reviews not only after conducting the research, but in the process of designing the experiment as well.

That being said, the study of animals, specifically, can present some unique challenges that come from technical difficulties in constructing experiments that produce accurate results. This is especially true with wild animals who can be difficult to observe in replicable or ethical ways within their natural habitat. Though the field of wildlife biology has earnestly and carefully sought to address these concerns on the ethical level through what’s called the "Three Rs: Replacement, Refinement, and Reduction⁹” it can still be tough to get meaningful research of wild animals in the wild.

However, studying the behaviors of animals within captivity also presents its own challenges. Indeed, the conditions of captivity tend not to elicit behaviors that reflect the nature of animals in their wild context¹⁰. This doesn’t mean that valuable understanding can’t be created in curated contexts, but that it’s important to consider that what’s happening in the wild might be a whole other ballpark.

Furthermore, animals often have senses that humans don’t. For example, sharks are extra sensitive to electrical currents, snakes can sense heat sources more powerfully than any other, and who knows what other perceptions animals have that we haven’t even discovered yet! Without being able to perceive the world through the animal’s senses, it’s hard to know if our interpretations of their behaviors are accurate¹¹. (Shoot -I’m still learning to understand how my own strange senses impact my sometimes puzzling behavior.)

Nevertheless, there’s important information that is discovered all the time within the field. Plus, wildlife scientists are doing everything they can to find increasingly accurate information given the difficulties in the field¹².

That being said, it’s important to keep in mind how biases can impact not only on how I look at the natural world, but also how I view myself, and reality in general. Consider, for example, the finding of one study that noticed that the field of ecology tends to have a bias towards views of nature that emphasize competition and predation over cooperation or mutualism¹³. This, of course, doesn’t mean that competition and predation aren’t important parts of nature, but if that’s all I see, then I might come to believe that life is a purely competitive place, and that (therefore) cooperation amongst humans is an unrealistic dream.

(Our) Nature in the Media

Now let’s look at how the media has influenced my understanding of and relationship to nature. Ideally, scientific discoveries serve as the foundation of media depictions. That being said, even when the media is rooted in science, it can carry its own biases. For example, news reports might use emotionally charged terms to grab attention¹⁴. They might also report discoveries that are taken outside of the context of the broader scientific understanding and exploration on the topic.

And then there’s nature documentaries. I have always been a big fan of programs like Planet Earth, and some of my favorite memories with my grandma are of watching the National Geographic station together. We’re not alone in loving nature documentaries as they have been shown to serve an increasingly valuable role in efforts to care for the environment¹⁵.

That being said, nature documentaries (like all of us) can have biases that are important to recognize when they show up, not as a way of disregarding them, but as a way of keeping ourselves open-minded. Here’s some of the ways that nature documentaries might be colored by the inherent pressures that come with the production of entertainment:

Firstly, nature documentarians run into the same challenges that scientists face when it comes to observing the wild in the wild: it’s hard. It’s unpredictable. It doesn’t perform on demand. Though technological advances have greatly helped documentarians (and scientists) to observe and capture real footage, here are some of the technical difficulties and their work-arounds:

Firstly, it’s hard to capture wild content without interfering with or even harming the subject. With that in mind, sometimes nature documentaries will use footage of animals in captivity instead. Some would assert that if the footage isn’t taken from the wild, then it’s not an accurate depiction. However, some would argue that as long as that footage is used in a way that does accurately depict the animals in the wild, then the tech-trick is inconsequential to the understanding that it’s promoting¹⁶.

Secondly, as nature is an interconnected reality that evolves over time, in order to understand any one part, it’s important to understand both its context and history. But it’s hard to capture the whole picture over time, or within the entire interrelated web of relationships. So, sometimes filmmakers will splice together footage from different times (or even places) to create the story.¹⁷ However, here is where bias can sneak in through the demands of the entertainment industry to create an emotionally compelling storyline. Critics of nature documentaries voice concern that pressures to create storylines that humans can relate to might result in inaccurate understandings for viewers¹⁸, and that could affect perspectives of and/or relationship to nature itself¹⁹. Similarly, emotionally changed storylines, such as the use of ominous music for dramatic effect, may actually be feeding negative views of wildlife²⁰.

Even so, I have so much gratitude for all the caring people who lovingly devote themselves to growing understanding of the world around us, and sharing it! Sure: the construction of truth is an ever-evolving discovery that’s bound to include times when we realize that’s more to it. But, to relentlessly care with curiosity is something I admire greatly. Scientific experiments and media documentations can be tedious, drawn-out, and even be dangerous. As someone who’s not conducting regular scientific experiments or documentaries, I am so grateful for all those who provide an ongoing source of research and content to inform my service and creative reflection as an artist.  I admire the courage, humility, and dedication that it takes to wonder about the world with such diligence, and I gratefully follow the example of learning as a form of service.

1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2917255/

2. https://imperialbiosciencereview.wordpress.com/2020/10/02/conservation-bias-an-ugly-truth/#:~:text=The%20first%20and%20most%20obvious,perceived%20as%20obscure%20or%20boring.

3. https://earth.org/research-gap-the-geographical-bias-of-environmental-data/

4. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adh8874

5. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8728594/

6. https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-a-confirmation-bias-2795024

7. https://www.bachelorprint.com/research-bias/observer-bias/#:~:text=The%20types%20of%20observer%20bias,findings%20of%20a%20study%2Fresearch.

8. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7794457/

9. https://www.nc3rs.org.uk/3rs-resources/wildlife-research

10. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/animal-emotions/201702/research-captive-animals-produces-misleading-results

11. https://baleinesendirect.org/en/letude-de-lintelligence-animale-et-son-biais-humain-partie-1/

12. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0003347215004224

13. https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bes2.1766

14. https://www.nature.com/articles/d44151-022-00008-6

15. https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/pan3.10259

16. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/dec/12/bbc-denies-misleading-frozen-plant#:~:text=Attenborough%20said%20the%20decision%20to,%2C%20one%20or%20the%20other.%22

17. https://www.theverge.com/2016/8/15/12471540/the-hunt-bbc-nature-documentary-realism-predators-truth-and-art

18. https://slate.com/culture/2015/04/monkey-kingdom-and-how-nature-and-wildlife-documentaries-use-anthropomorphism-to-create-empathy-and-shape-stories.html

19. https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/pan3.10202

20. https://www.wildfocus.org/blog2/2018/8/23/musical-manipulation