Making sense of “Making Sense of Nature”

So Noel Castree wrote a book called Making Sense of Nature and I think it was supposed to help me make sense of nature. And I’m not saying it didn’t. Castree’s main idea is that nature is real because we make and real. He believes that this is not necessarily problematic but that it needs to be understood that no one is just going to drop the idea of nature so we should all stop trying to make it happen.

Of the eight chapters (plus the conclusion!) in the book, Castree spends the first three proving and proving and proving his point that “our reliance on others for our understanding of ‘nature’ (and not just this) is hardly unique for our time,” and that while personal experience plays a significant role in constructing individuals’ ideas of nature, it should “never be assumed to be the basis for ‘authentic’ understanding, insight or belief.” (37, 62).

Okay Mr. Castree, I get it. I understand what you’re trying to tell me. Now what I need you to explain to me is why should I care?! Chapter eight gets the closest to answering this question. Here Castree takes a look at the epistemic communities that are supposedly spoon-feeding us our knowledge, thoughts, and beliefs about nature. These scientists, says the text, should not be completely in charge and we citizens should “take back” our knowledge and how we get it. How you may ask? Castree proposes citizen science, science performed “mid-stream” by those outside of the scientific community. Here normal people like you and me are doing data collection and analysis because we’re better at it than computers and scientists do not necessarily have the time to do it themselves. There are plenty of issues with this like are we just being used and not actually contributing and are our efforts having actual visible results? While there are certainly problems with this method of public involvement, it is just one suggestion on how to address this issue. But is it an issue?

Although chapter eight does get the closest at addressing my question, I don’t think it really completely answers it. Castree says that we get our knowledge from these so-called experts and there are obviously big power-relations issues with that, but sometimes experts actually do know best. Should science be more transparent? Yes. Can it be? Maybe. Will people really care? I doubt it. Do I? …yes..?