While studying biology, ecology, or geology might lead to a kind of wisdom, personifying nature itself as "wise" fundamentally misunderstands how human knowledge is acquired. When we attribute wisdom to nature, we overlook the essential role of human agency in observation, analysis, and learning.

Let's contrast two scenarios that illustrate this distinction:

In the first scenario, a student hears nature referred to as wise and as a teacher. They're told that "nature knows best" and that we should "learn from nature's wisdom." This framing positions nature as an active instructor rather than a subject of study.

In the second scenario, a student hears Norman Borlaug described as wise and as a teacher. They learn how he meticulously studied wheat genetics and diseases, using scientific observation to develop disease-resistant, high-yield crops that saved billions from starvation. His wisdom came not from deferring to nature, but from understanding it deeply enough to guide its improvement.

While both scenarios might inspire interest in biological systems, they foster fundamentally different approaches to knowledge.

The first scenario encourages epistemic deference - teaching students that 'nature knows better' and treating it, as Jason Crawford describes here, as something separate from and superior to human agency. This approach subtly discourages active investigation in favor of passive acceptance.

The second scenario presents nature as a rewarding domain for investigation and potential improvement. It shows how systematic study, rather than deference, leads to genuine understanding and practical wisdom.

I understand some of the impulses behind nature-as-teacher metaphors. Those who use them often want to emphasize several important truths: the surprising complexity and beauty of ecological systems; the challenge of comprehending all components of an ecosystem; and the rich potential for learning that biology and ecology offer, from useful analogies to systems thinking.

But these valuable insights are better served by promoting rigorous investigation than by personifying nature. The complexity of ecosystems becomes a call for careful study rather than deference. The challenge of understanding becomes an invitation to develop better tools and methods. The potential for learning becomes active rather than passive.

But personifying nature as wise fundamentally misrepresents how knowledge is acquired. Nature does not teach us—we learn through deliberate investigation. Even our most basic ecological knowledge—which plants are edible, when to plant crops, how to predict weather patterns—emerged from generations of careful observation, trial, and error. Creating useful insights from these observations requires additional steps of human creativity and analytical thinking.

If one aspires to a world of improved ecological comprehension, then we must promote and invest in quality analytical tools while discouraging passive deference to nature. The path to understanding requires active engagement: systematic observation, hypothesis testing, and rigorous analysis.

Scientific understanding demands active intellectual engagement—observation, comparison, reflection, and repeated testing. This process of discovery cannot coexist with epistemic deference to nature, which replaces active investigation with passive acceptance of supposed natural wisdom.

This tendency to defer to nature's "wisdom" bears a striking resemblance to religious doctrine. Both replace human judgment with external authority, both discourage questioning in favor of acceptance, and both can stifle the very curiosity needed for genuine understanding. The personification of nature as a wise teacher isn't merely incorrect—it's an obstacle to scientific thinking.

Would you refer to an experiment as a teacher? Of course not—we recognize that experiments are tools we use to interrogate reality, not wise instructors dispensing knowledge. The same should be true of our relationship with nature. We can marvel at its complexity, study its patterns, and learn from our observations without attributing to it agency it doesn't possess.

The path to ecological understanding lies not in treating nature as a teacher, but in approaching it as a subject worthy of rigorous investigation. Only through active inquiry, careful observation, and systematic analysis can we develop the knowledge needed to understand—and ultimately improve—our relationship with the natural world.

‍