Michael Klaas
Ways of Nature
This was a rough introduction to Burroughs. It's a bit of a screed and one in which the claims and conclusions don't hold up particularly well to modern scientific scrutiny.
Additionally, Burroughs' sexism and racism are on full display at several points in this work.
In short, it is a critique of the state of natural science writing of its time (the start of the 20th century), and one in which Burroughs takes great umbrage at any claims that non-human animals have a particularly rich cognitive life. He confesses that animals likely do experience base emotions, but fervently argues that they do not think, calculate, consider, or substantially remember anything. They are, to Burroughs, entities of pure instinct.
I appreciate his drive toward skepticism, as I think this is generally a healthy approach to novel scientific questions, but find that he proclaims a state of certainty about his position that he chides his opponents for wielding themselves. Burroughs claims to know the minds of animals while arguing that writers that differ from his position are wrong to make similar kinds of claims.
Of course, in his day, the technology didn't exist to deeply research the kinds of questions that Burroughs is debating here. But modern research finds that he has erred in his level of certitude and the minds and lives of wild animals are varied and complex, even while we still have many questions about just how deep the thinking of many creatures can be.
Interesting little bit of history here, but not a particularly engaging or informative read more than a century after its time.
This was a rough introduction to Burroughs. It's a bit of a screed and one in which the claims and conclusions don't hold up particularly well to modern scientific scrutiny.
Additionally, Burroughs' sexism and racism are on full display at several points in this work.
In short, it is a critique of the state of natural science writing of its time (the start of the 20th century), and one in which Burroughs takes great umbrage at any claims that non-human animals have a particularly rich cognitive life. He confesses that animals likely do experience base emotions, but fervently argues that they do not think, calculate, consider, or substantially remember anything. They are, to Burroughs, entities of pure instinct.
I appreciate his drive toward skepticism, as I think this is generally a healthy approach to novel scientific questions, but find that he proclaims a state of certainty about his position that he chides his opponents for wielding themselves. Burroughs claims to know the minds of animals while arguing that writers that differ from his position are wrong to make similar kinds of claims.
Of course, in his day, the technology didn't exist to deeply research the kinds of questions that Burroughs is debating here. But modern research finds that he has erred in his level of certitude and the minds and lives of wild animals are varied and complex, even while we still have many questions about just how deep the thinking of many creatures can be.
Interesting little bit of history here, but not a particularly engaging or informative read more than a century after its time.
