Knowledge & Value: What We Really Know
Who values nature, and the experience of nature to a greater degree, an ecologist, a person experienced in nature in a way that is not academic, or someone who has little, or no experience with nature.  Although I believe that all parties can find a natural experience pleasant and label it valuable, I will argue that a person knowledgeable in the ways of nature on an academic level would, or at least could, find a greater appreciation than the completely inexperienced.  Perhaps the greatest degree of value would come from the person that may have no formal training, has a strong personal connection and deep understanding of the natural world.  The natural world is amazing, none can deny this, however, only those who have an understanding of the workings behind the scenes so to speak, can begin to fully appreciate nature to its utmost.
Consider an example involving three persons, all of which are observing a painting of a sailboat in stormy weather in December on Lake Superior.  Of the three people one has no experience with sailing or with large bodies of water, let us name him John Brush.  The second, Mr. Bill, is a sailing buff, has read extensively on the subject and has seen numerous videos and television documentaries.  The third character, Captain Hook, is a weathered sailor, with many years of rough weather experience.  Inexperienced John having no frame of reference can only know that this image is what Lake Superior is like in December because that is what he has been told.  The painting itself may be aesthetically pleasing, however the lack of knowledge beyond initial information of the painting hinders a greater appreciation.  Bill can begin to comprehend the greatness and appreciate the value the image but still the lack of the experience still keeps him from recognizing the immensity of the painting.  Captain Hook, having a personal knowledge gained through actual experience possesses the greatest chance, or opportunity to see the value in the painting.  To the Captain, the image represents a certain personal experience, perhaps similar to a photograph of himself in a similar situation.  The painting not only has aesthetic value, but also an internalized value representative of the sailors' very identity.  The knowledge had by Captain Hook, is deeper, it is past that of simply knowing that this is an image of Lake Superior in December and into the realm of knowing how Lake Superior is in December on a sailboat.  "Cappy", as fellow swashbucklers affectionately know him, has moved past the level of knowing only that thing, the experience itself exists in the realm of actually knowing the experience first hand as it exists.  The observer, having no prior knowledge of the subject of the painting, will most likely find at least an "awesome" aesthetic value in the painting, and perhaps in stories told by the sailor, but does not know the reality of the experience the painting expresses.
Levels of knowing become easily apparent, but quickly the lines of definition become grayed.  That is we can see the difference between Captain Hook and John Brush and even between the "Cappy" and Mr. Bill.  This is where differentiation becomes difficult.  We can easily divide the three into  separate groups, but to separate beyond simple classification is difficult and purely subjective.  To classify these three, we would have to differentiate between levels of experience, a nearly impossible task.  For example, it would be impossible to determine who has greater knowledge and/ or experience, a sailor who has been on in the trade for twenty years or one who has been for twenty-one years.  While the second has had one more year at sea, perhaps the first sailor is naturally a more talented sailor and is more aware and learns more quickly then the second seaman.  The difficulty lies in the inability to quantify ones experience in such a way.  It is possible, to a certain extent to quantify knowledge, but once again the lines become hazy.  There is no one true test, or method of collecting and accurately and unbiasedly  "grading" an individuals knowledge and talent for any specific task, duty, or of any experience. 


When the knower becomes actively involved in what is known the level of value is able to rise.  The quality of understanding is connected to the level of appreciation, however a greater understanding does not necessarily correlate to a greater value.  But the potential is highest.  Being aware of ones ability becomes entirely important in recognizing value.  Seeing a thing or taking an experience for its true, greatest value is perhaps the challenge. I want to be clear on the fact that non-experience does not lead to non-appreciation, although an understanding, or deeper perception leads to a more intense value of the experience in question.  


With that I would like to recant slightly on my first example of John Brush, Mr. Bill and Captain Hook observing the painting of rough water sailing.  Let us now assume that Mr. Brush, having no experience or knowledge of sailing, is himself, an artist, and an experienced painter.  While John may not appreciate the painting in the same way as either Mr. Bill or Captain Hook, he will most likely appreciate the painting for its artistic qualities to a greater degree than the others will.  Assuming that they have no or less experience or knowledge of painting.  With this example we once again encounter varied levels of appreciation, both of the non-painters appreciate the painting, but are unable to see exactly what makes the painting truly valuable from an artistic standpoint.  Both Mr. Brush and Captain hook have a deep appreciation for the painting, but for different reasons.  In the painting of the sailboat in rough water John Brush appreciates the qualities attributed to good art, use of color and shading, depth and other characteristics of that make art "good."  To Captian Hook, the subject of the painting is most important.  The value placed on the painting by each man is influence by what the other man finds to be the most valuable attribute of the work.  While Mr. Brush enjoys the painting for its artistic beauty, he would not find as much value if the subject was not a sailboat in stormy seas.  The artist's passion for a painting comes through in a painting as an expression of quality.  Likewise, Captain Hook would not find the painting as valuable if the quality of the art was of lesser grade.  We are able to see the difficulty of comparison.  There are many factors that contribute to the "quality" of a painting and an equal number of factors involved in the value of the work.  The viewer and his own knowledge of a subject is not the only influence on his placement of value.  The artist and his knowledge also plays a crucial role in the value.
  It can be argued that all people can find equal value in experiences regardless of ones prior knowledge of the subject.  As I stated before, I do believe that one can appreciate something upon the first experience of it, however the perception is shallow, only scraping the surface.  Certainly a child can look at the stars and be absolutely dumbfounded, by the awesome beauty and magnificence, but the appreciation is only one of aesthetic value.  The child does not know any thing other than that, "those are stars".  An astronomer can look at the stars and know not only that they are beautiful and majestic, but also that of the importance of the stars throughout history, in navigation and worship.  The astronomer understands how and why the stars look and act the way they do.  True knowledge behind the beauty.  It is possible that such natural phenomenon could be explained away, to the point where the grandeur is all but removed from the experience.  Such degradation of value is entirely possible, much like when a child learns there is no Santa Claus or Easter Bunny, or when we come to learn how a magic trick is only a series of optical illusions.  The power of the experience and its possibility of remaining powerful becomes reliant on the individual who is involved in a specific experience.  It is the majesty of a thing that drives a person's interest and search for more knowledge and a greater understanding of a subject.  Surely if a person is not absolutely taken by something, s/he will not pursue it to great extents.  A scientist would not study the smallest microorganisms unless driven by an absolute passion for them.  The fire can be lost however, and then the value may be lost.  BUT, if the individual who is part of the experience has a yearning and a desire to know and understand then the magnificence of the thing can only be amplified by knowing.  They person must remain aware of the "big picture" as not to get caught up in detail and hence not see the individual parts forming the majesty of the whole.
This knowing, and following, awareness is crucial in environmentalism.  Not that all people should aspire to be wildlife, plant or field ecologists, but to acquire a knowledge that would allow us to appreciate the natural world, outside of humanity, on a level past, "isn't it pretty".  Nature is and should be aesthetically pleasing, however it is much more than nice looking.  Some of it is not necessarily eye pleasing, much of nature is dirty, cruel and violent, and to look only for aesthetically pleasing attributes one will miss the true value of much of nature.  Looking to environmentalism and to an understanding of the workings behind the exterior (?) of the natural world will provide us with a new level of knowing and a high value of the natural world, humanity included.  Whether we, as environmentalists, like it or not, humanity is part of/ involved in nature and there is no way around the fact, we need to look within ourselves to realize the value that we need to place on nature parallels the value we place of the existence and well being of humanity.