Who Knew My Geology Class Would Make Me a Douche Bag About Nature?

After falling asleep several times while reading Lopez's article, I realized that he was just a man yearning for simpler times. Lopez makes the distinction between scholarly knowledge of land and "true" historical knowledge of land many times. He says that the "true" knowledge comes from living on the land and experiencing it first hand; whereas the scholarly knowledge consists of things like which fish live in a certain river and specific flower names which can be learned in books. His tone suggests that the former is somehow more important and better than the latter. It could be argued that to truly understand and appreciate the land one inhabits, you must possess some sort of scholarly knowledge of its' characteristics. For how can one truly appreciate the beauty of a certain Mendocino shoreline unless you understand that the layers upon layers of sediment visible in the bluff adjacent to the ocean were deposited there over millions of years. And that the reason the layers are mismatched at a certain point is because of an earthquake that took place millions of years ago. If you do not know the basic history of a place, you cannot fully appreciate it for what it is. You can appreciate it for its' beauty and picturesque qualities (even thought that's a faux paus in Lopez's mind) but without knowing "scholarly" specifics of the flora and fauna that inhabit a certain region, you are missing out on an enormous piece of historical significance.