I recently read and re-read four Tom Brown, Jr. books as background for addressing my is-or-can-tracking-be-science question. I also read a number of other tracking books. Trying to compare and contrast the various books has caused me some problems.

Specifically I am talking about: Tracker, Case Files of the Tracker, Science and Art of Tracking, and Nature Observation and Tracking. The non-Brown books are clearly non-fiction, but there are aspects of the Brown books that do not seem to fit that mold. Nor do the Brown books seem structured or intended to be fiction.

If the other books can be lumped together and seen as advocating science-based tracking, do you think it is fair to call the Brown books spirit-and-science-based tracking?

One thing you have to remember about Tom Brown is that he has been given an almost shaman status in some particular Native American culture/nation. He has studied extensively in those ways. As all of us do, we tend to view and approach life through our own worldview. His leans heavily to the natural/spiritual because that is who he is. I am sure that as a shaman (wisdom holder and seeker) he looks to a variety of disciplines to ensure he is gaining as much knowledge as possible to benefit those he comes in contact with. There are aspects of science that, no doubt, are helpful to his craft. Remember, he will view the science through the lens of his natural/spiritual training. There may an effort to resist categorizing and labeling in this instance. This is because those are very Western ideas and processes. He, I believe, just treats it as tracking. In the end, Tom Brown's method is Tom Brown's method.

I'm not a fan of TBJr, but I'm even less of a fan of misconceptions. Yes, Tom drives a Hummer. He had been driving Subarus for years but the sand of the Pine Barrens kept destroying their engines in about a year. Hummer heard about this and GAVE Tom a Hummer for free and it hasn't had any engine problems with the sand. Lots of famous people are given free stuff just so the manufacturer can claim so-and-so uses our product.

-Blast

You know what? I love that statement!! It's very true.
-Blast

This seems to assume tracking is an art and not a science, and that only artists as opposed to scientists can be trackers. I will have to think about that.

Would we then be talking about artisan trackers versus scientist trackers?

everything is an art
Art is a skill that is attained by study, practice, or observation.
Science is a method of study, practice, or observation.
To quote an earlier post of mine

To become a tracker, a successfull tracker, you have to employ scientific method, even if you don't know what it is
If you're not aware of the scientific method and its five elements, its easier to fall prey to bias and other pitfalls and reach erroneous conclusions -- this is where "spirits" as are accepted an explanation :)(i'm not implying anything about tom brown , I've only read a few articles by/about him)

in a similar vein, when tom brown talks about almost imperceptible signs which he can read using his human eye, that you only develop through decades of practice ... this could be entirely his bias -- the human eye is not great at minute measurements

can tom brown jr tell if the person he is tracking has a cold? My position is that he might be able to guess, some of the time, if the person sneezes while slowly walking across some mud, maybe

can tom brown jr tell if the person he is tracking is feeling weak? I say that person might have sand/gravel in his shoes

now you wondered about artisan trackers versus scientist trackers? just wait until there is a smart-phone app for that!!

I hope that clarifies some thoughts for you

I agree with a lot of this; tracking is often a fairly informal, albeit accurate, application of logic, deduction, model construction, and prediction. One area you might examine are studies of fossil trackways which range in age from the Mesozoic to relatively recent (some of the early Homo trackways from Africa).

After all, those investigations are carried out by paleontologists, and they are "scientists," right? Ergo, their activities are scientific. Next question.

I write this as I am digging fossils on a site where we have a wealth of trackways. Some of us are wondering about what, if anything, to do with them since they are not the principal focus of our investigations. One characteristic of "scientists" is they are thoughtful before destroying data..

Why can't it be a combination of both? You may be trying to draw a line where no line exists.

First, a very experienced person (in anything) will assimilate a lot of information, some of which he/she doesn't even realize.

And I just looked up the word 'hunch'. One of the definitions: 'a guess or feeling not based on known facts'.

Several (or more) years ago, I was reading that a 'hunch' or what is often called 'intuition' is really your subconscious putting two and two together, based on all your prior knowledge, experience, and faint messages that your senses are picking up. Your subconscious is always processing information, much of which the conscious tends to ignore.

You walk into your house (supposed to be empty), and six feet inside the front door, you get the 'feeling' that someone else is in the house. ESP? Luck? Or did your ears hear a small sound that didn't belong? Did your nose pick up a bit of unfamiliar scent? Did your eyes see something out of place that your conscious didn't? Did you feel a faint air movement in this supposedly closed house?

'Civilized' Man has lost a lot of basic survival instincts over time. Recent Man has lost even more. But our subconscious is still the same, working 24 hours a day. It's just that now we mostly ignore it. But what if we don't?

Sue

I don't know squat about tracking - but still, I have theories...

My understanding is that tracking requires extensive knowledge and understanding of the environment and ecology - not only the habbits and preferences of whatever you're tracking, but also the habitat, plants, other animals and how they affect each other. Not in books, but in the actual environment.

This takes A LOT of time and practice. I have no trouble visualizing how the thorogh ecologic understanding will come close to having "mystical" qualities. It is just how the mind works: Yearlong experience is distilled into an intuitive understanding of what's going on in the woods today, what those faint marks in front of you are, who made them and why.

I don't see mystery. I just see a thorough understanding of a complex ecosystem and fine honed set of skills - knowing what kind of marks to look for and why.

I'm inclined to think that Susan and MostlyHarmless may have something there. I don't know anything about tracking, but I do know that practicing a highly specialized discipline often gives one "intuition" in that particular area. Instead of having to reason out everything and carefully weigh the various possible solutions, your brain has been so conditioned that you can cut straight to the one that is probably right. Imagine seeing a set of situations repeatedly, over years and years, and eventually you catch on: if I see x, y, and z, then a, b, and c are very likely to happen. When the discipline is complicated enough, there may be too many factors to enumerate mechanically as I just did. To outsiders, intuition acquired over many years of training suddenly appears divinely inspired.

Such intuition allows us to be more efficient at the activity, and can really save us when there is no time to spare for detailed, scientific analysis. In old society as today, this can come in very handy.

Again, I don't know whether this is the case with Tom Brown. I suspect such "technical intuition" may be found up, and even possibly inseparable from the spiritual practices he engages in. No, I don't necessarily mean that his deities are "scientifically efficacious." But if one practices, say, tracking, in conjunction with certain religious rituals, then the brain might just connect the two when developing intuition.

Alright, let me get off my soap box. Anyone out there knows anything about psychological research into intuition???

Da Bing