ABSTRACT
The aesthetic value people place on something clearly depends in part on its physical properties. On the environmental side of things, one popular explanation for the original’s superiority to the restored environment is that the original has a certain aesthetic value that the restored environment does not: its ‘naturalness’. The original environment was wholly the product of nature; by definition, the restored environment is the product of human intervention, even if it exactly copies the original. Drawing on this reasoning, some philosophers have attempted to offer a general characterization of the aesthetic appreciation of nature that runs roughly parallel to the appreciation of art. Scientific knowledge can enrich people's experience by showing them how to put flesh on the bones, by steering them in correctly imagining how the creature lived, and by guiding them in appreciating interesting or distinctive aspects of its anatomy.
