Cotterill Fenton P D, Foissner Wilhelm
AEON-Africa Earth Observatory Network, Departments of Geological Sciences and Molecular and Cell Biology, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch 7701, South Africa.
Biodivers Conserv. 2010 Jan;19(1):291-303. doi: 10.1007/s10531-009-9721-4.
Embracing comparative biology, natural history encompasses those sciences that discover, decipher and classify unique (idiographic) details of landscapes, and extinct and extant biodiversity. Intrinsic to these multifarious roles in expanding and consolidating research and knowledge, natural history endows keystone support to the veracity of law-like (nomothetic) generalizations in science. What science knows about the natural world is governed by an inherent function of idiographic discovery; characteristic of natural history, this relationship is exemplified wherever an idiographic discovery overturns established wisdom. This nature of natural history explicates why inventories are of such epistemological importance. Unfortunately, a Denigration of Natural History weakens contemporary science from within. It expresses in the prevalent, pervasive failure to appreciate this pivotal role of idiographic research: a widespread disrespect for how natural history undergirds scientific knowledge. Symptoms of this Denigration of Natural History present in negative impacts on scientific research and knowledge. One symptom is the failure to appreciate and support the inventory and monitoring of biodiversity. Another resides in failures of scientiometrics to quantify how taxonomic publications sustain and improve knowledge. Their relevance in contemporary science characteristically persists and grows; so the temporal eminence of these idiographic publications extends over decades. This is because they propagate a succession of derived scientific statements, findings and/or conclusions - inherently shorter-lived, nomothetic publications. Widespread neglect of natural science collections is equally pernicious, allied with disregard for epistemological functions of specimens, whose preservation maintains the veracity of knowledge. Last, but not least, the decline in taxonomic expertise weakens research capacity; there are insufficient skills to study organismal diversity in all of its intricacies. Beyond weakening research capacities and outputs across comparative biology, this Denigration of Natural History impacts on the integrity of knowledge itself, undermining progress and pedagogy throughout science. Unprecedented advances in knowledge are set to follow on consummate inventories of biodiversity, including the protists. These opportunities challenge us to survey biodiversity representatively-detailing the natural history of species. Research strategies cannot continue to ignore arguments for such an unprecedented investment in idiographic natural history. Idiographic shortcuts to general (nomothetic) insights simply do not exist. The biodiversity sciences face a stark choice. No matter how charismatic its portrayed species, an incomplete 'Brochure of Life' cannot match the scientific integrity of the 'Encyclopedia of Life'.
自然历史涵盖了那些拥抱比较生物学的科学领域，它发现、解读并分类景观的独特（特质性）细节以及已灭绝和现存的生物多样性。在扩展和巩固研究及知识的这些多样角色中，自然历史对科学中类似法则（通则性）概括的真实性提供了关键支持。科学对自然世界的认知受制于特质性发现的内在功能；这是自然历史的特点，这种关系在任何特质性发现推翻既定认知的地方都有体现。自然历史的这种性质解释了为什么清查工作具有如此重要的认识论意义。不幸的是，对自然历史的诋毁从内部削弱了当代科学。它表现为普遍存在且广泛的对特质性研究这一关键作用的忽视：对自然历史如何支撑科学知识普遍缺乏尊重。这种对自然历史诋毁的症状体现在对科学研究和知识的负面影响上。一个症状是未能认识到并支持生物多样性的清查和监测。另一个症状在于科学计量学未能量化分类学出版物如何维持和提升知识。它们在当代科学中的相关性一直存在并不断增强；所以这些特质性出版物的长期重要性延续数十年。这是因为它们传播了一系列派生的科学陈述、发现和/或结论——本质上寿命较短的通则性出版物。对自然科学藏品的普遍忽视同样有害，这与对标本的认识论功能的漠视相关，标本的保存维持了知识的真实性。最后但同样重要的是，分类学专业知识的衰退削弱了研究能力；缺乏足够的技能来全面研究生物多样性的复杂性。除了削弱比较生物学领域的研究能力和产出外，这种对自然历史的诋毁还影响知识本身的完整性，破坏了整个科学领域的进步和教学。随着包括原生生物在内的生物多样性的完善清查工作，知识将取得前所未有的进展。这些机遇促使我们以代表性的方式调查生物多样性——详细描述物种的自然历史。研究策略不能再继续忽视对特质性自然历史进行这种前所未有的投资的理由。通向一般（通则性）见解的特质性捷径根本不存在。生物多样性科学面临严峻选择。无论其描绘的物种多么有魅力，一份不完整的“生命手册”都无法与“生命百科全书”的科学完整性相匹配。
