A couple of weeks ago I gave a talk on reverent science. It wasn't easy to give, as it balanced two opposing moods: a chill meditation on the organism as I drew a spider, and an impassioned rant against the devaluation of natural history in the sciences.

It is wonderful that we are finding pattern and general laws in nature, but those who reward law-seeking science exclusively ignore its foundation on hard-won knowledge of natural history that receives almost no credit.

General laws/hypotheses/questions are absolutely critical for prediction and control, but if our goal is basic knowledge, rather than technology, then discovery of what exists, in all its richness and diversity, has no less claim to our focus.

The attitude devaluing natural history or organism-centric research isn’t rare. It’s often institutional culture. Would your institution advertise for a faculty position in “mammalogy”? Or, organism-centric research? Or, natural history? Or, species taxonomy?

The health of our science requires that we support careers centred on natural history, exploratory organism-centred research, and taxonomy.

Interpreting data well from complex entities like species or planets often requires guidance from deep expertise built by a career’s dedication, not just an unsupported hobby.

To be exclusively “question-centric” is to place our ideas — ourselves — at the centre of our focus, rather than nature. We should revere nature, not our questions. Science needs to spend some time, including some full and rewarded careers, simply listening to nature.

Unsolicited observations, not guided by theory, can play a special role in threatening paradigms, by uncovering inconvenient facts. Somewhere out there is a species that could prove you wrong. Do not fear it. Seek it.

Listen. Let nature speak first, at least occasionally.