# Sheldrake on Natural History vs 'Science'

**URL:** <https://pheromonetalk.com/t/sheldrake-on-natural-history-vs-science/53160>\
**Category:** Lounge\
**Created:** [November 6, 2011, 1:17am UTC](https://pheromonetalk.com/t/sheldrake-on-natural-history-vs-science/53160 "2011-11-06T01:17:39Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 3\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![PheroQuirk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9e8a1a/32.png) [@PheroQuirk](https://pheromonetalk.com/u/PheroQuirk)\
**Post date:** [November 6, 2011, 1:17am UTC](https://pheromonetalk.com/t/sheldrake-on-natural-history-vs-science/53160/1 "2011-11-06T01:17:39Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> In Charles Darwin’s time there was no great division between serious scientific enquiry and natural history, largely the province of amateurs. Darwin himself was a natural historian, and lived as a private gentleman with no academic post. However, the professionalization of biology which began in the late nineteenth century has now created a wide gulf between academic scientists busily pursuing their careers, and natural historians, studying various aspects of the natural world for the love of doing so. The knowledge and understanding of the naturalist is generally considered to be inferior to that of the professional scientist. But it seems to me that the opposite is true; the knowledge of the naturalist, which comes from an intimate relationship with nature, is deeper and truer than the kind obtained by detached mechanistic analysis. Of course, ideally, the direct experience of the naturalist and the systematic investigations of the professional scientist can complement and illuminate each other. Contemporary examples of such a synthesis are the study of bird migration, which involves a fruitful collaboration between professional scientists and amateur ornithologists, and the wonderfully illuminating accounts of the development of the English countryside by the botanist Oliver Rackham.
> 
> Knowledge gained through experience of plants and animals is not an inferior substitute for proper scientific knowledge; it is the real thing. Direct experience is the only way to build up an understanding which is not only intellectual, but intuitive and practical, involving the senses and the heart as well as the rational mind. Scientific investigations can illuminate and enrich this direct practical knowledge, but they are no substitute for it – indeed they depend on it themselves.

The direct applicability of this insight to the standing of our work here on studying human behaviour ought to need no explanation.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![SteveO](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/87869e/32.png) [@SteveO](https://pheromonetalk.com/u/SteveO)\
**Post date:** [November 11, 2011, 6:09pm UTC](https://pheromonetalk.com/t/sheldrake-on-natural-history-vs-science/53160/2 "2011-11-11T18:09:04Z")

</div>

Excellent snippet! I think most of the intellectuals in the community here understand this and practice the natural science of it. However many of us, including myself (especially myself 🙂) discovered [pheromones](https://a314.com/) as a source of providing an avenue to get us laid. Only after harnessing the power of mones were we then able to grasp the concept of the science behind the results. Either way it certainly lays credence to the article. We gain knowledge by doing.

Brilliant!

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![PheroQuirk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9e8a1a/32.png) [@PheroQuirk](https://pheromonetalk.com/u/PheroQuirk)\
**Post date:** [November 11, 2011, 7:58pm UTC](https://pheromonetalk.com/t/sheldrake-on-natural-history-vs-science/53160/3 "2011-11-11T19:58:41Z")

</div>

> [@Steve](#):
>
> Excellent snippet! I think most of the intellectuals in the community here understand this and practice the natural science of it. However many of us, including myself (especially myself 🙂) discovered pheromones as a source of providing an avenue to get us laid. Only after harnessing the power of mones were we then able to grasp the concept of the science behind the results. Either way it certainly lays credence to the article. We gain knowledge by doing.
> 
> Brilliant!

One of the biggest obstacles to learning is the belief that some anomaly is not theoretically possible, and should therefore be ignored. However sufficiently strong motivation can make us attend to reality in the face of all our preconceptions that might discourage us from doing so.