Chapter 1: The Debate on Indigenous Knowledge and Science

Recently, a tweet circulated asserting that "Indigenous knowledge is science," repeated emphatically eight times. This post gained traction, highlighting how repetition can enhance social media visibility, much like it does in experimental validation.

Many individuals, including scientists, voiced their dissent against this claim; however, their arguments were largely overshadowed by accusations of "racism." This tactic, often employed by self-appointed arbiters of thought, effectively stifles constructive dialogue. Instead of considering legitimate, non-prejudiced reasons for disagreement, the original poster opted for a provocative statement. Contrary to being discriminatory, asserting a clear distinction between Indigenous knowledge and scientific understanding can be beneficial for all parties involved.

A substantial body of academic literature has existed on both sides of this discourse since at least the 1970s, with notable figures like Carl Sagan advocating for the acknowledgment of Indigenous practices, such as those of the !Kung San, as scientific due to their reliance on meticulous observation and intergenerational knowledge transfer.

It's widely accepted that Indigenous peoples utilize observation, formulate hypotheses, and engage in trial and error while passing down knowledge through generations. There is no inherent reason to consider this knowledge inferior to scientific understanding.

The crux of the issue may lie in the perception of science as superior. To counteract the stigma often associated with Indigenous knowledge, some argue that it must be equated with scientific principles. However, this assumption of superiority is problematic. Science frequently encounters challenges in validating and interpreting practices honed by Indigenous communities over extended periods. A historical backdrop of racism has contributed to the belief in the supremacy of scientific inquiry.

While Indigenous knowledge shares similarities with scientific methodology, it is crucial to recognize that they are not identical. The persistent challenges in reconciling these forms of knowledge serve as compelling evidence for their distinctiveness.

One pivotal difference between the knowledge acquisition processes in scientific communities and Indigenous practices is the systematic approach of science in developing hypotheses, conducting experiments, and relying on measurement to minimize subjectivity. Philosophically, science seeks to dissect phenomena into fundamental components and reconstruct them into theories. This often involves gathering and analyzing data from various sources to support broad, abstract theories, even at the expense of specificity.

For instance, the scientific understanding of gases as molecules in motion may offer limited practical value to someone constructing an internal combustion engine. In contrast, empirical theories like thermodynamics provide far more actionable insights. However, science's primary focus remains on distilling theories to their most basic elements.

Indigenous knowledge, sometimes referred to as Indigenous Technical Knowledge (ITK), is rooted in tangible observations, making it empirical and holistic. It recognizes human beings as integral parts of nature, rather than distant observers.

ITK is characterized by its community-oriented approach, context-specific to particular times and places. It does not differentiate between subjects and objects or observers and the observed, emphasizing collectivism over individualism. In contrast, scientific knowledge aspires to be universally applicable. The principles established by Newton hold true regardless of geographical location, whether in England, the Amazon, the Sahara, or the Arctic.

Some argue, as Agrawal (1995) does, that science also possesses community-based and contextual characteristics, suggesting that no clear distinction exists. However, this criticism falters when considering that scientific theory, while communicated within the scientific community, pursues different goals and standards than Indigenous knowledge systems. This distinction is what allows for the coexistence of science and ITK without conflict.

Moller et al. (2004) propose that the differences between ITK and science make them complementary rather than equivalent. Moller notes that, despite traditional monitoring methods often being qualitative and imprecise, they remain valuable because they are based on long-term observations, large sample sizes, cost-effectiveness, and collaborative participation from harvesters as researchers.

Moller, supported by Bohensky and Maru (2011), identifies five key distinctions between the two approaches:

1. Science tends to collect short-term data over large areas (diachronic), while ITK focuses on long-term information (synchronic).
2. Science emphasizes averages, whereas ITK often highlights extremes.
3. Scientific information is primarily quantitative, while ITK is qualitative.
4. Science excels in improving mechanism tests, while ITK enhances hypothesis development.
5. Science aims for objectivity, whereas ITK embraces subjectivity.

Equating science and ITK would be akin to suggesting that mathematics and English are the same; while one can express mathematical concepts in English and vice versa, their goals, developmental processes, and outcomes differ significantly.

A significant point of contention for proponents of ITK is how it has historically been marginalized for not adhering to scientific standards. This marginalization is particularly evident in the planning efforts of Western governments regarding Indigenous communities, often conducted with minimal input from those affected. However, the fact that ITK is not classified as scientific does not render it inferior. In many scenarios, its community-based and holistic nature can provide insights that science may overlook, and vice versa. This interplay is crucial, making it more valuable than superficial attempts to harmonize the two by equating them.

References:

• Agrawal, A. 1995. Dismantling the divide between indigenous and scientific knowledge. Development and Change 26:413–439. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7660.1995.tb00560.x
• Bohensky, E. L., and Y. Maru. 2011. Indigenous knowledge, science, and resilience: what have we learned from a decade of international literature on “integration”? Ecology and Society 16(4): 6. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-04342-160406
• Moller, H., F. Berkes, P. O. Lyver, and M. Kislalioglu. 2004. Combining science and traditional ecological knowledge: monitoring populations for co-management. Ecology and Society 9(3): 2. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss3/art2/

The first video, titled "The case to recognise Indigenous knowledge as science | Albert Wiggan | TEDxSydney," explores the intersection of Indigenous knowledge and scientific principles, advocating for a deeper understanding and recognition of Indigenous methodologies as valid forms of knowledge.

The second video, "How Indigenous Knowledge Connects to Science," highlights the connections and differences between Indigenous knowledge systems and scientific frameworks, emphasizing the importance of both in understanding the world around us.