• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Indigenous Science

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
I'm not sure I understand. Science is a method: observe, hypothesize, test, record results, conclude, repeat. It has nothing to do with indigenous or non-indigenous.

The nature of science is a bit more complicated than you present here. Anyone who does science more or less knows the scientific method is an oversimplification taught to school children so they can broadly understand how (western) science operates.

I put that extra word "western" in there because the way we understand science is indeed western. The way we do science - or any academic discipline for that matter - is shaped by the culture within which the discipline was formalized. That's where the whole indigenous versus non-indigenous thing comes in. By integrating other cultural perspectives, it can strengthen the discipline. There's a long history of racism and ethnocentrism which discounts indigenous knowledge, regardless of whether or not it is arrived at by methods more or less similar to what we use in western science. That's starting to change, which is pretty awesome.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
The nature of science is a bit more complicated than you present here. Anyone who does science more or less knows the scientific method is an oversimplification taught to school children so they can broadly understand how (western) science operates.

I put that extra word "western" in there because the way we understand science is indeed western. The way we do science - or any academic discipline for that matter - is shaped by the culture within which the discipline was formalized. That's where the whole indigenous versus non-indigenous thing comes in. By integrating other cultural perspectives, it can strengthen the discipline. There's a long history of racism and ethnocentrism which discounts indigenous knowledge, regardless of whether or not it is arrived at by methods more or less similar to what we use in western science. That's starting to change, which is pretty awesome.
Yes, science originated in the west, though it has spread worldwide now. Yes, science is a method which I described. If you think it is "more complicated" then please state how specifically so -- what was missing from my outline of the method?
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
Yes, science originated in the west, though it has spread worldwide now. Yes, science is a method which I described. If you think it is "more complicated" then please state how specifically so -- what was missing from my outline of the method?

I'm not even going to pretend I can do that topic a justice here. Instead I'd encourage you, if you're interested, to delve into the philosophy of science a bit. Maybe chat up a few researchers if you know some, which gives a window into the experience. Read some of the perspectives from indigenous scientists directly. But to just mention a couple things?

Science also refers to a body of knowledge. That meaning is particularly relevant here, because the body of knowledge present in indigenous lore, even if arrived at using methods more or less consistent with what the west regards as acceptable, doesn't always get acknowledged for various reasons.

Actually doing science is messy. It really doesn't follow the neat and clean method you learn in school. I used to believe it did, but then I went to graduate school and actually did science as a professional. It sort of follows it. But it is an abstracted, idealized model that isn't how it works in practice.
 

vulcanlogician

Well-Known Member
The nature of science is a bit more complicated than you present here. Anyone who does science more or less knows the scientific method is an oversimplification taught to school children so they can broadly understand how (western) science operates.

I put that extra word "western" in there because the way we understand science is indeed western. The way we do science - or any academic discipline for that matter - is shaped by the culture within which the discipline was formalized. That's where the whole indigenous versus non-indigenous thing comes in. By integrating other cultural perspectives, it can strengthen the discipline. There's a long history of racism and ethnocentrism which discounts indigenous knowledge, regardless of whether or not it is arrived at by methods more or less similar to what we use in western science. That's starting to change, which is pretty awesome.

I've gotta say, this is a pretty interesting thread. The thing about Western science is that it is heavily influenced by the Greek tendency to develop theories about things, and (proceeding from there) trying to free those theories from error while also increasing the degree of certitude that we have about a thing. The ancient Sumerians were doing advanced mathematics well before the Greeks, and much of it was on par with what the Greeks did centuries later. But the Greeks had a methodological quirk, they wanted to figure out the "nature" of triangles and other geometric forms and that made what they learned take a certain form. (Perhaps a form which made their findings easier to transmit to other cultures.)

My guess is that indigenous science most likely lacks the aspects of wanting/needing to be completely free of error like the Western approach does. Some folklore may find it way into their "theories," for instance. But I could also imagine some advantages to the indigenous approach, such as a more thorough or intimate knowledge of a particular ecosystem (as you touched upon in your OP).

Fascinating stuff.
 
Last edited:

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
I'm not even going to pretend I can do that topic a justice here. Instead I'd encourage you, if you're interested, to delve into the philosophy of science a bit. Maybe chat up a few researchers if you know some, which gives a window into the experience. Read some of the perspectives from indigenous scientists directly. But to just mention a couple things?

Science also refers to a body of knowledge. That meaning is particularly relevant here, because the body of knowledge present in indigenous lore, even if arrived at using methods more or less consistent with what the west regards as acceptable, doesn't always get acknowledged for various reasons.

Actually doing science is messy. It really doesn't follow the neat and clean method you learn in school. I used to believe it did, but then I went to graduate school and actually did science as a professional. It sort of follows it. But it is an abstracted, idealized model that isn't how it works in practice.
I realize that sometimes people use the word science to refer to a body of knowledge, but even in those cases, it is only that knowledge that we have found using scientific method.
 
I recently had the privilege of listening to a speaker who introduced the concept of indigenous science to me. For those who aren't aware, my own formal education is in life science, with an emphasis on ecosystem-scale questions and applications like conservation. Ecological approaches tend to be less reductionistic and more holistic in how they understand the subject, but indigenous science takes this to a whole different level, apparently!

Dr. Pfeiffer has written a good (though a bit lengthy) article about indigenous science and why it is important. Indigenous science is, in many respects, intermarried with indigenous religion rather than compartmentalized like how things are often viewed in Western culture. Here's a little snippet from the article to kick things off:


"Indigenous peoples continuously occupying specific ecosystems for centuries or millennia maintain intimate familiarity with how those ecologies function. From the Yanomami in the Amazon to the Inupiat in the Arctic, Native communities successfully shepherded resources through a combination of deeply held belief systems and sophisticated adaptive management technologies, augmented by the pervasive accumulation, intergenerational transfer, and application of scientific knowledge. This is why Native peoples developed scientific terminology to categorize and characterize species and interspecies relationships—such as birds associated with specific fruiting trees, or the migration patterns of walrus and caribou—long before Western science invented academic fields like agronomy, animal behavior, ecology, climate science, restoration ecology, soil science, and zoology.
...
During my career as a university lecturer, whenever scientists in my field alluded to place-based or experiential knowledge, they described it as “anecdotal” or derived from an “informant,” downgrading local expertise as nonscientific or ancillary to “real” science. In every natural resource management agency meeting I attend as a consultant, decisions are ostensibly based on the “best available science.” Translation? Anything written by someone with degrees accompanying their name, even if it was published decades ago or is the sole article on the topic, will take precedence over the unpublished expertise of a Native or local practitioner."

This is just fascinating for me to think about, both as a Druid and as a scientist. I've studied enough philosophy of science to be aware of its limitations and shortcomings, but there is a massive repository of knowledge indigenous peoples have about how the world works we just... ignore. I'm looking forward to digging into this topic a bit more, and am curious if others have already done so or have some observations to contribute. :D
Basically indigenous people knew nothing about science. They watched the sky and birds etc but obtained nothing but their habits. Nothing scientific there.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
So are the Australian aborigines, American Indians and rift valley first humanoids.

I don't believe they were the first there which excludes them as indigenous.

So you know for a fact that Homo erectus never got to Oz or the Americas.
 

RestlessSoul

Well-Known Member
Basically indigenous people knew nothing about science. They watched the sky and birds etc but obtained nothing but their habits. Nothing scientific there.


Laws of science are predicated on observing regularities in nature, and gathering data based on those observations, to predict future events. Nothing new there really.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
So are the Australian aborigines, American Indians and rift valley first humanoids.

I don't believe they were the first there which excludes them as indigenous.
Actually, it appears they all were, unless one wants to conclude the pre-human line as being the indigenous.

IOW, this is the area whereas we as humans likely first evolved.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Laws of science are predicated on observing regularities in nature, and gathering data based on those observations, to predict future events. Nothing new there really.
Science as it iscpracticed today is less thann
200 years old.
Observing and generalizing from
observations is practiced by house cats.

Doing those is a necessary precursor to
science. Calling it science is absurd.

Feynman wrote about "cargo cult" science.
( look up cargo cult,,those who don't know what it is)

Drawing conclusions on sketchy data that has not been rigorously tested gets you astrology, alchemy, homeopathy, and cat - theory on the origin of catfood.

And it leads to cargo cult science, and as with
Newtons alchemy, it's just going through motions that look like research but won't work any better than a bamboo aerial ever got a cargo plane to land.

Research can leadvto theory but it very seldom does

What you get from it without a proper framework is not science, it's not theory, it's superstition. The opposite of science. No understanding at all of wy things work or dont,work.
 
Laws of science are predicated on observing regularities in nature, and gathering data based on those observations, to predict future events. Nothing new there really.
You can't think that uneducated warring tribes living in primitive animal like conditions really believe they understood what was it all about.
That amount of credibility is not on my shopping list.
 

RestlessSoul

Well-Known Member
You can't think that uneducated warring tribes living in primitive animal like conditions really believe they understood what was it all about.
That amount of credibility is not on my shopping list.


We’re still warring tribes struggling to balance our reason and intellect with our animal desires.

Don’t kid yourself mate, we are still primitive, and there are still far “more things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of in thy philosophy.” Nothing’s really changed, we just have better tech; and those of us who live in the privileged corners of wealthy nations fool ourselves into thinking we are more enlightened than our forebears, but that’s a nonsense frankly.
 

RestlessSoul

Well-Known Member
Science as it iscpracticed today is less thann
200 years old.
Observing and generalizing from
observations is practiced by house cats.

Doing those is a necessary precursor to
science. Calling it science is absurd.

Feynman wrote about "cargo cult" science.
( look up cargo cult,,those who don't know what it is)

Drawing conclusions on sketchy data that has not been rigorously tested gets you astrology, alchemy, homeopathy, and cat - theory on the origin of catfood.

And it leads to cargo cult science, and as with
Newtons alchemy, it's just going through motions that look like research but won't work any better than a bamboo aerial ever got a cargo plane to land.

Research can leadvto theory but it very seldom does

What you get from it without a proper framework is not science, it's not theory, it's superstition. The opposite of science. No understanding at all of wy things work or dont,work.


It’s five hundred years since Nicolaus Copernicus published his De Revolutionibus de Orbium Coelestium, so I think your 200 years is a bit out. In any case, it’s absurd to dismiss the millennia old Ptolomeic model, which preceded the Copernican, as superstitious nonsense; Ptolemeus’ astronomical model was confirmed by observation, and had considerable practical value when it came to predicting the motions of heavenly bodies.

That the Sun’s rising in the east and setting in the west has proved to be illusory, ought to encourage humility rather than hubris when we consider our current scientific paradigms. History suggests that they too will be found to be illusory, just as Ptolemaic astronomy and Newtonian physics have been found to be illusory. What science gives us is functional approximations of reality. Certainly the Greeks had those, as did your own ancient Chinese forebears. Meanwhile, fundamental underlying reality remains as deeply hidden as it ever did.
 
Last edited:

Audie

Veteran Member
It’s five hundred years since Nicolaus Copernicus published his De Revolutionibus de Orbium Coelestium, so I think your 200 years is a bit out. In any case, it’s absurd to dismiss the 900 year old Ptolomeic model, which preceded the Copernican, as superstitious nonsense; Ptolemeus’ astronomical model was confirmed by observation, and had considerable practical value when it came to predicting the motions of heavenly bodies.

That the Sun’s rising in the east and setting in the west has proved to be illusory, ought to encourage humility rather than hubris when we consider our current scientific paradigms. History suggests that they too will be found to be illusory, just as Ptolemaic astronomy and Newtonian physics have been found to be illusory. What science gives us is functional approximations of reality. Certainly the Greeks had those, as did your own ancient Chinese forebears. Meanwhile, fundamental underlying reality remains as deeply hidden as it ever did.
Not that I did dismiss as superstition in
the way you suggest, or that, you idea is more than half baked.
Still, I think there's much to it that is worth
working through, so I will rate your dismissal
as comparably half baked
 
Top