TEK - part of a universal science?

Question

Are TEK and Western science just two different ways of getting at a "universal science" that exists?

Cheers: Kathy, Jamie, Sue, and Emily

---

Responses

From: Alan White

March 3

First, I am not sure if we want to refer to "universal science" or possibly "universal knowledge" since I see what we are moving toward is a knowledge which is both sound in western scientific circles and in traditional experiential circles. I see TEK as a body of knowledge embedded in traditional lifestyles and within the realm of interaction between certain people and their environment in natural settings where people are still very dependent on the natural functioning of their ecosystem. In contrast, I see Western science as a mode of questioning and building knowledge from an abstract and observer position which does not by definition (at least most definitions) allow mixing experiential learning with the strict logic and experimentation of science which is suppose to lead to statements of truth based on reasoning.

An interesting analogy regarding the direction of Western science in relation to TEK is an observation a colleague of mine made the other day regarding the evolution of Science magazine over the last 15 years in its content. In the 1970's Science only accepted articles which followed the strict definition of Western scientific endeavors such as chemistry, physics, geology, biology etc. and the articles were rather specialized and not easily understood by the non-specialist. Now, a cross-section of science magazine is quite different. There are many articles on conservation, social sciences, management dilemmas affecting natural resources and the like. There are even a variety of "human interest" stories of sorts. I think our whole concept of western science is changing and beginning to merge with other forms (maybe more traditional forms) of learning. To this extent, it may be true that we are moving slowly to a more universal science which can incorporate the concepts and thinking patterns of TEK. If our perspective right now leads us to this possibility, we will still have to check it in relation to time and history since these are the real tests.

From: Gene Anderson

By "Western science" I assume you probably mean contemporary international science (labs, verification and all), which is NOT the same as western science. Western science includes alchemy, leechcraft, and the wonderful quackeries of the 19th century, but does NOT include contemporary international science, because the latter was developed by Japanese, Chinese, Indians, and others as well as by "westerners." I am getting more and more depressed at the use of "western" for things like contemporary medicine. What a racist judgement against the thousands of Asians, Africans and Latin Americans who developed much of it.

Anyway--whether we are talking about western science or modern international science--I think the answer depends on the terms of the debate. Yes, all science is one, in so far as science is the pursuit of universal truths. Of course, every individual pursues truth in his or her own way, and that unique way is shaped by "culture" and by every other environmental influence. But everyone should be able to come to the same conclusions about simple, obvious phenomena: the sky is blue, things fall down, rocks are usually harder than feathers, 2 + 2 = 4, willow leaf tea cures headaches, etc., etc., etc. So, when it comes to obvious truths about obvious phenomena, there is a universal science and all local sciences are part of it or feed into it.

But, if by "science" you mean the whole cultural institution, obviously there will never be a universal science. There will always be individual and cultural differences in the practice of science, the structure of theories, the criteria of validation for difficult-to-observe phenomena, etc.

To some extent, truths are always colored by personal and cultural beliefs. Everyone except a relatively small number of color-blind people can see that the sky is blue. Similarly, most people can pick out the hardness of rocks. But when you get into the nature of atoms, chemical bonds, Brownian motion, black holes, etc., stuff gets dicier, because these things are hard to observe. And when it comes to theories and inferences...! Help! The latest TIME mag has a nice article on all the loony ideas about "primal women" that have been circulating in anthropology and human biology lately. I have to hang my head in shame, as an anthropologist. So much wild and highly culturally conditioned speculation masquerading as science. I could take refuge in calling it "pseudoscience," but recent philosophers of science have not been kind to the idea that we can tell science from pseudoscience (see Larry Laudan, BEYOND POSITIVISM AND RELATIVISM, 1996). It's this kind of thing that makes so many postmodernists think of "science" as just more politics.

I prefer to stick with universally demonstrable things, like 2+2=4 and willow leaves, thus saving my view of science as universal.

best--Gene Anderson