What do you think?
Rate this book
Local Science Vs Global Science: Approaches to Indigenous Knowledge in International Development
While science has achieved a remarkable understanding of nature, affording humans an astonishing technological capability, it has led, through Euro-American global domination, to the muting of other cultural views and values, even threatening their continued existence. There is a growing realization that the diversity of knowledge systems demand respect, some refer to them in a conservation idiom as alternative information banks. The scientific perspective is only one. We now have many examples of the soundness of local science and practices, some previously considered “primitive” and in need of change, but this book goes beyond demonstrating the soundness of local science and arguing for the incorporation of others’ knowledge in development, to argue that we need to look quizzically at the foundations of science itself and further challenge its hegemony, not only over local communities in Africa, Asia, the Pacific or wherever, but also the global community. The issues are large and the challenges are exciting, as addressed in this book, in a range of ethnographic and institutional contexts.
302 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2006
15 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
January 31, 2019
I love Paul Sillitoe. His books "An introduction to the anthropology of Melanesia" and "Social changes in Melanesia" are among the most instructive, well written and even entertaining books on the topic I have ever read.
I was very curious about this collection of essays on the topic "Local science vs global science", the abstract on the back cover stated that "this book goes beyond demonstrating the soundness of local science and arguing for the incorporation of others' knowledge in development". That sounded thrilling!
What I did not appreciate:
One problem is that some of the essays are off topic, I don't fully understand why they have been incorporated. Others point out simply that global sience in not really enough to set a development program, and that trditional, local knowledge should be incorporated. Fine. But examples of how this incorporation resulted in a better delevopment are only a few. Moreover I do not agree in referring to "local knowledge" as "local science": untill traditional knowledge is proven with experimental or at leat observational data, it cannot be "science".
Another aspect that I did not appreciate at all is the blind confidence in local knowledge. The book provides only a few examples of local knowledge practices that are actualy scientifically solid, but almost completely ignores those practices which are clearly "only a tradition" (actually there is a small part that questions certain practices, but that's really not enough). It would be criminal for examples to take into consideration a traditional horoscope to set up a development agenda. While this practise is undeniably local and traditional, it has no efficacy at all, and sometimes it only results in the creation of more prejudices within a society.
Another thing that striked me is a sentence in the final essay by Silliteo, the editor: "Darwinian ideas of evolution have long encouraged this wiev of other cultures [that Westerners should look down on New Guineans] but anthropologists argue against them because their research has taught them that is dubious to talk about evolution in sociocultural contexts". This is simply wrong. Darwinian evolution is and has always been a purely biological theory, with no connection whatsoever with human culture. Those who see it as proof of the egemony of Western culture over others, misinterpret Darwins' books, which, again, are scientific, not social, essays.
What I appreciated:
The non-expert reader (like me) would surely appreciate and reflect on many aspects touched by the book. For example how the expectation of development programs are different on a local and on a global scale. For exaple this is striking in the essay dealing with conservation efforts in Ecuador.
I also found stimulating and extremely interesting the part about the intellectual property protection: probably that was my favourite essay. It is something we don't think about when taking about (scientifically sound) local knowledge!
Overall I would have expected the description of more cases of local knowledge which was proven to be scientifically valid. Many essays touched the topic of "local science vs global science" only marginally, and the almost blind faith in local knowledge honestly irritated me a bit. If, let's say, a medical procedure has been traditionally used for generations, it does not implicitly mean that it works.
I was very curious about this collection of essays on the topic "Local science vs global science", the abstract on the back cover stated that "this book goes beyond demonstrating the soundness of local science and arguing for the incorporation of others' knowledge in development". That sounded thrilling!
What I did not appreciate:
One problem is that some of the essays are off topic, I don't fully understand why they have been incorporated. Others point out simply that global sience in not really enough to set a development program, and that trditional, local knowledge should be incorporated. Fine. But examples of how this incorporation resulted in a better delevopment are only a few. Moreover I do not agree in referring to "local knowledge" as "local science": untill traditional knowledge is proven with experimental or at leat observational data, it cannot be "science".
Another aspect that I did not appreciate at all is the blind confidence in local knowledge. The book provides only a few examples of local knowledge practices that are actualy scientifically solid, but almost completely ignores those practices which are clearly "only a tradition" (actually there is a small part that questions certain practices, but that's really not enough). It would be criminal for examples to take into consideration a traditional horoscope to set up a development agenda. While this practise is undeniably local and traditional, it has no efficacy at all, and sometimes it only results in the creation of more prejudices within a society.
Another thing that striked me is a sentence in the final essay by Silliteo, the editor: "Darwinian ideas of evolution have long encouraged this wiev of other cultures [that Westerners should look down on New Guineans] but anthropologists argue against them because their research has taught them that is dubious to talk about evolution in sociocultural contexts". This is simply wrong. Darwinian evolution is and has always been a purely biological theory, with no connection whatsoever with human culture. Those who see it as proof of the egemony of Western culture over others, misinterpret Darwins' books, which, again, are scientific, not social, essays.
What I appreciated:
The non-expert reader (like me) would surely appreciate and reflect on many aspects touched by the book. For example how the expectation of development programs are different on a local and on a global scale. For exaple this is striking in the essay dealing with conservation efforts in Ecuador.
I also found stimulating and extremely interesting the part about the intellectual property protection: probably that was my favourite essay. It is something we don't think about when taking about (scientifically sound) local knowledge!
Overall I would have expected the description of more cases of local knowledge which was proven to be scientifically valid. Many essays touched the topic of "local science vs global science" only marginally, and the almost blind faith in local knowledge honestly irritated me a bit. If, let's say, a medical procedure has been traditionally used for generations, it does not implicitly mean that it works.
Displaying 1 of 1 review