23
The Co-Evolution of Different Sciences
understood by reducing them to their constituent parts, a process called atomisation. He made
a clear distinction between mind and matter and replaced the notion of the divine plan of the
Creator with a mathematical order of nature. Descartes understood humanity as composed of
two independent substances: body and mind. But, he thought that it was only the ratio and quantifcation of objective phenomena that could lead to good knowledge. During the Enlightenment,
the dominant worldview became materialistic: in order to make reality researchable, it became
necessary to separate mind from matter, humankind from nature and subject from object. The
only thing that could objectively be observed and experienced was matter, and so mind became
considered as terra incognita by scientists, a tradition that continues to this day. This Cartesian
science has a linear view of time, a mechanistic notion of cause and effect. It values quantity
more than quality and is organised into highly specialised and atomised disciplines. The theory
of evolution, based on the notion of ‘survival of the fttest’, has been translated over to economics as the mechanism of competition between commercial entities where the ‘winner takes all’.
Human traits such as altruism, friendship, cooperation, love and affection have been attributed
less importance than competition, individuality, aggression and conquest. This has led to a justifcation of political and economic domination and acceptance of cultural and biological extinction
as part of the price for progress.
Since the colonial period, this version of Western-based science, in combination with Western
religions, was disseminated in the South and, to a certain extent, it substituted the various – often
animistic – indigenous knowledges, sciences and belief systems. The latter were declared inferior,
backward and superstitious and were regarded as a bottleneck to modernisation and development,
as were the pre-Enlightenment belief systems in the North.
Western science has led to impressive technologies and highly productive systems of agriculture and industry, impressive medical achievements and communication systems. But it has
not fulflled its promises to serve human needs and allow progress for all. The widespread
application of modern technologies has defnitely improved food production, health systems and
labour conditions in parts of the globe, but not the entire globe. Where it has worked well has
often been at the expense of some categories of people. In southern countries, the overlapping
categories of women, rural people and peasant farmers have suffered most. 1 Advancements in
modern technology have not led to global peace, ecological stability and social or psychological
well-being. Nor have they led to the eradication of widespread hunger or poverty, not even in
northern countries, where in spite of affuence, pockets of poverty exist amongst certain communities, and where food systems also cause a serious problem through affuence: obesity and
environmental and climatic impacts. This situation justifes a search for new worldviews and
scientifc methods that challenge Western knowledge’s claim to exclusive universality, and a
great number of organisations and movements are engaged in this effort. An illustration of the
diversity of worldviews and ways of learning is presented in Box 2.1, with some insights from
India, Ghana and Bolivia.
AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES FROM DIFFERENT WORLDVIEWS
From the year 2000 to 2012, two different international programmes have carried out action
research to strengthen indigenous knowledge and practices and to enhance endogenous development (development from within). These programmes covered 16 different countries worldwide:
Bolivia, Mexico, Guatemala, Chile and Colombia, Ghana, Kenya, Zimbabwe, Uganda and South
Africa, Norway, the Netherlands, India, Sri Lanka, Nepal and Indonesia. The frst programme was
COMPAS, a programme in which several NGOs and a number of universities carried out feldwork.
1 For a comprehensive overview and critical analysis of the role of peasantry in Peru, Italy and the Netherlands, see van der
Ploeg (2008).
The Co-Evolution of Different Sciences
understood by reducing them to their constituent parts, a process called atomisation. He made
a clear distinction between mind and matter and replaced the notion of the divine plan of the
Creator with a mathematical order of nature. Descartes understood humanity as composed of
two independent substances: body and mind. But, he thought that it was only the ratio and quantifcation of objective phenomena that could lead to good knowledge. During the Enlightenment,
the dominant worldview became materialistic: in order to make reality researchable, it became
necessary to separate mind from matter, humankind from nature and subject from object. The
only thing that could objectively be observed and experienced was matter, and so mind became
considered as terra incognita by scientists, a tradition that continues to this day. This Cartesian
science has a linear view of time, a mechanistic notion of cause and effect. It values quantity
more than quality and is organised into highly specialised and atomised disciplines. The theory
of evolution, based on the notion of ‘survival of the fttest’, has been translated over to economics as the mechanism of competition between commercial entities where the ‘winner takes all’.
Human traits such as altruism, friendship, cooperation, love and affection have been attributed
less importance than competition, individuality, aggression and conquest. This has led to a justifcation of political and economic domination and acceptance of cultural and biological extinction
as part of the price for progress.
Since the colonial period, this version of Western-based science, in combination with Western
religions, was disseminated in the South and, to a certain extent, it substituted the various – often
animistic – indigenous knowledges, sciences and belief systems. The latter were declared inferior,
backward and superstitious and were regarded as a bottleneck to modernisation and development,
as were the pre-Enlightenment belief systems in the North.
Western science has led to impressive technologies and highly productive systems of agriculture and industry, impressive medical achievements and communication systems. But it has
not fulflled its promises to serve human needs and allow progress for all. The widespread
application of modern technologies has defnitely improved food production, health systems and
labour conditions in parts of the globe, but not the entire globe. Where it has worked well has
often been at the expense of some categories of people. In southern countries, the overlapping
categories of women, rural people and peasant farmers have suffered most. 1 Advancements in
modern technology have not led to global peace, ecological stability and social or psychological
well-being. Nor have they led to the eradication of widespread hunger or poverty, not even in
northern countries, where in spite of affuence, pockets of poverty exist amongst certain communities, and where food systems also cause a serious problem through affuence: obesity and
environmental and climatic impacts. This situation justifes a search for new worldviews and
scientifc methods that challenge Western knowledge’s claim to exclusive universality, and a
great number of organisations and movements are engaged in this effort. An illustration of the
diversity of worldviews and ways of learning is presented in Box 2.1, with some insights from
India, Ghana and Bolivia.
AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES FROM DIFFERENT WORLDVIEWS
From the year 2000 to 2012, two different international programmes have carried out action
research to strengthen indigenous knowledge and practices and to enhance endogenous development (development from within). These programmes covered 16 different countries worldwide:
Bolivia, Mexico, Guatemala, Chile and Colombia, Ghana, Kenya, Zimbabwe, Uganda and South
Africa, Norway, the Netherlands, India, Sri Lanka, Nepal and Indonesia. The frst programme was
COMPAS, a programme in which several NGOs and a number of universities carried out feldwork.
1 For a comprehensive overview and critical analysis of the role of peasantry in Peru, Italy and the Netherlands, see van der
Ploeg (2008).