37
The Co-Evolution of Different Sciences
than mainstream knowledge as the result of historic processes that have led to the discrimination of
local knowledge or asymmetric funding of research. But local knowledge should not be assessed by
applying the criteria and methods used by mainstream science.
In the current international scientifc arena, the rhetoric around the acceptance of pluralism and
symmetry is far from the reality. The West has a dominant position in the globe: economically,
militarily, ideologically and scientifcally; and this makes acceptance of pluralism and symmetric
relationships with non-Western systems very diffcult.
For inter-scientifc cooperation, it is important to have a formulation of the characteristics
of different ways of knowing (in terms of the ontology, gnoseology and epistemology) and a
self-assessment of the relative strengths and weaknesses of each knowledge system. This could
coincide with an assessment of the power relations between the systems involved. During a conference on intra- and inter-scientifc dialogue, AGRUCO and Latin American COMPAS partners concluded that intra-cultural dialogue and a revitalisation of indigenous knowledge are preconditions
for inter-scientifc dialogues (Delgado and Escobar, 2006).
This means that for each scientifc tradition that takes part in inter-scientifc cooperation, its own
worldview should be formulated by the holders of that view themselves. The way of learning should
be made explicit and should be the basis on which an epistemology can be formulated. This is not a
simple process; it involves different actors, may require time and resources and may lead to confusion or frustration or reveal internal differences.
The objectives of the intra- and inter-scientifc dialogues are as follows:
• To understand, describe and exchange the epistemologies and paradigms of the sciences
involved.
• To strengthen and revitalise marginalised sciences by providing them suffcient space to
fourish in knowledge institutions.
• To determine the strengths, limitations and comparative advantage of each science.
• To look for synergy and opportunities for mutual learning as well as for contradictions and
exclusions.
• To question, challenge and criticise each science in order to determine those aspects of the
science and value systems that need modifcation and improvement.
• To promote policies that facilitate balancing the power and fnancial resource base of the
different sciences.
Today, the mainstream ‘knowledge space’ in institutions for education, research and development
is largely dominated by Western science, its values and its epistemic frame. This impoverishes
not only the knowledge sector but also development programmes that are based on one dominant
knowledge system. The epistemological interpretation of the different Asian, African and Latin
American and European knowledge systems, their ways of learning and experimenting and their
mutual relationships needs urgent attention, if we are to diversify and enrich both the world’s knowledge space and development action. Therefore, it is important to systematise and make more explicit
the concepts and theories behind indigenous forms of knowledge in order to share them as part of a
possible co-evolution of the diversity of sciences.
REFERENCES
AGRUCO (2001) Cosmovision Indigena y Biodiversidad en America Latina - Seminario Latinoamericano en
Cochabamba. Bolivia: Biodiversidad – Sustento y Culturas, 28 Abril de 2001.
Balasubramanian, A.V. and Nirmala Devi, T.D. (eds.) (2006) Traditional knowledge systems of India and
Sri Lanka. Papers Presented at the COMPAS Asian Regional Workshop on Traditional Knowledge
Systems and Their Current Relevance and Applications, 3–5 July 2006, Bangalore. COMPAS series on
Worldviews and Sciences 5. COMPAS/CIKS September 2006.
The Co-Evolution of Different Sciences
than mainstream knowledge as the result of historic processes that have led to the discrimination of
local knowledge or asymmetric funding of research. But local knowledge should not be assessed by
applying the criteria and methods used by mainstream science.
In the current international scientifc arena, the rhetoric around the acceptance of pluralism and
symmetry is far from the reality. The West has a dominant position in the globe: economically,
militarily, ideologically and scientifcally; and this makes acceptance of pluralism and symmetric
relationships with non-Western systems very diffcult.
For inter-scientifc cooperation, it is important to have a formulation of the characteristics
of different ways of knowing (in terms of the ontology, gnoseology and epistemology) and a
self-assessment of the relative strengths and weaknesses of each knowledge system. This could
coincide with an assessment of the power relations between the systems involved. During a conference on intra- and inter-scientifc dialogue, AGRUCO and Latin American COMPAS partners concluded that intra-cultural dialogue and a revitalisation of indigenous knowledge are preconditions
for inter-scientifc dialogues (Delgado and Escobar, 2006).
This means that for each scientifc tradition that takes part in inter-scientifc cooperation, its own
worldview should be formulated by the holders of that view themselves. The way of learning should
be made explicit and should be the basis on which an epistemology can be formulated. This is not a
simple process; it involves different actors, may require time and resources and may lead to confusion or frustration or reveal internal differences.
The objectives of the intra- and inter-scientifc dialogues are as follows:
• To understand, describe and exchange the epistemologies and paradigms of the sciences
involved.
• To strengthen and revitalise marginalised sciences by providing them suffcient space to
fourish in knowledge institutions.
• To determine the strengths, limitations and comparative advantage of each science.
• To look for synergy and opportunities for mutual learning as well as for contradictions and
exclusions.
• To question, challenge and criticise each science in order to determine those aspects of the
science and value systems that need modifcation and improvement.
• To promote policies that facilitate balancing the power and fnancial resource base of the
different sciences.
Today, the mainstream ‘knowledge space’ in institutions for education, research and development
is largely dominated by Western science, its values and its epistemic frame. This impoverishes
not only the knowledge sector but also development programmes that are based on one dominant
knowledge system. The epistemological interpretation of the different Asian, African and Latin
American and European knowledge systems, their ways of learning and experimenting and their
mutual relationships needs urgent attention, if we are to diversify and enrich both the world’s knowledge space and development action. Therefore, it is important to systematise and make more explicit
the concepts and theories behind indigenous forms of knowledge in order to share them as part of a
possible co-evolution of the diversity of sciences.
REFERENCES
AGRUCO (2001) Cosmovision Indigena y Biodiversidad en America Latina - Seminario Latinoamericano en
Cochabamba. Bolivia: Biodiversidad – Sustento y Culturas, 28 Abril de 2001.
Balasubramanian, A.V. and Nirmala Devi, T.D. (eds.) (2006) Traditional knowledge systems of India and
Sri Lanka. Papers Presented at the COMPAS Asian Regional Workshop on Traditional Knowledge
Systems and Their Current Relevance and Applications, 3–5 July 2006, Bangalore. COMPAS series on
Worldviews and Sciences 5. COMPAS/CIKS September 2006.