Are there many sciences?

Some people argue that indigenous knowledge is equivalent to science. Indigenous knowledge clearly exists, it is often deep and valid (otherwise humas would not have survived for hundreds of thousands of years). However, there are differences with the knowledge system that the Western countries developed the last 400 years (called "western science"). What are those differences? We suggest that there are ontological and axiological differences.

Ontological differences refer to the basic assumptions about the world, and about how one knows it. "Western science" assumes a world that is material, impersonal, and lacks purpose. This world is common to every person, the assumption is that there is a single "world". Moreover the western science ontology assumes implicitly that the world is rational, and that all people share the same way of thinking. This means that the world has regularities, called laws, and that it is knowledgeable. The double assumption that the world is rational, and that reason is common to every human, is the rock bottom assumption of science. We know the world by observation, experiment, and mathematics and logic.

However, the ontologies of other systems of knowledge may be very different. For instance, they may assume the world is both spiritual and material, that the "things" in the world (animals, plants, even rocks) have a spirit, and personhood. There is an assumption that we are all related in a spiritual sense. Moreover, the world is "local" not universal, and perhaps no assumptions are made about its rationality. One knows the world mainly by experience and tradition.

The world views of different societies may be different, and many societies resent the point of view that the western world-view (or its science) is the reference; the standard of world views.

Axiological differences refer to values, what is good and bad. What is permitted and what is forbidden in different societies. And different societies have different sets of values. For instance, in the modern western worldview, knowing is an almost supreme value. It is OK to torture animals in pursuit of knowledge. For many non-western societies, animals (and plants, and others) are our relatives, our family. Deserving respect and care. Even when killed for food or other reasons, the attitude is radically different than the Olympic arrogance of the modern scientist.

Now, the knowledge part, what V. Toledo, of the UNAM in Michoacan call the "corpus" may be quite valid and deep. For instance, the navigation systems of the Polynesian peoples, the botanical knowledge of practically every traditional group, the knowledge about the soil, about astronomy... The depth and validity of traditional knowledge has been demonstrated countless times, and in some sense it is to everyone. This is what allows "biopiracy" (appropriating the knowledge of others without recognition or retribution). What it may be radically different is the way knowledge is expressed, the narratives, the stories. No wonder, since these are derived from the worldview. Indeed, if the ontology and the values are different, even if the factual part is the same, the knowledge systems are different. Maybe even radically different. All cultures know that Datura stramonium contains bioactive substances, but the attitude towards "toloache" (or jimson weed, or Umatai, or Kanaka...) and the attitude towards scopolamine are radically different. Whether the science of the western societies is "more valid" deserves an entire post!

There is a fundamental question that we can see (or that we think a lot about). We strongly suspect that the world view (not the just knowledge. The entire worldview) of the indigenous peoples is one conducing to sustainability and a better (in a moral sense) life. At the same time, we want to have electricity, the Internet, airplanes, and antibiotics. Question: is it possible to combine the indigenous worldview with the western science and technology? If so, how?