mbulskov
Joanne Fisher
Baphnedia@Jedigirl
..but after watching THREE youtube videos I can calculate the hypotenuse of my idiocy? XP
@soatok
Julie Sqveakaroo
MadisonMonkey@Jedigirl the anthropomorphism of science lets their glasses
slide half way down their nose and looks over the rims at the the opposition and says “no, I’m not saying f&$k your feelings, but rather that your feelings are entirely irrelevant in this particular field of human endeavor, though it is important to maintain an integrated persona so may I suggest therapy?”
slide half way down their nose and looks over the rims at the the opposition and says “no, I’m not saying f&$k your feelings, but rather that your feelings are entirely irrelevant in this particular field of human endeavor, though it is important to maintain an integrated persona so may I suggest therapy?”
T Kennedy@Jedigirl science cannot hold up against a Facebook moms group
Hawkmoon-Your fully baked opinion after watching Fox 10 hours a day.
Menno
Radical Anthropology@Jedigirl this is strongly connected to what #anthropology calls the 'ontological turn'. We have a nuanced position: yes absolutely science first, but #Indigenous epistemologies have very important things to teach science and science needs to listen, not simply dismiss these cosmologies as religious mumbo jumbo. Science needs to let go being WEIRD and admit the whole diversity of human experience. Then it will be 'better science'.
Michális Famelis/ΦαμέληςCan you please give a pointer to an example?
@mfamelis we do a lot of work on mythology, for example, somewhat in the tracks of Levi-Strauss, the famous structuralist. In Mythologiques, analysis of almost 1000 Amerindian stories, he came very close to demonstrating a universal structure through transformations of myth. We think he was successful in that demonstration but not in explaining why it was there (he had various mentalist reductionist ideas, and no background of evolution whatsoever). So in our research, we think this kind of data, from myths and cosmology, is very important for archaeologists studying human origins to take on board as a field of data where predictions can be made or models constrained.
There are many other areas where Indigenous ecological and zoological knowledge are simply much more deepgoing in understanding of ecosystems and Western science plays catch up (I could cite examples e.g. about eland behaviours, which figure centrally in ritual of African hunter-gatherer groups).
That's just for starters...
@mfamelis
Another great example of a scientist getting to grips with Australian First Nations knowledge in astronomy.
Indigenous cosmologies operate via metaphor and analogy (as does science, because that's how humans think). Science just needs a lot more respect of expertise that's been accumulated over very long periods of time in sustainable systems.
The First Astronomers
The First Astronomers is the first book to reveal the rich knowledge of the stars and the planets held by First Peoples around the world.Our eyes have been drawn away from the skies to our screens. We no longer look to the stars to forecast the weather, predict the seasons or plant our gardens. Most of us cannot even see the Milky Way. But First Nations Elders around the world still maintain this knowledge, and there is much we can learn from them.These Elders are expert observers of the stars. They teach that everything on the land is reflected in the sky, and everything in the sky is reflected on the land. How does this work, and how can we better understand our place in the universe?Guided by six First Nations Elders, Duane Hamacher takes us on a journey across space and time to reveal the wisdom of the first astronomers. These living systems of knowledge challenge conventional ideas about the nature of science and the longevity of oral tradition. Indigenous science is dynamic, adapting to changes in the skies and on Earth, pointing the way for a world facing the profound disruptions of climate change.'This book marks a profound paradigm shift in our understanding of Indigenous scientific traditions, how they are transmitted, and their relevance to life today.' - Professor Marcia Langton, University of Melbourne'A ground-breaking book of enormous scope.' - Brian Schmidt, Nobel Laureate in Physics'A glimpse into Indigenous ways of reading landscapes reflected in the night sky through ancient processes of inquiry.' - Dr Tyson Yunkaporta, author of Sand Talk'A wonderful combination of scholarship and poetry.' - Dr Annette S. Lee, Lakota astrophysicist'Beautiful, engaging, and startlingly profound.' - Alan Duffy, Professor of Astrophysics
MárciaW 🇸🇩@RadicalAnthro @mfamelis Also Australia where scientists took a long time to understand that the Aboriginal ppls telling stories of birds that set trees on fire was not "just a myth" "While news of aerial arsonists fire-bombing the landscape may seem surprising or even shocking, the researchers are eager to emphasise that this destructive phenomenon has actually been witnessed for untold millennia." https://www.sciencealert.com/birds-intentionally-set-prey-ablaze-rewriting-history-fire-use-firehawk-raptors
Rocannon@Jedigirl it is precisely due to that principal of refutability solely through reason and not feeling that science is able to evolve into now the only system that "works" consistently in all areas it claims it understands (and it doesn't never claims to understand any more than it has evidence for). Even the most religious people would have to resort to science when and if they want to get anything real done. Iran had to rely solely on ("western") science when developing its missile program
⚡️ Kozmo Voted Blue ⚡️@Jedigirl I have to nitpick this a bit.
Science isn't refuted by better science. Instead it is improved by further science. The scientific process recognizes that many scientific "facts" are valid with current information and understanding but are not sacrosanct. They can be refuted by better science, which is an example of supporting science, not refuting it.
Science isn't refuted by better science. Instead it is improved by further science. The scientific process recognizes that many scientific "facts" are valid with current information and understanding but are not sacrosanct. They can be refuted by better science, which is an example of supporting science, not refuting it.