From the article: "Science is promoted as objective, quantifiable, and the foundation for “real” knowledge creation or evaluation while Traditional Knowledge m

From the article: "Science is promoted as objective, quantifiable, and the foundation for “real” knowledge creation or evaluation while Traditional Knowledge may be seen as anecdotal, imprecise and unfamiliar in form." That's because "Traditional Knowledge" IS anecdotal and imprecise. Science as a process does not simply discount so-called Traditional Knowledge out of hand. But to imply (as portions of this article seem to) that modern science is acting arrogantly or elitist when stories steeped in sympathetic magic are glossed over by ecologists is laughable.