4 ms·

I mean, I see a ton of articles of "newly discovered species" that the locals knew about ages ago. As well as "newly discovered pharmaceuticals" or any of that

I mean, I see a ton of articles of "newly discovered species" that the locals knew about ages ago. As well as "newly discovered pharmaceuticals" or any of that other stuff. I never attributed this to some kind of patriarchy or male worldview. I think it's totally rational to argue that sometimes the scientific method, which was developed in a european country, takes time to catch up to local knowledge in non-european countries. I don't really see any scientific study or evidence to prove that science is somehow being overtaken by some narrative force. A random's tweet doesn't prove much to me. Of course, if science does prove your claim, the paradox is that science is again catching up to the observations of the locals (of the internet).

DC-3 6y ago
I never said that scientists aren't still doing science. My post was about our society at large and its changing epistemological attitudes.
- TeaDrunk 6y ago
  But you are claiming that what "doing science" is has been changing without evidence of such. You are giving to me an oral history of a phenomenon without scientific evidence, about how oral histories are being held as equally valid to scientific evidence.
  - DC-3 6y ago
    I'm talking about the meta-level above what science is. There is no dispute that science is the scientific method, the rationalist process of inferring knowledge from formalised analysis of empirical evidence. I'm talking about the faith that society vests in science to explain things - to obtain knowledge - when weighed against other ways in which knowledge and an understanding of the world may be obtained. Although he is far more sympathetic to the anti-rationalist case than I am, this [1] video by Philosophy Tube touches on some of these ideas (and he is much better read on this stuff than I am). Although he makes a quip against post-modernism about 6 minutes in, it is my understanding that in broad strokes, the analysis he presents is in the post-modern tradition. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmk47kh7fiE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmk47kh7fiE
    - TeaDrunk 6y ago
      Isn't this itself local knowledge being spread and not science? Why argue against it with it? Thus my confusion.
      - DC-3 6y ago
        It's very hard to prove with evidence the perversion of an ideology. I can only cite disparate evidence. I think once you become aware of these ideas you start seeing their influence though.
        apocalypstyx 6y ago
        Ideology is a lens: every one we try renders a different image, but without one, we are blind. The gravitational pull of one is always seen through the perspective of another.
        205guy 6y ago
        You have been adroitly played by TeaDrunk using your own logic against you. To use words of your own choosing: are you starting to see the influence of your own perverted ideology?
        DC-3 6y ago
        I meant pervasion. It was a typo. I think it could be demonstrated empirically that certain anti-rationalist attitudes have increased in recent years, especially on the left. Since we're not doing science here I don't see why I need to provide ultra-rigorous evidence. Is that itself anti-rationalist? I don't think so - I'm not trying to influence government policy or get a PhD - some discussion contexts call for a larger burden of evidence than others.
Nasrudith 6y ago
I never got the emphasis on "native culture knew it existed first". Discovery by definition is an "adding to network" relative function based upon who is viewed as "initating it" and recorded accordingly. If a hunter A of culture B meets prospecting C of culture D then culture B records "A discovered D while hunting" and culture D records "C discovered culture B while prospecting for natural resources".
- AlotOfReading 6y ago
  A lot of important things follow from "discovery", like IP rights. Is it acceptable for ethnopharmacology companies to get most/all of the money benefits from selling indigenous medical knowledge to others? Can those companies patent a plant, or chemical derived from one and prohibit the indigenous people from using it thereafter?
  - DenisM 6y ago
    Most likely "no", you cannot patent a plant unless you have created it yourself. I don't know where those stories come from.
    - AlotOfReading 6y ago
      Probably from the fact that they happened. Here are some examples. [1] Enola bean, long produced in Mexico and exported to the US, was patented here on the basis of the inventor having been the first person to grow it in the US: https://patents.google.com/patent/US5894079A https://patents.google.com/patent/US5894079A [2] Buzy Lizzie, a hybrid vining ornamental was patented in the UK based on knowledge of wild African hybrids: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/sep/22/outlook.development https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/sep/22/outlook.develo... [3] To break from specifically plant patents, here's a different case of patenting the drug produced from a plant. The antimalarial Simalikalactone E was isolated and patented from Quassia amara after the plant was identified by Guianans. Here's an article on the controversy: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/02/french-institute-agrees-share-patent-benefits-after-biopiracy-accusations https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/02/french-institute-agr... Here's the patent: https://patents.google.com/patent/EP2443126B1 https://patents.google.com/patent/EP2443126B1
lmm 6y ago
> I mean, I see a ton of articles of "newly discovered species" that the locals knew about ages ago. As well as "newly discovered pharmaceuticals" or any of that other stuff. I never attributed this to some kind of patriarchy or male worldview. I think it's totally rational to argue that sometimes the scientific method, which was developed in a european country, takes time to catch up to local knowledge in non-european countries. Knowledge is more than beliefs that happen to be true. I don't think you can necessarily say that the locals "knew" about a particular species when they didn't have a functional definition of speciation, or "knew" about pharmaceutical properties of certain flora and fauna when they also "knew" about other pharmaceutical properties that were actually not the case.

DC-3 6y ago

I never said that scientists aren't still doing science. My post was about our society at large and its changing epistemological attitudes.

TeaDrunk 6y ago
But you are claiming that what "doing science" is has been changing without evidence of such. You are giving to me an oral history of a phenomenon without scientific evidence, about how oral histories are being held as equally valid to scientific evidence.
- DC-3 6y ago
  I'm talking about the meta-level above what science is. There is no dispute that science is the scientific method, the rationalist process of inferring knowledge from formalised analysis of empirical evidence. I'm talking about the faith that society vests in science to explain things - to obtain knowledge - when weighed against other ways in which knowledge and an understanding of the world may be obtained. Although he is far more sympathetic to the anti-rationalist case than I am, this [1] video by Philosophy Tube touches on some of these ideas (and he is much better read on this stuff than I am). Although he makes a quip against post-modernism about 6 minutes in, it is my understanding that in broad strokes, the analysis he presents is in the post-modern tradition. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmk47kh7fiE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmk47kh7fiE
  - TeaDrunk 6y ago
    Isn't this itself local knowledge being spread and not science? Why argue against it with it? Thus my confusion.
    - DC-3 6y ago
      It's very hard to prove with evidence the perversion of an ideology. I can only cite disparate evidence. I think once you become aware of these ideas you start seeing their influence though.
      - apocalypstyx 6y ago
        Ideology is a lens: every one we try renders a different image, but without one, we are blind. The gravitational pull of one is always seen through the perspective of another.
      - 205guy 6y ago
        You have been adroitly played by TeaDrunk using your own logic against you. To use words of your own choosing: are you starting to see the influence of your own perverted ideology?
        DC-3 6y ago
        I meant pervasion. It was a typo. I think it could be demonstrated empirically that certain anti-rationalist attitudes have increased in recent years, especially on the left. Since we're not doing science here I don't see why I need to provide ultra-rigorous evidence. Is that itself anti-rationalist? I don't think so - I'm not trying to influence government policy or get a PhD - some discussion contexts call for a larger burden of evidence than others.

Nasrudith 6y ago

I never got the emphasis on "native culture knew it existed first". Discovery by definition is an "adding to network" relative function based upon who is viewed as "initating it" and recorded accordingly. If a hunter A of culture B meets prospecting C of culture D then culture B records "A discovered D while hunting" and culture D records "C discovered culture B while prospecting for natural resources".

AlotOfReading 6y ago
A lot of important things follow from "discovery", like IP rights. Is it acceptable for ethnopharmacology companies to get most/all of the money benefits from selling indigenous medical knowledge to others? Can those companies patent a plant, or chemical derived from one and prohibit the indigenous people from using it thereafter?
- DenisM 6y ago
  Most likely "no", you cannot patent a plant unless you have created it yourself. I don't know where those stories come from.
  - AlotOfReading 6y ago
    Probably from the fact that they happened. Here are some examples. [1] Enola bean, long produced in Mexico and exported to the US, was patented here on the basis of the inventor having been the first person to grow it in the US: https://patents.google.com/patent/US5894079A https://patents.google.com/patent/US5894079A [2] Buzy Lizzie, a hybrid vining ornamental was patented in the UK based on knowledge of wild African hybrids: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/sep/22/outlook.development https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/sep/22/outlook.develo... [3] To break from specifically plant patents, here's a different case of patenting the drug produced from a plant. The antimalarial Simalikalactone E was isolated and patented from Quassia amara after the plant was identified by Guianans. Here's an article on the controversy: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/02/french-institute-agrees-share-patent-benefits-after-biopiracy-accusations https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/02/french-institute-agr... Here's the patent: https://patents.google.com/patent/EP2443126B1 https://patents.google.com/patent/EP2443126B1

lmm 6y ago

> I mean, I see a ton of articles of "newly discovered species" that the locals knew about ages ago. As well as "newly discovered pharmaceuticals" or any of that other stuff. I never attributed this to some kind of patriarchy or male worldview. I think it's totally rational to argue that sometimes the scientific method, which was developed in a european country, takes time to catch up to local knowledge in non-european countries. Knowledge is more than beliefs that happen to be true. I don't think you can necessarily say that the locals "knew" about a particular species when they didn't have a functional definition of speciation, or "knew" about pharmaceutical properties of certain flora and fauna when they also "knew" about other pharmaceutical properties that were actually not the case.