It's very important. Earlier, in response to a similar question, Ms. Salomon raised some important points.

First of all, we must avoid always thinking that indigenous knowledge must be validated by science. Otherwise, you would have to accept that indigenous knowledge validates the science, and that constant reciprocal validation would become ridiculous. So we really have to consider what we're talking about.

The difference between belief and proven knowledge is easily found by talking to several people. If I talk to one indigenous person and they tell me one thing, it's anecdotal information, and I don't know the veracity or the value. However, if I talk to 10, 20 or 30 indigenous people who are recognized by their peers as experts in a given field and they all tell me the same thing, we're dealing with a widespread knowledge that has a value comparable to scientific data.

Similarly, if you carry out just one scientific experiment, in which you make a mistake, and not out of dishonesty, you can make mistakes for a long time if you just rely on that one experience, until someone tries to replicate the initial experiment and realizes that the results were wrong. So it's always a matter of repeating and multiplying knowledge and evidence that the right ground is found.

People in the natural sciences often make the mistake of thinking that the social sciences are based on a simple talking point, but that's incorrect. It's by talking to a number of people, as I've just explained, that we develop knowledge. If this knowledge is shared by a lot of experts, you either accept that it's valid or you decide that it's a conspiracy and that these people agreed before meeting with me to tell me the same lie. Once again, I'm demonstrating this by the absurd, but it's clear that there are plenty of concrete examples of this knowledge.

Transcript

Discussions (0)