Thank you, Doug. Also, thanks for your reference to previous work within IIMI (IWMI). I will definitely download these working papers. It is interesting to note that some of these types of integrated ideas picked up steam in the early 2000's in academic circles, but quickly went off the radar. Not sure what caused this.
I am often struck by the disregard for indigenous or local knowledge in many of the "hard" applied sciences, such as agricultural development and natural resources management. There seems to be a perception that if you give credence to such non-scientific knowledge, then you are somehow putting aside your own knowledge. One ought to inform the other in some way. There are certainly many aspects of the natural world that biophysical scientists can explain and understand in ways that others do not, cannot, and should not be expected. We readily accept this, but have a harder time accepting knowledge coming in the other direction.
Two seemingly simplisitc points:
1) People intuitively know and some understand some aspects of the natural environment based on living in and interacting with it. For example, you don't need a degree in meteorology or quantitative knowledge about cloud formation and precipitation to "know" that on some days when you look out at the sky, an umbrella is in order. This is a positive point (acknowledgement) from which to communicate about science.
2) Human beings do not necessarily interact with their environment based on what is "scientifically correct" (even when presented with strong evidence), but rather on what they perceive or "believe" to be true based on a set of factors than often have nothing to do with science.
As biophysical scientists, we are taught to pursue our hypotheses in a systematic and rigorous matter, which allows us to replicate one another's work as well as quantify the degree of certainty with which we can make statements. In fact, within the hard sciences, we we are not trying to “prove” anything. We set out to disprove and each time we are unable to do this, our hypothesis gains strength.
We test and test, and this is a good thing.
At the same time, however, we must work within the boundaries of Point 2 above. Ultimately, few decisions in the world are made based on scientific observation and knowledge, but rather on social structures that are grounded in beliefs or customs, which are not so open to being tested. Organizations like IWMI and programs such as WLE in particular stand at a great moment in time where shifts in how we communicate about science can help bring about new paradigms. That said, we can only do so by uniting across our disciplines through methods that respect and engage with multiple forms of knowledge.
Thank you, Doug. Also, thanks for your reference to previous work within IIMI (IWMI). I will definitely download these working papers. It is interesting to note that some of these types of integrated ideas picked up steam in the early 2000's in academic circles, but quickly went off the radar. Not sure what caused this.
I am often struck by the disregard for indigenous or local knowledge in many of the "hard" applied sciences, such as agricultural development and natural resources management. There seems to be a perception that if you give credence to such non-scientific knowledge, then you are somehow putting aside your own knowledge. One ought to inform the other in some way. There are certainly many aspects of the natural world that biophysical scientists can explain and understand in ways that others do not, cannot, and should not be expected. We readily accept this, but have a harder time accepting knowledge coming in the other direction.
Two seemingly simplisitc points:
1) People intuitively know and some understand some aspects of the natural environment based on living in and interacting with it. For example, you don't need a degree in meteorology or quantitative knowledge about cloud formation and precipitation to "know" that on some days when you look out at the sky, an umbrella is in order. This is a positive point (acknowledgement) from which to communicate about science.
2) Human beings do not necessarily interact with their environment based on what is "scientifically correct" (even when presented with strong evidence), but rather on what they perceive or "believe" to be true based on a set of factors than often have nothing to do with science.
As biophysical scientists, we are taught to pursue our hypotheses in a systematic and rigorous matter, which allows us to replicate one another's work as well as quantify the degree of certainty with which we can make statements. In fact, within the hard sciences, we we are not trying to “prove” anything. We set out to disprove and each time we are unable to do this, our hypothesis gains strength.
We test and test, and this is a good thing.
At the same time, however, we must work within the boundaries of Point 2 above. Ultimately, few decisions in the world are made based on scientific observation and knowledge, but rather on social structures that are grounded in beliefs or customs, which are not so open to being tested. Organizations like IWMI and programs such as WLE in particular stand at a great moment in time where shifts in how we communicate about science can help bring about new paradigms. That said, we can only do so by uniting across our disciplines through methods that respect and engage with multiple forms of knowledge.