Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 103

Archive 100

Archive 101

Archive 102

Archive 103

Traditional ecological knowledge

The articles traditional ecological knowledge and traditional knowledge could probably use more scrutiny by folks with the time to do so. In fact, it might be good to merge them. But in any case, while there is undoubtedly something to the idea that people who have lived in and depended on an environment for a long time have gained knowledge about that environment, this topic never seems to be too far from people who use it to science-bash, or to give credence to unreliable ways of knowing or supernaturalism. There also seems to be a lot of bloat. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:04, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

...and, sigh:

• Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_98#Indigenous_science
• Indigenous science (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch.
• Coloniality of knowledge (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

fiveby(zero) 18:13, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Was thinking some about the prior thread during the VP discussion with Tukdam and religion. Here also we have a call to legitimize other knowledge systems by exploring alternative epistemologies, ontologies and methodologies. While the Buddhism and consciousness revolution we are assured is on the way soon, it seems to me this one already happened. How do you provide information about knowledge when knowledge itself is disputed. fiveby(zero) 20:41, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Related: Decoloniality Leijurv (talk) 05:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I honestly have no idea what to do with these articles. The literature surrounding this topic, while published in reputable sources, is an intellectual walled garden that is largely ignored by non-proponents. This makes providing any sort of balance tricky. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:48, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Big garden in as you say reputable sources. What would you do with Bob Denver? Mind Beyond Brain is Columbia University Press. fiveby(zero) 00:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I was primarily talking about "indigenous science" What I mean is that historians and philosophers of science largely don't engage with the sorts of academics who write about "Indigenous science". Buddhism (the subject of Mind Beyond Brain) to me doesn't seem to come under the scope of "indigenous science" It seems more in the same sort of book genera as The Tao of Physics and The Dancing Wu Li Masters. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:43, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't see an inherent difference:

1. Wikipedia should legitimize other knowledge systems for religious observers
2. Wikipedia should legitimize other knowledge systems for paranormal believers
3. Wikipedia should legitimize other knowledge systems for Buddhist scientists
4. Wikipedia should legitimize other knowledge systems for indigenous peoples

Pick all that apply.

Before anyone jumps on me that is not commenting on the groups but those who talk of new "epistemologies, ontologies and methodologies" or some kind of fusion with science. fiveby(zero) 01:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't see an inherent difference: I mean, a big difference would be that, say, Christian Bible fundamentalists and UFO proponents haven't historically been the victims of colonialism, displacement, white supremacy, and genocide the way Indigenous peoples have been, and there aren't major fields of respected, university press-published academia that legitimize the former two while there is a wide range of academically published scholars who write about decolonizing knowledge.

Though I'd say the real question isn't whether 'Wikipedia should legitimize other knowledge systems for X'. The more pertinent question is 'is X knowledge system documented and analyzed as a subject of interest by reliable sources, like academic publications, and how do those reliable sources characterize that knowledge system?' Wikipedia looks to the best relevant sources for the best way to describe a topic. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 04:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I believe the approach you describe as the real question follows this: "De-centring the ‘big picture’: The Origins of Modern Science and the modern origins of science" i linked in the older thread. That sounds to me appropriate for a global encyclopedia. But what we have here is a critique of Western science, and so Ecosystem management is a multifaceted and holistic approach to natural resource management. It incorporates both science and traditional ecological knowledge to collect data from long term measures that science cannot. Science can't do that? fiveby(zero) 05:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

As that paragraph in traditional ecological knowledge isn't footnoted, it's hard to judge whether it hews to sources and to which sources or not. What I do notice is that the apparently main article, ecosystem management, seems to describe the practice's relationship to science differently: ecosystem management is guided by ecological science to ensure the long-term sustainability of ecosystem services.

As for the question whether science can or can't do X, that answer would depend on what relevant reliable sources say about the topic, and what is meant by 'science' in those sources (science as practiced at a specific moment in time? scientism? specific hegemonically influential scientific institutions?).

In any case, the question of what Wikipedia should do, broadly speaking comes down to simply that Wikipedia should cite and summarize relevant reliable sources. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 08:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, failed to link the TEK article, and you are right it is not cited. Look at those which are such as Kimmerer, Robin Wall (2022). "Weaving Traditional Ecological Knowledge into Biological Education: A Call to Action". BioScience., Oxford University Press, 566 scholar cites.

So on the "reliable sources" grounds that is what i was questioning in the prior thread. Why are you removing 'holistic' here. That is like removing The Trinity from Max Hedroom's views if he were all over in the academic press. Not sorry philosophers, sorry jps. If you see it reifying the false dichotomy between "Indigenous knowledge" and "science" as if Indigenous people aren't doing "real" science that dichotomy is intentional and in the sources. It's got predictive power we are told, but it's not universal so not everyone can test that power. Sorry again. fiveby(zero) 13:38, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder, but what is interesting in this 2002 (note the date!) paper is the uncited stereotype: Western science is conducted in an academic culture in which nature is viewed strictly objectively. I guess you could just write a sentence like that in a paper in 2002 and get away with it. I doubt that would pass the muster today! I don't think the "holism" is dichotomous, then. Now the framing seems to me to be more about eliminating intentional and unintentional bias against knowledge sourced to stakeholder communities. Does that track? jps (talk) 14:45, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes i think reading the wrong sources might be part of my problem w/ TEK. I don't know if "Indigenous Science" is a concept built on or a reframing of TEK? But was reading sources which included both and seeing the text in the article (which you removed) which seemed to merge both. Anyway this: Ludwig, David; Poliseli, Luana (2018). "Relating traditional and academic ecological knowledge". Biol Philos. 33 (5). reads much better. The aim of this article is to develop an account that relates the epistemic resources of TEK and AEK while avoiding both horns of the dilemma of assimilation and division. Some criticism of a couple authors i was reading and more: these accounts typically combine epistemic and political concerns also a simple holism–mechanism divide misrepresents the epistemic resources of both TEK and AEK and holders of TEK are perfectly capable of identifying mechanisms that underlie ecological phenomena.

Reading that source i don't think i need to "construct" or "fuse" or "legitimize" any epistemoligies do i? fiveby(zero) 02:50, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

This indeed aligns more closely with how I see TEK presently being used. jps (talk) 12:22, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Christian Bible fundamentalists and UFO proponents haven't historically been the victims of colonialism, displacement, white supremacy, and genocide the way Indigenous peoples have been, and there aren't major fields of respected, university press-published academia that legitimize the former two while there is a wide range of academically published scholars who write about decolonizing knowledge. While I do agree that traditional knowledge isn't necessarily on the same level as the former - even if Christian fundamentalists and ufologists had been the victims of colonialism, that wouldn't validate their views, even if they got more sympathy from some academics as a result. So that's not really relevant here. Aside from that, apparently some academics are legitimizing certain Western ideas of paranormal beliefs by appealing to non-Western beliefs, such as in this book mentioned earlier, from Columbia University Press. Even academics can be profringe. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:36, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

What is relevant is that according to the pertinent content guideline, in Wikipedia parlance, the term fringe theory is used in a broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. If decolonizing knowledge is part of a prevailing view in the relevant particular fields—in this case the framework appears to prevail in fields like anthropology and in subject areas like studies of colonized peoples, histories of colonialism, etc.—then I'm not sure how that would qualify as 'fringe' under our content guideline. I or you having a personal disagreement with the conclusions of academics isn't on its own enough grounds to deem scholars 'profringe'. On Wikipedia, we don't try to lead; we follow the sources. If there is a substantial, reputed, legitimately published scholarly field concluding that conventional institutions/systems/patterns of contemporary science are colonized/part of colonialism (that's the impression I'm getting from the thread and the articles so far), then it's not a 'fringe' position in that field. It might not be a universally conceived idea across all individual humans, but a lot of reliable academic sources describe the world quite differently from how the average human might (e. g., a god being in some way involved in human origins is a majority belief in the United States but is not at all how science understands and describes the unguided and undirected process of evolution). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 01:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

This is a red herring. Whether a group has been historically oppressed has nothing to do with whether ideas associated with that group are valid. By that logic, we should be giving significantly more weight to Mormon views on archaeology and history. Furthermore, there is no policy or guideline that says academic sources should automatically be considered reliable, and the ones you are referring to here clearly are not, because they will publish almost anything that conforms to their a priori ideology/worldview. Partofthemachine (talk) 19:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

By that logic, we should be giving significantly more weight to Mormon views on archaeology: Suggesting that Mormons are as colonized, oppressed, and genocided as Native Americans—now that is itself a take quite out of step from academic consensus.

there is no policy or guideline that says academic sources should automatically be considered reliable: Not automatically—context still matters—but it seems significant to me that the neutral point of view policy recommends looking to books and journal articles and that the reliable sources guideline states that Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses. With that in mind, personally disliking academics' conclusions isn't on its own a good enough reason to disregard scholarship. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:17, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I think the worst way to describe what is happening here is ignoring scholarship. Let's take a source and me for a malicious editor on WP. "Discovering indigenous science" Cited in Indigenous science for TEK a type. Respectable publication, well cited paper. But i can look through that paper and find anything i want, reword, add to the article and cite. I've just ignored the rest of the paper, and anyone the authors might cite for opposition to their views. Let's see, the authors don't like universalism so how about:

When Western modern science (WMS) is defined as universal it does displace revelation-based knowledge (i.e., creation science); however, it also displaces pragmatic local indigenous knowledge

and

it is possible that the universalist “gatekeeper” can be seen as increasingly problematic and even counter productive.

then reword to

“ the universalist gatekeeper can be seen as problematic because it excludes both indigenous science and creation science ”

How much scholarship have i ignored there? Even if i just included a faithful representation of the source in opposing universalism i've probably ignored some philosophy of science, history of science, and maybe a couple scientists.

The paper tells me where the term "Indigenous Science" comes from and it's "Science education in a multiscience perspective". Masakata Ogawa tells me he was influence by Lucien Lévy-Bruhl and quotes him. Lévy-Bruhl wrote a book called How Natives Think in 1910 and divided the world into two mindsets "primitive" and "modern". What could i do with that and how much scholarship would be ignored there?

Those might be extreme examples—or maybe not—and might or might not be noticed by a page watcher. But it doesn't even really need to be done intentionally. Just incautiously like by the WikiED'ers at TEK. Just pick something, cut-and-paste, quote part and reworde part. There's a lot of things you can do with good sources, within policy, to make bad content and ignore scholarship. Yeah, i don't like it. fiveby(zero) 06:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

To me this seems more like an NPOV issue than a FRINGE issue. As Hydrangeans said, if these fields are discussed in reliable sources (and they are) then we can and should have articles. The problem is that "decolonisation of X" is often a fig leaf for tearing X to shreds, and we shouldn't write our articles from that kind of "in-universe" perspective. Based on a glance at the first couple of articles mentioned, it looks like they lean that way, but this isn't my field so I don't think I'm the one to edit it. As for the comment that Indigenous peoples have been victims of colonisation while UFO believers have not: Perhaps that's why university presses give them a pass, but we shouldn't. One's level of privilege has zero bearing on the validity of their ontology. If a Holocaust survivor tells me climate change is a government hoax, they are wrong. We would thus be taking sides with an article, say, on "Survivors' views of climate change" that reports uncritically that climate change is an anti-Zionist scheme to ruin Israel, or whatever. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I would say the whole talk of "other ways of knowing", "data that cannot be collected by science" and this "taking into account the suffering and exploitation, past and present, of certain peoples while evaluating their epistemologies" are very much FRINGE. Although, NPOV and FRINGE are very closely related, so it's probably both. VdSV9•♫ 12:51, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

As someone who has worked as a science professor at a university with a strong science-studies community, I can confidently say it is not at all fringe in the science studies and postcolonial studies disciplines. A good chunk of those scholars (maybe not a majority, but a very large minority) are pushing right-wing denialism of science and expertise (perhaps unintentionally) by dressing it up in left-wing tropes like decolonisation, queer liberation, and so on. "Other ways of knowing" is to the Frantz Fanon set what "do your own research" is to the Alex Jones set...trust your gut, They^TM are lying to you. If a sizable minority of scholars holds a certain view, then by definition it can't be WP:FRINGE even if it's demonstrably wrong. So we can have articles on these subjects, but we shouldn't give them false balance because, you know, reality exists. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 20:41, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

And what is your source for your extraordinary claim about "A good chunk of those scholars"? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

The very scholars who write about this stuff very often characterize them as "marginalized", and "outside of mainstream science" (often using the misnomer "Western science"). Those fall very much in the definition of fringe (marginal happens to be synonymous). VdSV9•♫ 18:12, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Fiveby's comment above that talk of new "epistemologies, ontologies, and methodologies" is nonsense. And science-bashing is extremely harmful (having probably resulted in hundreds of thousands of extra deaths from Covid in the US). But I think that there is an inherent difference between #4 and #1-3 in Fiveby's list. Certain indigenous medical practices, while not science-based, are based on centuries of observation and experience. In modern times, scientists and pharmaceutical companies have studied some of them in a rigorous, scientific way and found that they could use them as a basis for developing new, safe, and effective medicines. For example Tu Youyou was awarded the 2015 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for (according to her Wikipedia BLP) discovering artemisinin [...] and dihydroartemisinin, used to treat malaria, a breakthrough in twentieth-century tropical medicine, saving millions of lives in South China, Southeast Asia, Africa, and South America. The Wikipedia article goes on to describe how she achieved this by studying a vast number of traditional Chinese medicines, finally finding two that were the basis of the medical breakthrough.

It is also possible that a folk medical practice that's still followed in some parts of the world could be harmless and somewhat effective for some people, although inferior to the best modern medicine. People who are impoverished might not have access to the latter, in which case such a folk practice is better than nothing. (This is the viewpoint, for example, of the Cuban Ministry of Health, due to the extreme scarcity of certain imported pharmaceuticals due to the US embargo.)

Because of these two possibilities, there is an inherent difference between folk knowledge and paranormal belief, superstition, and science-bashing. NightHeron (talk) 14:12, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I think artemisinin is like one in the ten thousand TCM remedies that turned out to have promise, so perhaps isn't a representative example. Bon courage (talk) 14:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Sure, but has there ever been a medical breakthrough and a Nobel Prize for saving millions of lives that resulted from studying ten thousand superstitions or paranormal beliefs? NightHeron (talk) 14:32, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

TCM beliefs didn't contribute to artemisinin's discovery... Artemisinin just happened to be among the compounds whose effects had traditionally been ascribed to a fundamentally faulty mechanistic framework (or, maybe more likely, were retconned into a pseudo-traditionalist system by Maoists). JoelleJay (talk) 02:20, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

The artemisinin discovery story has also been heavily propagandized to promote TCM. I'm skeptical there was any real link between the purported TCM uses of the parent decoction and the antimalarial properties of its active compound. JoelleJay (talk) 02:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Your first paragraph summed up my thoughts too. The one issue I've run into IRL with this is that the lines between historical/folk knowledge/alternative ways of knowing and transitioning to science-bashing is a very thin line that is easy to cross. This often comes up at land-grant universities nowadays and especially can get contentious and difficult to navigate at those meetings, especially when you have groups of scientists and non-scientists involved.

It's a good thing if the focus is on historical preservation of culture, finding accounts of plants to test in the current-day, etc., but I have seen talks where people try to label it Western vs. Indigenous ways of knowing that quickly gets into trouble. Labeling it "Western" science in that context, especially with dashes of colonialism mentioned in order to dismiss what is just simply science, can be a red flag. That starts to invoke a sort of special pleading to avoid the formal scientific process that we often see in other fringe topics. That's what it can easily become if a particular group is given "privileged" status in their knowledge even if that knowledge would violate something as simple as correlation ≠ causation.

So I'm glad this has been brought up because we probably do need to keep a guardrail in mind for the above, but as others have mentioned, it's a bit of a walled garden topic. I can see challenges for us editors in terms of NPOV when it's advocates primarily publishing on the topic. KoA (talk) 15:14, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

So, science has "legitimized other knowledge systems for indigenous peoples" in one case. Wikipedia cannot do that unless science does it before. --Hob Gadling (talk)

The more I think about it, the more I think we should merge traditional ecological knowledge and traditional knowledge, and probably indigenous science too. They are all the same basic topic as far as I can tell, and having it in one place will make it easier to keep an eye on so it doesn't accumulate stuff from the fringey end of this idea. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:41, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

It is an interesting idea... but I think the merge may be a pretty heavy lift as the articles are all strikingly different. Just to play devil's advocate, I think that there is a lot more to say about these concepts within the context of ecology since the idea of working with indigenous stakeholders has a much longer history in that discipline. jps (talk) 17:11, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Crossroads not sure merges are a good idea. I'm thinking TEK came from resource managers and tribes/First Nations in the 80's? I don't know about "traditional knowledge" as a concept, maybe earlier? "Indigenous Science" often points to TEK, but it came from educators in the late '90s. TEK is certainly applied in education, and likewise "Indigenous Science" to promote policy decisions. I'm having a difficult time when the sources start merging the two and not telling me exactly what they mean. fiveby(zero) 02:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Traditional knowledge and traditional ecological knowledge are not exactly the same thing. TK may incorporate TEK but incorporates things outside of Indigenous views on the natural environment (wildlife and the land). Look at Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit, while incorporating Avatittinnik Kamatsiarniq (respect and care for the land, animals and the environment) one of the major aspects is Inuuqatigiitsiarniq (respecting others, relationships and caring for people) and most of the others are more than just a narrow focus on environmental concerns. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 19:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to merging indigenous science into TK, but TEK is a distinct term, and while being a subset of TK, it has received substantial scholarly attention on its own. The article being in a poor state is not a reason to merge. Kowal2701 (talk) 22:12, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I just read through traditional ecological knowledge and I don't see the WP:FRINGE problem. Can someone explain what the problem is with reference to the current text? jps (talk) 14:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

The opening image that dichotomizes and essentializes TEK and "Western" science as "holistic" and "reductionist" respectively seems pretty sketchy. There's also a lot of overly long quotes and descriptions of examples/case studies, and it's somewhat disorganized. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! That image needed to go, agreed. I found one on Commons that looked better to me. Poorly accounted-for, so we might want to contact the Forest Peoples Programme to see if they have information about the event that occurred in 2011 that we could add as a citation (although, vainly, I think the caption I wrote is relatively uncontroversial). jps (talk) 17:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I have started the process of copyediting. There are issues here with undergraditis writing with value-judgements and dated jargon. The temptation of the prior authors (and some of the older sources, even) to slip into the false dichotomy between "western science" and "noble savage" seems particularly acute. Doing a quick search for the word "western" yielded some places where rewording was possible. jps (talk) 17:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I did a little more work on cleaning up problematic writing. This is definitely one of those cases where the poor quality of writing by assigned students was dragging down the content. However, most of what was included was fine. It's just really, really bad writing. jps (talk) 01:22, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I think I'm done with my copyedit. I did not remove any sources. I pared down a lot of the unnecessary text. The page was a victim of undergraditis and might be a good object lesson for what happens when half a dozen classes get a hold of an article and let unprepared college students just add text in the hopes of meeting arbitrary word counts. One thing that probably needs emphasizing more with our WikiEdu collabs is that less is more, brevity is the soul of wit, vigorous writing is concise, etc. jps (talk) 15:20, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Taking hatchet to sources, rv anything where you object. Let me know if you saw any sources which should be included be aren't. fiveby(zero) 16:29, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I trust your judgement. jps (talk) 16:43, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Lucien Lévy-Bruhl (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

I'm leaving the article alone because Tollefsen tells me there is some discussion about anomalies being a signal to the reader and might be a bad thing to remove them. fiveby(zero) 15:46, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to make of that. Regardless, bad content (either false or undue) should still be removed. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:21, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Was just angry about the "ignoring scholarship" comments. I can sure go add to his article that he was an armchair anthropologist who never went into the field and based everything on testimony of missionaries. And:

Levy-Bruhl had imputed to Africans a certain lack of mental skills and he had suggested that such a lack was due to the fact that they were black. Thus, his conclusion held that black people were incapable of logical and coherent thought. Instead, they tended to wallow in contradictions and could not distinguish between what he called the supernatural and reality.

— [1]

Then start in on Indigenous science, all within P&G, because i don't like it. fiveby(zero) 13:02, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• This discussion has been listed at WikiProject Environment, WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the Americas, WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, WikiProject Countering systemic bias, and WikiProject Discrimination. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 00:49, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

References

• Tollefsen, Deborah Perron Tollefsen (2009). "Wikipedia and the Epistemology of Testimony". Epistem. 6 (1). Cambridge University Press: 8–24.
• Segal, Robert A. (2007). "Jung and Lévy-Bruhl". Journal of Analytical Psychology. 52: 635–658.

Intuition and animism at the article Traditional knowledge

Some of the material I had removed from Traditional knowledge around the time I opened this thread has been reverted back into the article by the editor who added it originally. The text claims, These systems of knowledge are often guided by intuition, and generally based on accumulations of empirical observation and on interaction with the environment. and, as before, cites this 2012 paper, which on Google Scholar only got 16 cites in well over a decade (way less than many other similarly aged papers on TK). The paper includes something called "revealed knowledge" in IK/TK, and explicitly supports animism, supernaturalism, and misuses of concepts like "expanded" consciousness and quantum entanglement:

• Intuition, particularly in its transrational form, refers to knowing without knowing how you came to know (Bernstein, 2005; see also Barrett, in press). It goes beyond patterned understandings based on experience (for example, those small intuitive leaps an experienced practitioner might make when encountering a new problem to solve) to include insights that in some cases transcend time (McCraty et al, 2004) and physical location (e.g. a mother who knows her child is hurt even when he may be in another country). To distinguish this kind of intuition from intuition based primarily on experience, we use the term transrational intuition throughout the rest of this paper. Such transrational intuitions may come through dreams, visions, gut feelings, a sudden word or phrase that pops into one's head, a "felt sense" or an unexplainable awareness of the "right" answer, or way to proceed. Transrational forms of intuition are the result of an expanded consciousness, and are accessible to all humans regardless of cultural background. They are also in alignment with many of the spiritual aspects of Indigenous knowledges. However, since they “fall outside the pale of what professional cultures are willing to accept” they are often dismissed

• Transrational forms of intuition and animism are linked....An animist ontology supports a relational interaction with those who are not human, and acknowledges that plants, animals, and spirits exist in communicative relationship with humans. Insights received often take the form of dreams, visions, a felt sense, and so forth – ways of knowing which in Eurocentric traditions, are generally attributed to a brilliant human mind (Snyder, cited by Taylor, 2005), a pathology (Vaughn & Walsh, 2000), or a higher power (e.g. Abell, 1994). From an animist perspective, these insights are contributed from non-human “persons” with whom one is in relation (Harvey, 2006a; Stuckey, 2010) and are offered to humans who have the ability, and are open, to receiving them.

• The intermingling of learned knowledge with other forms of knowing reflects the existence of a realm of knowledge and knowing well beyond conscious thought – an idea which is well accepted in many knowledge traditions (Meyer, 2008). Recent theorizing in the areas of, human consciousness, quantum entanglement, spiritual knowing and intuition (e.g. Bradley, 2007; Hart et al., 2000; Sinclair, 2011) is deepening understandings of forms of knowing that are not fully premised on rational analysis and observable phenomena.

I think this sort of thing is very clearly fringe.

The editor also cited this paper this time, which only mentions "intuitive" briefly in passing.

In sum, I don't think the idea that knowledge based on intuition, let alone "transrational" intuition, is something mainstream belongs in Wikipedia at all. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

There is a tremendous amount of literature here, coming from multiple disciplines, and many of the authors are not very careful with what they say or how they describe 'knowledge'. It seems to me those papers coming from post-colonial studies and the field of education are the worst and most incautious. This 2021 literature review has been very helpful for me in organizing the concepts and Fikret Berkes' Sacred Ecology is excellent for Traditional ecological knowledge.

At heart much of this is political and authors are seemingly willing to make outlandish and unsupported statements in order to promote their views. In my opinion everything here, despite publication within academic journals, should be treated as merely political screeds and undue for inclusion until demonstrated otherwise. Hopefully a careful author such as Berkes can be found for TK/IK. fiveby(zero) 12:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

One thing that may help here with 'animism' is that is clearly within the domain of TEK. Berkes does cover animism so you could shunt all that content over to the TEK article and i'll make sure that it follows the WP:BESTSOURCES policy. In fact anything connected to the land people live on or or how people interact with it should be primarily described in the TEK article. fiveby(zero) 12:24, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

The editor also added this source to support their claim about intuition. But here too are multiple problems - this source is 17 years old and engages in an essentialized dichotomy between "Eurocentric" and indigenous knowledge (a claim already identified above as outdated and inaccurate), attributes intuition to science as well, intuition is only a minor point, and makes some claims that legitimize things that are clearly fringe like This holistic spiritual power expands the sources of data for IWLN to include, for instance, dreams, visions, and intuitions.... Some of these data (observations and images) are collected systematically in, for example, vision quests, fasting, smudging, prayer, sweat lodges, and various ceremonies.

In any case, based on what I've read, I've not seen intuition mentioned much in recent sources on the mainstream academic use of indigenous knowledge, and certainly not supporting its WP:UNDUE emphasis in the lead (and not in the body, against guidelines). I've removed the claim again and pointed the editor here. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:38, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Masakata Ogawa, the coauthor on that paper, is the science educator i mentioned above. First to use the term indigenous science and based on the ideas of Lévy-Bruhl. I had a source for Lévy-Bruhl's popularity in education in the '70s through the '90s and will need to find it again. I'd really like to describe the origin here along the lines of some kind of race realism and there are probably sources available to do something like that. It probably wouldn't be a fair or neutral way to approach the topic tho. Just need to find time to work on the articles. fiveby(zero) 21:01, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I mean if that's the history, then so be it - I support adding it. I myself have certainly noticed that ethnic/racial essentialism and 'noble savage' tropes often crop up in this discourse, with some people basically just taking racist stereotypes and inverting the polarity of which traits are considered good and bad. At least we have more recent sources with a more moderate and reasonable take on things, as you've noted. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:16, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

And Kowal2701 just reverted my changes and citation of newer review sources in favor of the problematic sources described above. Kowal2701, the discussion is here, at a public noticeboard; per WP:MULTI, we are not going to have multiple places talking about the same thing or have it somewhere less visible like an article talk page. Also, per WP:ONUS, you need to get consensus to include these claims about "intuition" and "holistic" before they would be kept. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:25, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

See Talk:Traditional knowledge#November 2024. WP:AGF Kowal2701 (talk) 21:27, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I am AGF. As I stated there, aside from the first source in that heading you opened, which only mentions intuition and holism in passing, all of these sources are quite old, which has been identified above as an issue in this research field. Per WP:MULTI, this should be discussed in one place, and here is better since there are more eyes and editors with experience with this. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:34, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

P.S. Looking into one of the authors (Barrett), I also found out about #Intuitive Interspecies Communication (IIC), described in that heading below. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Reposting here from Talk: Traditional knowledge#November 2024

Hi @Crossroads, I agree that sentence isn't good and needs to be changed. The purpose of that sentence is to explain the epistemological methods rather than to give another definition. Sources comparing TK with modern science say it is intuitive and holistic, while modern science is reductionistic and analytical. I appreciate your concern over fringe implications, that was not what I was trying to do.

• Modern science favors analytical and reductionist methods, whereas, the traditional knowledge is towards intuitive and holistic view. [2]
• TEK has been accounted as intuitive and holistic as opposed to the pre dominantly analytical-reductionist character of Western science. [3]
• From the brief examples given above, it appears that by the standards of the scientific approach, TEK more closely resembles science than lay-knowledge. However, some real differences exist between TEK and science in that non-test able phenomena such as intuition and beliefs, as well as inter-generational and personal observations, are components ofknowledge in TEK. [4]
• TEK is holistic; Western science is reductionist. Western science deliberately breaks down data into smaller elements to understand whole and complex phenomena. For TEK, all elements of matter are viewed as interconnected and cannot be understood in isolation. • • • • TEK is intuitive in its mode of thinking; Western science is analytical. Intuitive thought emphasizes emotional involvement and subjective certainty of understanding. Analytical thought emphasizes abstract reasoning and the need to separate oneself from that being observed and to learn about it through various replicable measurements. [5]
• Western science favours analytical and reductionist methods as opposed to the more intuitive and holistic view often found in traditional knowledge. [6]

(@Crossroads you may want to move your comment under here) Kowal2701 (talk) 21:37, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Instead of looking for sources to justify certain terms, you should instead look at recent, reputable reviews and see how they describe the topic, like this one. This sort of essentialized dichotomy is not favored more recently. The sources you cite here are (after the first one) from 2008, 2002, 1992, and 2006 respectively, all over 15 years old. And the first one doesn't really justify these descriptors much, and in any case is just one paper in Futures, not a review. Fiveby, others, what do you think of these descriptors - should they be added? And also, why aren't they in the body? Even if they are used, it should be clearly delineated why the use of intuition and holism is academically justified; vague gestures towards colonialism or spirituality definitely don't explain why traditional knowledge should be used in environmental management, for example. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:50, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

When I first researched this I wasn't looking for sources to justify certain terms. My impression is that there is academic consensus regarding this dating back to the 2000s, such that further research repeating the same points wasn't necessary. The 2023 source repeating this is evidence these terms haven't fallen out of favour for valid, substantial reasons. That source you've linked supports the holistic descriptor. I can't find more recent sources comparing TK with Western/modern science. The TK article is C-class and has practically no information directly on the epistemologies themselves. Kowal2701 (talk) 22:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

"My impression is that there is academic consensus regarding this..." Absolutely not. Please read our best source here for organizing these (and as far as i am away the only source which has yet even attempted to do so) Faced with a vast and fragmented body of literature, scholars interested in the role of knowledge for sustainability must either limit themselves to a single facet of knowledge, or confront the difficult task of navigating a multi-disciplinary and often contradictory maze of concepts. These are encyclopedia articles, that "difficult task" is ours, we need to organize topics, define terms, and explain concepts for the reader.

See the section: Knowledge-related concepts are often mentioned, but rarely in focus or rigorously addressed. We need to take content from those works which are in focus and rigorously address a concept. If you are just pulling quotes from a random selection of papers the articles will be a mishmash of concepts and explain nothing to the reader.

Crossroads, have you had a chance to go through the review article's way of organizing the topics? We should probably go back to your idea of merging at some point, might help with setting scope for the articles. fiveby(zero) 15:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

This is about whether the descriptors “intuitive” and “holistic” should be used in the article? There is consensus that TK/TEK is both intuitive and holistic.

Are you referring to the use of TK, IK, TEK etc.? I agree it’s an issue, and not an easy one for us to solve. Note that that source is just on sustainability science, which is not the only discipline involved with TK, others include anthropology and archaeology. The article says most consider TEK a subset of TK/IK that specifically deals with ecological processes and humans’ roles in them. They should be separate articles. Whether we preclude articles nominally on TK from the TEK article, I don’t know. We could assess whether the author really means TEK based on their definition and focus/discipline? That is probably too much OR Kowal2701 (talk) 17:28, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Here is another source which discusses the terms IK, TK, and LK, as well as the various disciplines. Relying on and prioritising one source solely on sustainability science is incredibly problematic. Kowal2701 (talk) 19:33, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

There is consensus that TK/TEK is both intuitive and holistic. But there is no consensus on what "intuitive" and "holistic" mean. We can certainly document that these descriptors have been attached to these ideas by certain sources, but I think that's as far as it goes. jps (talk) 22:37, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, but at the very least it gives a couple page links so readers can get a rough idea. I think the comparison to modern science is useful to the reader as it puts it in relation to something they’re likely more familiar with, and it also begs the question “how do these knowledge systems fit into contemporary society (if at all)” which is a focal point of discussion. Kowal2701 (talk) 23:17, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it has been demonstrated that there is an academic consensus that TK is intuitive or holistic. A smattering of 15+ year old sources and one recent one does not a consensus make, especially when more recent sources eschew them or note that science also involves these traits to some degree. (The review linked above did mention "holistic" for IK specifically, but even then it depends on the overall conclusions which I'd have to look at again.)

Re Fiveby, I haven't had time yet to give the full review a detailed read. I'm not sure yet how best to organize it all but I think merges of some kind may be called for.

Also noting here that another discussion has opened up on the talk page there: Talk:Traditional_knowledge#Science_and_education. I think the issues raised in Science are highly relevant. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:19, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

There’s consensus among sources that compare TK to science, I’d only support its inclusion in that context. Where has it been said that science is intuitive and holistic to some degree? Kowal2701 (talk) 07:46, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I have been reading a lot of sources which are indicating that the sort of conflict thesis treatment of TK/IK and "science" may be problematic from the perspective of science being somehow different than the works and process of TK/IK. Claims that TK/IK are not science is an awkward and arguably fallacious form of demarcation. jps (talk) 18:32, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I've also seen those arguments but wasn't sure how to treat them. I think it's more helpful to look at these as general differences, it's why sources tend to say "modern science" and "Western science" (Western just means European-derived/Eurocentric, see this book pgs.1-2) rather than just "science". Something like:

These knowledge systems tend to be intuitive and holistic, in contrast to modern/Western science which tends to be analytical and reductionistic. Kowal2701 (talk) 19:09, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

But "Western", of course, is completely inaccurate these days. It's a truly globalized endeavor. "Modern science" seems also a misnomer. "Academic science" may be closer, but it's also a bit arbitrary. After all, it's not as though traditional practitioners are just not doing science when they, for example, use their knowledge to track changes in the forest, for example. The critics seem to be pointing out that this bifurcation between *science* and TK/IK is a kind of false dichotomy that may be losing its utility.

In collaborations where TK/IK holders and academic scientists work together, I don't see that the main conflict is between these cultures but rather it seems like the collaborations work to advance the interests of both groups in a synergistic fashion.

jps (talk) 21:01, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

The other issue, of course, is that the hegemony which the source you are citing is complaining about goes well beyond science. It is arguably the same hegemonic structure the book itself is laboring under (academic discourse) and it is mirrored here at this website what with its glorification of the written word, its preference for chain-of-custody arguments when it comes to knowledge, and its linguistic preferences. jps (talk) 21:04, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you to a certain extent. That book is written by a Norwegian Africanist, it's important to treat it as an African POV. Colonialism has had wide reaching, long lasting impacts which are still being felt. Consider the psychological impacts on both the individual and community. African states inherited and still use European and colonial states and institutions. Their education systems were largely designed by Europeans and inherited. The colonial and European/indigenous paradigm is viewed as a way to parse and remove European elements and reclaim a distinct identity. I agree that the hegemonic structure goes well beyond science. Regarding this website, see Pgallert's WP:Oral citations experiment. Kowal2701 (talk) 21:24, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to the desire to add local cultural relevance in the post-colonial era, but something like remov[ing] European elements is deeply concerning. Europeans (among others, yes) have historically made major contributions to knowledge and science, and it would be reactionary and anti-scientific to erase that. European advances themselves built on earlier work from the Middle East and India. We should (and are making great progress on) bring in contributions from other cultures (both going forward and, where appropriate, from the past), but we cannot erase past advances. Nations like Japan and China that have become or are becoming wealthy, globally influential in science, and are as non- or post-colonial as can be, didn't get there by removing European advances in knowledge or through a total rejection of European-origin systems (e.g. universities, academic publishing, etc).

To add to jps' comments, I think part of the problem with parallels between TK and "Western science" is that a more accurate parallel is between TK and Western/academic knowledge overall. A lot of what proponents of TK seem to like is really the traditional form of the arts or philosophy, not science. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:47, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Those are only my own poorly chosen words, and not necessarily reflective of the discourse. I haven't seen anyone rejecting science, and that will never be on the agenda. It's regarding the exclusion and deprecation of native worldviews and epistemologies (the secular/religious aspect of the debate is not easily settled). I have seen it said that proponents root their support in ethics rather than the merits (regardless I think learning about a different culture/language is immensely valuable). There are enough intelligent and well-meaning people on both sides of the debate, it'll come to a functional solution. It's very unlikely it'll be developed/ex-colonial countries world-leading in this. Western science really means Western epistemologies, but per WP:Truth and WP:NPOV we might just have to follow what the sources say. How about Western epistemologies/modern science? The book above would support that terminology. Kowal2701 (talk) 22:13, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't know why we are not trying to follow the WP:BESTSOURCES here. This whole exercise is looking like a waste of time. Are you finished editing the articles or will you be continuing? fiveby(zero) 15:25, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

What are the best sources here? Are you trying to say that that one source you found covering a single discipline is the best source? Or are you just operating on WP:IDON'TLIKEIT and dismissing the sources you find unpalatable and don't identify/agree with? We follow WP:NPOV. Kowal2701 (talk) 15:46, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

What do you consider the WP:Best sources? We can look at the most reputable journals, but we should aim to cover all disciplines. Kowal2701 (talk) 15:55, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Some academic encyclopedia entries:

• Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology: Indigenous Knowledge and Traditional Knowledge (2020) (has a subsection on TEK)
• Encyclopedia of Sustainability in Higher Education: Indigenous Knowledge (2019)
• Encyclopedia of Science Education: Indigenous Knowledge (2015)
• Encyclopedia of Science Education: Values and Indigenous Knowledge (2015)
• Encyclopedia of Global Bioethics: Indigenous Knowledge (2022)
• Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research: Indigenous Knowledge (2024)
• Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research: Traditional Knowledge (2024)
• Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research: Traditional Ecological Knowledge (2024)

Can we move this discussion to Talk:Traditional knowledge and notify Talk:Traditional ecological knowledge, as this has nothing to do with WP:Fringe really. I've made a section there. Kowal2701 (talk) 18:12, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think you should have restored this. No one else above besides you supports it, nor have the issues with such a dichotomy been addressed.

I figure that this discussion here is about that claim primarily, and it is a good place for it since FTN has experience with the demarcation of science and similar issues. Other stuff from other sources might be different and not problematic. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:07, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Similar diff here Leijurv (talk) 23:33, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

If sources from five different academically published encyclopedias support the content, I'm not so sure Kowal2701's decision to edit Wikipedia articles to be in accord with the sources is all that unreasonable. On Wikipedia we try to summarize what academic sources say; it's not about what we personally believe to be true. Things have been said about what editors think that writers about TK believe or mean to say, but isn't that original research rather than the summarization of academically published encyclopedic content? Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 00:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the encyclopedias are to use as sources for the topic in general. It hasn't been claimed that they support the specific diff I just linked, which just cited the paper in Futures from earlier. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah the encyclopaedias are just for the topic in general, sorry should’ve made that clearer. Can you summarise the issues with it regarding policy? Sorry, I was under the impression there wasn’t firm opposition to it. I’ll self revert, but I do think it’s very useful to the reader to have the comparison. Kowal2701 (talk) 07:11, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the self-revert. I would summarize the issues above as relating to WP:UNDUE and WP:RSAGE. In general, it seems like a lot of sources that are more recent don't consider scientific or academic knowledge as necessarily categorically different from TK/IK. WP:FRINGE also comes into play if any WP:EXTRAORDINARY claims are being made that would contradict the scientific consensus on such things as extrasensory perception, as was the case with the source that kicked off this subsection. I don't think you mean to promote that to be clear, and the few of these recently posted sources that I've looked at don't seem to be like that, thankfully. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:58, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Okay I'm happy to exclude it based on that. I think there is merit for including but attributing or contextualising claims of extrasensory perception, as this is often how intuition (whatever we think the "reality" is) is perceived as. For instance in African animism in various cases people believe it is their ancestors speaking to them. I think it is more the issue of presenting these views as fact. Kowal2701 (talk) 22:14, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree that first source I used was an incredibly poor one and I’ll be more careful and critical in future. Thank you for your patience Kowal2701 (talk) 22:26, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

References

the encyclopaedias are just for the topic in general, sorry should’ve made that clearer: Yes, that wasn't entirely clear. I appreciate the clear up. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 22:06, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Notes

Race and genetics

Race and genetics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An IP wishes to change the POV of the article to include language about race being a "near perfect" indicator of ancestry despite a strong consensus among editors and the best sources that this is not the case. See this and this. Note that this IP was recently blocked for a week for Jew-tagging [7][8]. If anyone else cares to weigh in or just keep an eye on the article, that would be helpful. Generalrelative (talk) 20:28, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Viktor Schauberger

• Viktor Schauberger (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Known crackpot. What he wrote about physics was pure gobbledigook because he defined physics terms in an idiosyncratic way and had no clue about how science really works. His ideas are spread by quacks and frauds selling "energized water" and similar things. There are few if any good sources about him, and the article is short after the bad stuff was deleted. The German Wikipedia article de:Viktor Schauberger is still longer with bad sources.

The lead of the article says he was a pseudoscientist, which is true, but there are no sources in the article supporting that. And there have been complaints. I myself have routinely reverted deletions of that term in the past, but then got second thoughts. How should we handle that? Delete? --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I think there is no reason to remove, and that "pseudoscientist" might actually be the most charitable way to describe him. The sourcing problem is real though. The German article is very extensive but relying on bad sources that are over used, The French article is short with somehow even worse sources, and it looks like no other one provides anything looking like a saving grace in terms of good sources. Honestly a few IPs occasionally complaining that the term is kinda mean in the last few years without any sort of argument is really not something that I think should influence our decision there too much. Choucas Bleu^talk_contribs 10:38, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure "we can ignore rules such as WP:OR if only IPs are complaining about it" is valid reasoning. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Nick Begich (author)

• Nick Begich (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

WP:FRINGEBLP recently de-merged from HAARP conspiracy theories. Citations don't seem adequate to meet WP:BIO beyond WP:ONEEVENT. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Fringe editor

Special:Contributions/Realnaga User:Realnaga. Doug Weller talk 19:22, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Please provide evidence to substantiate your claim. Realnaga (talk) 19:36, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

[9] Removed information identifying Van Sertima as a fringe scholar.

[10] Same thing with Yosef Ben Jochannan.

[11] This edit to Frances Cress Welsing is somewhat more marginal but still iffy. Simonm223 (talk) 19:42, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I made edits to poorly written sentences and paragraphs. I did not remove any relevant information that wasn't already covered on the pages themselves or linked articles. Realnaga (talk) 20:24, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Realnaga, as you have already been informed on your own talkpage, the lead section is supposed to summarize the article, so it's appropriate that there is some repetition between them. Have you not looked at your page and seen this? It was posted some 12 hours before your post here. As for the material being already covered in "linked articles", that's irrelevant. An article, especially a biography, is supposed to be readable and informative by itself, without the need for the reader to jump elsewhere. To sum up: you're not doing yourself any favors by insisting here that your edits were appropriate. If you're really a new editor (?), it would be better to take onboard the advice you get from experienced users. Bishonen | tålk 21:18, 27 November 2024 (UTC).

Bélmez faces

This article essentially treats parapsychology as a serious field of study whose conclusions can be seriously considered to possibly be the truth, which does not align with scholarly consensus given it is considered to be a pseudoscience. At no point does it mention this. I’m not up to cleaning it up right now but I wanted to make draw attention to it (if there’s a good tag to use, tell me). Mrfoogles (talk) 17:08, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Service: Bélmez faces (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:13, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:FRIND sources that are cited like Brian Dunning, Joe Nickell, and Skeptical Inquirer state the "faces" had been faked. Yet these sources are buried within a WP:GEVAL pile of fringe sources. Ironically, it looks like a number of the fringe sources agree that it is a fake. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:55, 28 November 2024 (UTC)