Vincent J. Curtis
19 Apr 2017
Another epic fail is in the offing at the McMaster
Humanities Department.
“Indigenous knowledge is valid scientific knowledge.
That is the core value of a new institute…dedicated to advancing indigenous
research.” The author of those lines is in serious need of some of that
old Greek knowledge, called philosophy. Those lines were said by Chelsea Gabel, acting director of the new institute.
Now, there is no such thing as ‘indigenous knowledge’ any more
than Newtonian physics is ‘Anglo-Saxon knowledge.’ However, Newtonian
physics does provide valid, scientific knowledge, while the common opinion of a
few, earnest indigenous people does not.
The equation of ‘indigenous knowledge’ with valid,
scientific knowledge as being a ‘core value’ amounts to the assertion of
demonstratively false relation as a philosophical principle, asserted on the
basis of some unannounced and unexamined ethic. Since two indigenous
persons can disagree, which of the two divergent opinions count as the valid
scientific knowledge while the other is error? And how can an independent
researcher decide which of the two is true, and therefore knowledge; or can
both be wrong?
Research into safe drinking water and into the origins of
Indigenous language and culture, two stated aims of the new institute, seems to me to belong in either the chemistry
or medical departments in the one case, and anthropology in the other.
There is nothing specifically Indigenous about the causes or the effects of
lead and mercury in drinking water, unless one is asserting that Indigenous
persons are not of the species homo sapiens.
The Indigenous research institute is founded upon the
principle of the subjectivity of truth. Though popular nowadays among
grievance-mongers, this principle is self-contradictory. That is why Chelsea Gabel uttered the two outlandish sentences above with a straight face.
If Mac Humanities covets a good reputation, it needs to disabuse itself of the
pragmatic theory of truth.
Chelsea Gabel went on to say that the methodology of new institute was "changing the way research has typically been done." That's for sure.
-30-
No comments:
Post a Comment