By Mathew Goldstein
The US Office of Science and Technology Policy and the Council on Environment Quality published the “Guidance for Federal Departments and Agencies on Indigenous Knowledge” which states that “Multiple ways of knowing or lines of evidence can improve research outcomes and improve decision making.” It describes “Indigenous Knowledge” as follows: “Indigenous Knowledge is based in ethical foundations often grounded in social, spiritual, cultural, and natural systems that are frequently intertwined and inseparable, offering a holistic perspective. Indigenous Knowledge is inherently heterogeneous due to the cultural, geographic, and socioeconomic differences from which it is derived, and is shaped by the Indigenous Peoples’ understanding of their history and the surrounding environment. Indigenous Knowledge is unique to each group of Indigenous Peoples and each may elect to utilize different terminology or express it in different ways. Indigenous Knowledge is deeply connected to the Indigenous Peoples holding that knowledge.״
Guidance for federal departments and agencies interacting with indigenous nations and tribes arguably does not need to say anything about what knowledge is and who is knowledgeable. And insofar as it does discuss knowledge that topic should not be the central focus of such a document. Yet this particular guidance almost exclusively focuses on indigenous ways of knowing and science in contrast to, and in concert with, non-indigenous ways of knowing and “western” science, as if knowledge and science come in different flavors like ice cream does and we select our ways of knowing and science on personal and social group preferences like we select our clothing.
Much of what this document says in this regard is dubious, starting with the theme that there are multiple, coequal ways of knowing which vary by group and individual identities. While multiple lines of evidence can improve decision making - the more relevant lines of evidence taken into account the better - how does “multiple ways of knowing” also achieve that goal? This document repeatedly asserts that Native American ways of knowing are coequal to alternative ways of knowing of nonNative Americans. What about various coequal ways of knowing for different Protestant denominations? Are there coequal Confucian ways of knowing? This document does not say, but the implication is that each group has its own, equally valid, way of knowing.
Grounding knowledge in ethical foundations is a mistake common to religious beliefs. The operation of the universe may be, and as far as we can see from the available evidence actually is, ethically indifferent. Deriving knowledge from ethical foundations simultaneously results in unreliable knowledge claims and unreliable ethics. To be non-fictional ethics needs to be grounded in knowledge and knowledge needs to be derived from evidence. So the sequence is evidence first (not “social, spiritual, cultural, and natural systems”) as the foundation for knowledge second as a grounding for ethics third, not the other way around.
This White House document, while it has good intentions, is misguided. Knowledge claims need to be properly justified with evidence to be valid. Both indigenous and non-indigenous people are prone to pass on stories of their history or how the universe operates over many generations that are false. The mere fact that a group of people claim to speak about their own history or in accord with their own experience does not suffice to establish that their understanding of their history, or of how the universe works, is true. Nor does the observation that they adopt a more holistic approach give their understandings of how the universe works additional credence. On the contrary, insofar as a more holistic approach equates with claiming knowledge outside of, and beyond the reach of, what the available evidence supports, that is a counter-productive recipe for overstating and exaggerating claims of possessing true knowledge.
This document is counter-productively slighting and denigrating the distinction between well justified knowledge claims anchored in overall best fit with available evidence and poorly evidenced or non-evidence assertions being misrepresented as knowledge. The standard for what qualifies as knowledge should not, and does not, vary by tribe, by ethnicity, by race, by culture, by location, or by any individual or group identities. This should be obvious, but sadly, as this document demonstrates, it is not, at least not for the US federal government executive branch responsible for overseeing science policy. IMO, this is a symptom of an overreaching politicization of our governments and of our institutions more generally.
Believing in a single unitary religion, both Protestants and Catholics sometimes viewed non-Christians who were also neither Jewish or Muslim as suitable either for conversion to the true faith or worthy only of death or enslavement. This attitude, baked into mistaken religious beliefs, which in turn are rooted in incompetent epistemology, shaped the Europeans’ relations with Africans as well as Native Americans. This attitude also spilled over into similarly negative attitudes towards Jews and Muslims, and also contributed to warfare between different groups of self-identifying Christians. Native Americans were among those who suffered the ugly consequences of this arrogance. It is a misdirected and counterproductive mistake to try to redress and counter this history by disputing and attacking the epistemological foundation of reliable knowledge formation.
