“Way-Centered” versus “Truth-Centered” Epistemologies

In recent years, a criticism of “indigenous knowledge” has been that this idea makes sense only in terms of acquaintance (or familiarity) type and practical (or skills-type) knowledge (knowledge-how). Understood in terms of theoretical knowledge (or knowledge-that), however, it faces the arguably in...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Kai Horsthemke
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: MDPI AG 2016-03-01
Series:Education Sciences
Subjects:
Online Access:http://www.mdpi.com/2227-7102/6/1/8
id doaj-bb87ba4082d14d18b7c17b32b2575adc
record_format Article
spelling doaj-bb87ba4082d14d18b7c17b32b2575adc2020-11-24T23:28:52ZengMDPI AGEducation Sciences2227-71022016-03-0161810.3390/educsci6010008educsci6010008“Way-Centered” versus “Truth-Centered” EpistemologiesKai Horsthemke0Bildungsphilosophie und Systematische Pädagogik, Katholische Universität Eichstätt, Ostenstraße 26, Eichstätt 85072, GermanyIn recent years, a criticism of “indigenous knowledge” has been that this idea makes sense only in terms of acquaintance (or familiarity) type and practical (or skills-type) knowledge (knowledge-how). Understood in terms of theoretical knowledge (or knowledge-that), however, it faces the arguably insurmountable problems of relativism and superstition. The educational implications of this would be that mere beliefs or opinions unanchored by reason(s), such as bald assertions, superstitions, prejudice and bias, should not be included in the curriculum, at least not under the guise of “knowledge”. Worthy of inclusion are skills and practical knowledge, as are traditional music, art, dance and folklore (qua folklore). Moreover, anything that meets the essential requirements for knowledge-that could in principle be included. Against this understanding of knowledge, and its educational implications, it has been contended that indigenous knowledge places no special emphasis on “belief”, “evidence” or “truth”, but that, according to indigenous practitioners, it is rather “the way” that constitutes knowledge, harmonious interaction and appropriate models of conduct. It has been argued, further, that cognitive states are (to be) seen as “maps”, as useful and practical action-guides. This is why (so the argument for “polycentric epistemologies” or “polycentric global epistemology” goes) divination, rain-making, rain-discarding, shamanism, sorcery, ceremony, ritual, mysticism, etc., must be acknowledged as ways of knowing (and as educationally valuable) alongside animal husbandry, botany, medicine, mathematics, tool-making, and the like. The present paper investigates whether the “way-based” epistemological response is a plausible reply to the “truth-based” critique of indigenous knowledge (systems).http://www.mdpi.com/2227-7102/6/1/8beliefindigenous knowledgejustificationpractical knowledgetheoretical knowledgetruthtruth-centered epistemologiesway-centered epistemologies
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Kai Horsthemke
spellingShingle Kai Horsthemke
“Way-Centered” versus “Truth-Centered” Epistemologies
Education Sciences
belief
indigenous knowledge
justification
practical knowledge
theoretical knowledge
truth
truth-centered epistemologies
way-centered epistemologies
author_facet Kai Horsthemke
author_sort Kai Horsthemke
title “Way-Centered” versus “Truth-Centered” Epistemologies
title_short “Way-Centered” versus “Truth-Centered” Epistemologies
title_full “Way-Centered” versus “Truth-Centered” Epistemologies
title_fullStr “Way-Centered” versus “Truth-Centered” Epistemologies
title_full_unstemmed “Way-Centered” versus “Truth-Centered” Epistemologies
title_sort “way-centered” versus “truth-centered” epistemologies
publisher MDPI AG
series Education Sciences
issn 2227-7102
publishDate 2016-03-01
description In recent years, a criticism of “indigenous knowledge” has been that this idea makes sense only in terms of acquaintance (or familiarity) type and practical (or skills-type) knowledge (knowledge-how). Understood in terms of theoretical knowledge (or knowledge-that), however, it faces the arguably insurmountable problems of relativism and superstition. The educational implications of this would be that mere beliefs or opinions unanchored by reason(s), such as bald assertions, superstitions, prejudice and bias, should not be included in the curriculum, at least not under the guise of “knowledge”. Worthy of inclusion are skills and practical knowledge, as are traditional music, art, dance and folklore (qua folklore). Moreover, anything that meets the essential requirements for knowledge-that could in principle be included. Against this understanding of knowledge, and its educational implications, it has been contended that indigenous knowledge places no special emphasis on “belief”, “evidence” or “truth”, but that, according to indigenous practitioners, it is rather “the way” that constitutes knowledge, harmonious interaction and appropriate models of conduct. It has been argued, further, that cognitive states are (to be) seen as “maps”, as useful and practical action-guides. This is why (so the argument for “polycentric epistemologies” or “polycentric global epistemology” goes) divination, rain-making, rain-discarding, shamanism, sorcery, ceremony, ritual, mysticism, etc., must be acknowledged as ways of knowing (and as educationally valuable) alongside animal husbandry, botany, medicine, mathematics, tool-making, and the like. The present paper investigates whether the “way-based” epistemological response is a plausible reply to the “truth-based” critique of indigenous knowledge (systems).
topic belief
indigenous knowledge
justification
practical knowledge
theoretical knowledge
truth
truth-centered epistemologies
way-centered epistemologies
url http://www.mdpi.com/2227-7102/6/1/8
work_keys_str_mv AT kaihorsthemke waycenteredversustruthcenteredepistemologies
_version_ 1725547508356087808