Traditional water management practices are termed as good but not practiced at present. How this knowledge can be compared with modern approaches? We cannot have data for the traditional practices other than notes/ scripts etc in traditional scripts and publications refering these scripts.
I think maybe the point is not to compare them, but how they can inform each other since the ways of knowing and the type of information conveyed in traditional vs. modern knowledge are so different. In general I would say that traditional knowledge is much more applied and relevant to people, typically learned over long periods of time and is not reductionist as modern knowledge is. I recently had this story related to me that summarizes these points:
"One of the Hawaiians told a story about a hydrologist who wanted to drill for water in an area where the scientific data indicated it could be found. The elders told the hydrologist he shouldn't waste his time. He ignored the warning, relying on the hydrological indicators. The scientist was right, he did discover water. But it was undrinkable, acidic, red and brackish. The Hawaiians informed him that the name of the hill over the aquifer was named "Red Water", and that they knew the water was there but bad. They pointed him to another hill nearby with the Hawaiian name "water for man", and suggested his luck might be better over there."
It is not an easy question by any means, but I think recognizing the relative strengths and weaknesses of the two ways of knowing and not "comparing" them but synthesizing them is one way forward.
- Badges
- Science topic