Anthropologists of the ontological turn claim that certain entities, processes, and relations are in principle inaccessible to outsiders of specific communities. Philosophers of ethnobiology see a challenge to the integration of scientific and ethnoscientific knowledge of nature in this claim. They propose to negotiate integration within a framework of overlapping ontologies. I explicate the methodology of the ontological turn and claim that it offers a better understanding of knowledge integration than does the philosophers’ framework. Based on two case studies, I argue for a revised notion of knowledge integration that takes scientific change and mutual influence between communities into account.
BerlinBrentBreedloveDennis E.RavenPeter H.. 1973. “General Principles of Classification and Nomenclature in Folk Biology.” American Anthropologist75 (1): 214-242.
2.
ChamovitzDaniel. 2012 (2017). What a Plant Knows: A Field Guide to the Senses. Updated and expanded ed.New York: Scientific American/Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.
3.
DiamondJared. 1966. “Zoological Classification System of a Primitive People.” Science151 (3714): 1102-1104.
4.
DiamondJaredBishopK. David. 1999. “Ethno-Ornithology of the Ketengban People, Indonesian New Guinea.” In Folkbiology, edited by MedinDouglas L.ScottAtran, 18-45. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
5.
EllenRoy. 2006. “Introduction.” Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute12: S1-S22.
6.
EllenRoy. 2007. “Local and Scientific Understanding of Forest Diversity on Seram, Eastern Indonesia.” In Local Science vs Global Science: Approaches to Indigenous Knowledge in International Development, edited by SillitoePaul, 41-74. New York: Berghahn Books.
7.
GraeberDavid. 2015. “Radical Alterity is Just Another Way of Saying ‘Reality’: A Reply to Eduardo Viveiros de Castro.” Hau5 (2): 1-41.
8.
HarwoodJonathan. 1993. Styles of Scientific Thought: The German Genetics Community 1900-1933. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
9.
HolbraadMartin. 2010. “Ontology is Just Another Word for Culture: Against the Motion (2).” Critique of Anthropology30 (2): 179-185.
10.
HolbraadMartinPedersenMorten Axel. 2017. The Ontological Turn: An Anthropological Exposition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
11.
HunnEugene. 2007. “Ethnobiology in Four Phases.” Journal of Ethnobiology27 (1): 1-10.
12.
HuntingtonHenry P.2000. “Using Traditional Ecological Knowledge in Science: Methods and Applications.” Ecological Applications10 (5): 1270-1274.
13.
International Society of Ethnobiology. 2006. International Society of Ethnobiology Code of Ethics (With 2008 Additions). http://ethnobiology.net/code-of-ethics/. Accessed 10 August 2020.
14.
KohnEduardo. 2013. How Forests Think: Toward an Anthropology beyond the Human. Berkeley: University of California Press.
15.
LindbergDavid C.1992 (2007). The Beginnings of Western Science: The European Scientific Tradition in Philosophical, Religious, and Institutional Context, Prehistory to A.D. 1450. 2nd ed.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
16.
LudwigDavid. 2016. “Overlapping Ontologies and Indigenous Knowledge: From Integration to Ontological Self-Determination.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science59: 36-45.
17.
LudwigDavid. 2023. “From Naturalness to Materiality: Reimagining Philosophy of Scientific Classification.” European Journal for the Philosophy of Science13: 8.
18.
LudwigDavidEl-HaniCharbel N.. 2020. “Philosophy of Ethnobiology: Understanding Knowledge Integration and its Limitations.” Journal of Ethnobiology40 (1): 3-20.
19.
LudwigDavidWeiskopfDaniel A.. 2019. “Ethnoontology: Ways of World-Building Across Cultures.” Philosophy Compass14 (9): e12621.
20.
MillerTheresa L.2016. “Living Lists: How the Indigenous Canela Come to Know Plants through Ethnobotanical Classification.” Journal of Ethnobiology36 (1): 105-124.
21.
PalečekMartinRisjordMark. 2013. “Relativism and the Ontological Turn within Anthropology.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences43 (1): 3-23.
22.
RisjordMark. 2020. “Anthropology without Belief: An Anti-Representationalist Ontological Turn.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences50 (6): 586-609.
23.
RistStephanDahdouh-GuebasFarid. 2006. “Ethnosciences: A Step Towards the Integration of Scientific and Indigenous Forms of Knowledge in the Management of Natural Resources for the Future.” Environment, Development and Sustainability8 (4): 467-493.
24.
SivadoAkos. 2015. “The Shape of Things to Come? Reflections on the Ontological Turn in Anthropology.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences45 (1): 83-99.
25.
SivadoAkos. 2020. “Ways to Be Understood: The Ontological Turn and Interpretive Social Science.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences50 (6): 565-585.
26.
TurskaJulia J.LudwigDavid. 2023. “Back by Popular Demand, Ontology: Productive Tensions between Anthropological and Philosophical Approaches to Ontology.” Synthese202: 39.
27.
UlicsniViktorSvanbergIngvarMolnárZsolt. 2016. “Folk Knowledge of Invertebrates in Central Europe: Folk Taxonomy, Nomenclature, Medicinal and Other Uses, Folklore, and Nature Conservation.” Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine12: 47.
28.
Viveiros de CastroEduardo. 2009 (2014). Cannibal Metaphysics: For a Post-Structural Anthropology. Translated and edited by Peter Skafish. Minneapolis, MN: Univocal.
29.
Viveirosde CastroEduardo. 2012. Cosmological Perspectivism in Amazonia and Elsewhere: Four Lectures Given in the Department of Social Anthropology, Cambridge University, February-March 1998. Manchester: HAU. https://haubooks.org/cosmological-perspectivism-in-amazonia/
30.
WeiskopfDaniel A.2020. “Representing and Coordinating Ethnobiological Knowledge.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences84: 101328.
31.
WylieAlison. 2015. “A Plurality of Pluralisms: Collaborative Practice in Archaeology.” In Objectivity in Science: New Perspectives from Science and Technology Studies, edited by PadovaniFlaviaRichardsonAlanTsouJonathan Y., 189-210. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
