Category talk:Traditional knowledge

RFC
This article has apparently been around awhile, and the category was created recently. They are under the scope of all sorts of areas, like "history of science," "sociology," "philosophy," "intellectual property law," and "Indigenous rights." I am quite dubious about the whole thing. There do appear to be sources for the term "Traditional knowledge" however, I believe this is a very unfortunate example of scholars in one area using a term like "knowledge" carelessly, whereas any scholar in the actual area responsible for studying "knowledge" (i.e. epistemology) would not use that term for this concept. They would call it "Traditional beliefs." Knowledge is true justified belief. So the question is 'what justifies "traditional knowledge?"' I do not belief it involves logic or science in this case. Greg Bard (talk) 06:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * What is being proposed in this RfC or is this just a general discussion about knowledge and belief?. Do you think the category should not exist or are you trying to rename it to 'Traditional beliefs'? If the category was kept 'belief' would be altogether the wrong name for what it contains. A belief implies something like a religion, people would think it was about things like shamanism or ancestor worship. Also I would have thought the RfC should be on the article of this name first rather than a category. Personally I believe 'knowledge' is the best word for this, the 'traditional' qualifies the knowledge quite sufficiently, we don't stick words together like Lego bricks they change in meaning from context. Dmcq (talk) 14:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I have the exact opposite impression that you have. I thought I would get some input before making a proposal. My first impression was that "traditional beliefs" would be more appropriate, because I do not see what justification this so-called "knowledge" has. I think "belief" implies exactly what is going on in this article and category. I'm looking at it and it appear very much to be about religious, shamanistic, ancestor worship type of beliefs. Every religion likes to call their beliefs "knowledge" when they are really just beliefs. If we left it up to the confessional approach (scholarship that presumes the truth of particular religious beliefs) we would have articles and categories like "Hare Khrishna Knowledge" and "Christian Knowledge" etcetera. I see absolutely no difference in this case. There isn't any science or logic behind any of this. I would like to think we are more scholarly and rigorous here at Wikipedia. In any case, I think it should be removed from the "knowledge" category, as it is not a topic under epistemology. I think the fact that it is in so many strange categories needs to be looked at more carefully too. I'm looking at the situation and thinking that the name "traditional knowledge" itself, is the "sticking together of words." So we basically disagree. So I'm glad I made the RFC. Greg Bard (talk) 01:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "Every religion likes to call their beliefs "knowledge" when they are really just beliefs." - I think I know what you mean here, but i dont think that it is an encyclopedic statement. It hinges on what 'knowledge' must mean, and that it is a very broad and diverse and multilayered issue. "Traditional knowledge" imo is usually applied to traditional beliefs with practical uses, such as locating water, medicine. I expect it is employed in anthropological texts in this way. I have heard Ray Mears and Richard Attenburugh use it. I dont think this is sticking 'together of words' You are possibly demoting an understood term from unfamiliarity with it or well meaning preferences for a certain outlook on knowledge. Lisnabreeny (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I think there are different kinds and different measures of Knowledge. Generally a person or group can know something without needing to justify it in any way, it may just be known to them, in their own way. At least remembered by them, observed sometimes -it need not be validated and scrutinised systematically. People with different disciplines, schools of thought etc can differ on what real knowledge is, and what it requires to be correct, logical, valid... Even people in the same school of thought but at different levels of study, can at different stages know and practice conflicting ideas. IMO 'Traditional Knowledge' is a very familiar term which most people should know various other peoples interpretation of, and interpretations of familiar terms should not be feared by others with particular systems of knowledge, such as logic etc, whose strengths and achievements are very well set out in their own domain and beyond of course, (with a few deficiencies and problems still open to debate -unless complete perfection has been discovered). The teaching of systems of knowledge should not need to involve divisive wordplay, which i think objecting to familiar uses of 'traditional knowledge' could be seen as. Even people who understanding the meaning of the word 'energy' in vague untechnical terms can use the word communicably without necessarily alluding to technical authority. They can use it communicably with others who use it in that way, and also with people who understand its meaning in multiple contexts. To say to someone "that word is misapplied in my understanding" is sometimes an unnecessary obstruction to communication, rather than a hopeful step towards teaching and finding agreement. I think we should be as respectful of peoples dialects and outlooks as possible. We should be careful on wikipedia not to try to trans~combine language to the tune of popular frameworks, language will naturally adjust - perhaps it does need help, but very carefully on WP and only with strong reference to guidance for particular cases. Lisnabreeny (talk) 23:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with this category, either; it encompasses traditional beliefs and traditional technology, and doesn't violate WP:CATNAME. All the best,  Mini  apolis  14:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Arguing whether or not "Traditional Knowledge" is proper terminology may be missing the point here. If "Traditional Knowledge" is the terminology commonly used within the given field, then trying to rename it the category to something else would be skirting dangerously closely to displaying biases. If "Traditional Knowledge" as a term was already controversial, with a considerable opposition to its use, then we might be inclined to rename the category to something more neutral. However, going by the traditional knowledge article (and admittedly no additional research), this term seems to be in wide enough use that we shouldn't use Wikipedia article or category names as platform for disputing its validity. — daranz [ t ] 08:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You are absolutely incorrect. Titling it "knowledge" implies that a person would be validly justified in believing that it is true. My claim is that there IS considerable opposition to the use of "knowledge" (i.e. any scholars working in epistemology, logic, and any scientific or medical field). As I mentioned in my original request. This is an unfortunate and imprecise use of the term "knowledge" which itself is the source of the bias.Greg Bard (talk) 09:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

RFC-opinion of Staszek Lem
Both the category and the main article do make sense. However I am afraid that Greg BArd is at least partially right and it will be splitting hairs in some areas: But again, we have many things and categories which are inherently ambiguous (is some action is of a religion (paganism) or of a superstition?). Staszek Lem (talk) 19:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * the best time to pick boozeberries - TK
 * how to make an aboriginal boat - TK
 * how to make a very good aboriginal boat - TK ? TB
 * may involve enchanting against water spirits
 * how to cure mumps with herbs - TK ? TB
 * how to cure mumps by repelling evil spirits - TK ? TB
 * how to cure mumps by hand waving - TK ? TB
 * GIS for geographical areas where the spirits of the ancestors dwell - TK
 * it is "metaknowledge" of the beliefs
 * how to appease the spirits of the ancestors - TK ? TB
 * A tale of the First Ancestor - TK ? TB
 * that the FiAn lived is a belief, but the "text" of the legend is knowledge, orally passed thru generations

*Comment I generally agree with Staszek Lem, and the others have reasonable points too. Intellectually I would be inclined to split it all up into a number of conceptually distinct categories, Tradition, Traditional Knowledge, Traditional beliefs, Traditional Crafts, Traditional Skills etc. Unfortunately, I don't think the result would be practical; different authors would split the hairs differently, different articles would span the categories differently, and we probably would be left with a mess that does not usefully help anyone looking for particular subcategories as originally intended, as often happens in such cases. I recommend instead that we we leave it at a single category but change the title to Traditional lore, or if you insist on fuller descriptions, Traditional lore and beliefs or Traditional lore and skills and leave it at that. "Lore" lacks the distinction between firm knowledge or skill on the one hand, and myth or superstition on the other. If someone later has a desperate need to use subcategories, they can impose them afterwards. JonRichfield (talk) 06:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose I quite like traditional lore. However I did a google trends on it compared to traditional knowledge and it just doesn't come into the same ballpark, see, so I have to oppose it. Dmcq (talk) 13:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't feel strongly about it, and I applaud the investigation, but its relevance eludes me; the question addressed the concept covered by the title of the category, not the occurrence of the term, which after all need not imply its greater popularity as a search term. After all, anyone looking up such a term is likely to know what lore means without having to go to a dictionary. The point of the proposal was that the meaning of "lore" covered the field as "knowledge" and "belief" did not, and most other terms have more semantic baggage or are more cumbersome or unnatural. Consider learning, erudition, culture, scholarship, wisdom. "Traditional received wisdom" hath its attractions, being more precise but again, having three words makes it is more cumbersome. I followed you to G. trends and found that "learning" and "culture" trumped all the others handsomely, including "knowledge", which was followed by "wisdom". OTOH "Traditional culture" scores far higher than either "Traditional learning" or "Traditional knowledge", which scored about equally.
 * So: if the general preference is for appropriate interpretation, I still support "lore", but if what we want is a step in the direction of the various appropriate interpretations, plus a high score on Google trends, then "Traditional culture" has no contest. JonRichfield (talk) 19:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment. Perhaps something like Traditional Practice would be suitable to categorise things which allude or aspire to be useful but which seem too dubious for Traditional Knowledge. I do not think it right to be overly selective against calling "Traditonal knowledge" though. eg. for "the best time to pick boozeberries" is it this really "the best time"? For what purpose? - Tradition. It might be best just to say "the traditonal time to pick..." But the indications of the word "knowledge" are undoubtedly adjusted by the word "Tradition" besides. The term does not allude to authority simply by containing the word "Knowledge" "Logical knowledge" or "Epistemological knowledge" may do by their own qualification. We can have "scientific knowledge", "legal knowledge" , "trivial knowledge" , "sexual knowledge" ... they all have different indications of reliability. Only becasue Traditional Knowledge can get so strange that for an Encyclopedia 'Traditional Practice' could be used for overtly dubious cases. We should avoid hacking out the sensibility of every questionable member though, because to do so through discussion can be unreliable without great work, and the 'Traditional' qualifier implies some leeway. Lisnabreeny (talk) 17:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose renaming. Traditional knowledge is a concept that is well established within the social sciences (and in fact also in international patent law) and it needs to have a wikipedia article - it is not only the common name of that concept, but in fact the only name. It is not the same as "lore" it is not the same as religion or myth. It includes knowledge systems of non-Western peoples most of which are derived through millenia of empirical verification, but explained in ways that make sense in traditional world-views. It is a scientistic fallacy to think that there is only one genuine kind of knowledge and it is NOT supported by scholars in epistemology as Stazek Lem and Greg Bard seems to assume, but only within a very narrow field of positivist eppistemology that doesn't account for the full scope of opinions within the field. Editors who are clearly unfamiliar with the concept and its history and use should either start reading about it or stop voicing ill-founded opinions and proposing changes based only in ignorance. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Removal of category knowledge
I believe the above talk supports the inclusion of this category in the category knowledge. Categories are normally inclusive rather than exclusive and that traditional knowledge contains some things which are just beliefs does not stop it also covering actual real knowledge of the type that western science even would acknowledge. And by the way I wholly approve of categories like 'Knowledge deities' also being in category:knowledge. Dmcq (talk) 00:08, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Can I correct you please? Pushing the idea that this is "knowledge" is pushing a POV. Removing that category, and keeping it under "traditions" which is under "beliefs" is returning it neutrality. Is SOME of it justified and therefore "knowledge?" Sure. However, that is not the case necessarily by merit of the fact that it is part of this body of beliefs called (wrongly) "traditional knowledge," it only happens to be the case. I am really a bit shocked at the low standards being pushed here. If we are to extend this line of thinking by yourself, then all of psuedoscience would be classified under "knowledge" which it sure is not. Greg Bard (talk) 00:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Whether or not it is considered by anyone to be "knowledge" is entirely irrelevant. It is the WP:COMMONNAME for a concept used by social scientists, philosophers and scholars and there is a literature about it. The article should of course include the positivist criticism of the concept, but this criticism does not have any say in what the title of the article should be. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * One person said you were partially right above in your argument about it not being knowledge. But partially right also means partially wrong about it not being knowledge. May I quote the start of the article knowledge


 * Knowledge is a familiarity with someone or something, which can include facts, information, descriptions, or skills acquired through experience or education. It can refer to the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject. It can be implicit (as with practical skill or expertise) or explicit (as with the theoretical understanding of a subject); it can be more or less formal or systematic.


 * A large part of traditional knowledge falls squarely with that. That is why it is called traditional knowledge. The category refers to the article knowledge as its principal article. Now do we have to have another RFC about this? Dmcq (talk) 01:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I think what we need to do is recognize that any source that calls it "knowledge" is not a credible source for what is and is not called "knowledge." To the degree that any of it is actually true, is not because of the justifications given (i.e. tradition) but for OTHER reasons. So therefore it does not belong under the "knowledge" category any more than "astrology" does, even though one's horoscope may very well come true on some days. Greg Bard (talk) 03:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Utter nonsense, that is not how sourcing is used in wikipedia. To be frank you don't seem to know anything at all about what traditional knowledge is and much less about the literature, and there is also a few wikipedia policies you need to read up on.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay it seems another RFC is needed as we cannot agree on this. Dmcq (talk) 11:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

RFC: Should category traditional knowledge be listed in category knowledge?
Should Category:traditional knowledge, which includes both things like how to build a boat and navigate to another island and myths about the creation of the world, be included in category:knowledge? The previous section is a short discussion on this particular issue and the section before that was an RfC to change the name so it didn't say 'knowledge' in the title. Dmcq (talk) 11:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Include The reason for trying to exclude as far as I can see is because of a belief that knowledge only includes things which have passed a modern scientific definition of rigour. They disagree with using the meaning in the lead of the article knowledge which says 'It can refer to the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject'. I think the wiki article has it right and support including this category in category knowledge. Besides I think categories should be inclusive rather than exclusive except where specifically restricted. Dmcq (talk) 11:26, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Include. Makes sense... DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 11:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * include there is more than one kind of knowledge.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Include There is an extensive body of anthropological and historical literature on the relationships between traditional knowledge and scientific knowledge. For that reason, traditional knowledge belongs in the category of knowledge. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 17:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Include Makes sense, as traditional knowledge is often a bearer of traditional wisdom, and a foundation for other systems of knowing.Whiteguru (talk) 21:34, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Include Traditional knowledge is part of knowledege. --LlamaAl (talk) 21:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 'Include per LlamaAl. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:49, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Conclusion seems pretty clear. Will include in catehgory knowledge. Dmcq (talk) 11:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)