I don't. As a human scientist, my role is less to judge ways of knowing than it is to listen to what people take as knowledge and to understand the ways of knowing that they embrace. I don't have to agree--that's not the point--but I do need, as accurately and as fairly as possible, to represent people as they would represent themselves.

That said, one of the critiques of positivism is its role in colonialism. 'Control,' it turns out does not merely refer to an experimental group in contrast to a 'treatment' group. Control was the original intent of social science research in colonized lands and this has contributed to a tension between formerly occupied peoples and western science. Other problems include the appropriation of indigenous knowledge that appears as further colonization and that the benefits of this 'research' accrue entirely to the western researcher, who publishes, who gains tenure, who is funded, and so on.

Human scientists seek to be able to conduct research--we prefer the term 'inquiry'--in places and with people in ways where we will not wear out our welcome as others have. We learn *with* rather than *from*.

Admittedly, this approach appears to have little application in the natural or physical sciences. And I really can't say much about those beyond that we need to be much more curious and much less certain.

@woodathon@loadaverage.org @sklaing@quitter.is