This is such a small-minded & mean-spirited tweet that I hesitated to comment on it, but it's representative of a wider pattern of cultural chauvinism so:

1. Who gets to decide what a useful or legitimate epistemology is? Why do some folk feel entitled to decide for everyone?

2. All known societies value knowledge that was obtained through epistemologies other than science. Just one of many examples = language. Language is a cultural technology that allows us to accumulate other types of knowledge. But language is knowledge that had to 1st be built.

3. Basically, what Ted said. Indigenous & minority societies have their own epistemologies that are useful to *them* in their own cultural & ecological niches. Some of these epistemologies are very similar to modern cosmopolitan science: https://twitter.com/mccormick_ted/status/1285946515446431747?s=20

Sometimes knowledge obtained through indigenous science is useful to scientists from other communities. For example, field biologists who consult with indigenous people or employ them to help understand local ecologies. Indigenous people know their environments better than anyone

See also, indigenous medicine. Funny how indigenous science is rapidly recognized by cosmopolitan science whenever there's money to be made:

https://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/tk/en/documents/pdf/background_briefs-e-n6-web.pdf

This sums it all up nicely. Thanks Kris! https://twitter.com/kris_m_smith/status/1285947941803495424?s=20

Highlighting the research of my dear friend Sahil Nijhawan here. He found that the indigenous knowledge of Idu Mishmi has successfully conserved a thriving tiger population that was unknown to tiger ecologists because "tigers don't live on mountains". https://www.sanctuarynaturefoundation.org/article/tribal-tigers