If you work with kids you can get some gross classification benefits from those temperaments which appear to be drawn from Vedic roots which go back much further.
Are they pseudoscientific? Maybe. They predate science in origin, and so far afaik science hasn’t demonstrably improved on them in a way that can be reliably reproduced.
What if the modern levels of rigor in certain subfields are based on a wrong structural and methodological approach that we haven’t yet discovered is wrong?
I’m not sure what racism has to do with this, but let’s see where it goes. With scientists not that many years ago, the “modern levels of rigor” similarly went off the rails in evolutionary theory and our present understanding does not match theirs at all. It was twisted at the time by some fundamental misunderstandings, which appeared to support racism.
There is truth in indigenous science that modern science has not caught up to, yet.
Racism is traditional wisdom, too, and it's a lot older than any of the traditional wisdom you're peddling. Should we say it's indigenous science that modern science hasn't caught up to yet? Why not? If it's traditional, how can we possibly say it's wrong?
Yes, we've been wrong before. However, science is how we know how to correct ourselves, as opposed to wallowing in ignorance.
> There is truth in indigenous science that modern science has not caught up to, yet.
And how do you know this? What evidence do you have?
But these are only recent examples that I’ve chosen haphazardly, I’m not an expert, and this movement has been going on for 50 years or so.
You could read someone like:
Hallam, Sylvia (1975), Fire and hearth: A study of Aboriginal usage and European usurpation in south-western Australia, Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, ISBN 978-0-85575-036-7
and from there contrast it with colonial descriptions of the superiority of western methods that destroyed these people (and their methods of forest management in the interceding 150 years).
Arthur C Clarke’s third law works in both directions, as it turns out: you can have Cargo Cults, and you can have Westerners who have lost the concept that sometimes you do know when the seals will return because a flower blooms. Indigenous people were experts at meeting complexity with complexity.
It is also a whole (fairly humbling) movement around archaeology at the moment. It’s unfortunate westerners destroyed so much before waking up.
None of that is relevant to ancient people having mystical knowledge we don't.
It also partakes of the racist trope of labeling some knowledge "Western" when, in fact, all knowledge belongs to all, and all knowledge has been improved by all. Saying that some knowledge is "Western" devalues the contributions non-Western people have made, and essentializes cultures in a harmful fashion.
Are you trolling now? Can you point out where I say anything is mystical? Or where I have made an error that would lead you to believe I am being racist?
You are misreading my commentary on Western knowledge, and your absolutes about knowledge mixing, while apparently well-intended, are not very accurate.
I am using Western in a quasi-derogatory cultural sense to describe instances of a self-styled global discovery that is in actuality often just a recent culturally-local understanding. See Hume rediscovering Vedic principles.
You are straw-manning an opponent who doesn’t exist.
Are they pseudoscientific? Maybe. They predate science in origin, and so far afaik science hasn’t demonstrably improved on them in a way that can be reliably reproduced.