ABSTRACT
Does the predictive and manipulative success of contemporary Western-style science challenge the epistemological credibility of the philosophico-cultural perspective of the indigenous, Nahuatl-speaking peoples of central Mexico? Ideologues of Western-style science have long argued that such success demonstrates the epistemological inferiority, if not complete bankruptcy, of non-Western philosophies and modes of inquiry. In what follows, I take issue with this argument. I contend the predictive and manipulative success of Western-style science does not epistemologically challenge Conquest-era Nahua philosophy. Why not? Because contemporary Western scientific and Conquest-era Nahua inquiries embrace two alternative, epistemologically incommensurable epistemologies. In brief, they ask different questions, try to solve different problems, and pursue different ultimate values and goals. Consequently, one cannot evaluate Nahua inquiry by scientific norms, values, and goals without begging the question in favor of the epistemological legitimacy of those norms, values, and goals; and therefore, one cannot argue without begging the question that the predictive and manipulative success of contemporary Western-style science challenges, no less undermines, the epistemological credibility of Conquest-era Nahua philosophy and inquiry.
