Turning to ontology in studies of distant sciencesNicholas JardineAbstractDrawing on contributions to the conference Science in the Forest , Science in the Past , and on exemplary works of Annemarie Mol and Anna Lowenhaupt Tsing , science in the forest , science in the forest people , colonial science in the forest , science as different ontology in the forest , and also science in the past , science in the distant past , science in the different ontology in the same society , science in the temporality , science in the different story -- narrative structure -- of birth and death , if this temporality is about the birth and death narrative , we could say , that the present narrative in our discursive practice is , about becoming nothing , about annihilation , materialistic birth and death , and withdrawn of spiritual sense of them , and how this view of annihilation changes the narrative structure and our temporality ? it is something of abiogenesis , something of natural uprising , and natural decline , natural disappearance , and the thing to note is that this view of nihilism strongly connect to the overall retreat of spiritual being , downhill or ebbing of carefulness , or awareness of the spirits , the breaths , the winds , so on , in short it takes away our ability to sense of them , and we could not merely say that the culture can solve all of this ebbing of that sense . but critical question is ; why sceince ? why the neutrality ? why colonial ontology ? is it for contrasting ? this article offers reflections on the opportunities and challenges for historians of the sciences that are presented by the “ ontological turn . ” It notes how this approach leads to recognition of plurality in the sciences , not only with regard to content but also with respect to the personae adopted by their practitioners , and how it encourages attention to aspects of the sciences embedded in everyday and routine practices . In conclusion some suggestions are offered on the problems of accessing and communicating to others distant sciences of the forest and / or the past . the things to note are three ; first , Anna Tsing , which book does the author refer here -- Likewise exemplary in its exploration of interactions of local and global worlds is Tsing ’ s The mushroom at the end of the world . The mushroom in question is matsutake , inhabitant of ruined northern hemisphere coniferous forest and a highly valued delicacy in Japan . The local worlds of forests , fungi , foragers , sellers , buyers , dealers , and consumers are presented in detail , and it is shown how these worlds are linked and sustained through international commerce in the mushroom . As with communication within Mol ’ s Dutch hospital , so in these worldwide dealings Tsing shows how productive collaboration and coalition often involve not consensus but friction and compromise Tsing ' s point is about interaction between local and global . when we say science in the forest , the forest is local and science is global ? or could we turn this around ? the forest is global and science is local ? second , what the author means by " personae "? the aspect of someone ' s character that is presented to or perceived by others . " her public persona " the aspects , plural , personae , many aspects of character shown to others , meaning here that aspects of character of science practitioners , " adopted " by local practitioners , watch word here is " adoption , " still we could not find the better word to describe mimesis , miming the other , to describe the relation between the self and others , third , clarify ontological turn " The ontological turn in anthropology is not concerned with anthropological notions of culture , epistemology , nor world views . Instead , the ontological turn generates interest in being in the world and accepts that different world views are not simply different representations of the same world . Rather , people have different perspectives and people see the world in different ways , but the world is still the world . Therefore , the ontological turn refers to a change in perspective that suggests that difference can be understood , not in terms of a difference in world views , but a differences in worlds and all of these worlds are of equal validity . ontological turn concerns differences in the world , rather than different world views ; so it seems that we need to define the ontological status of the differences in the world ; are they beings , and further , worlds , different worlds ? ontology concerns realities , different realities , to different people , but then , this is not about views , lens , but that realities , -- though we cannot assess the applicability of one ' s singular reality to the other , ; in a sense , science is reality , is ontology , not just a view , reasonable view , but reality , -- this would be the answer to the previous question , why science , why science in the forest .