second interpretationTurning to ontology in studies of distant sciences / what is distant science , and what is close science ? This reminds me of colonial science and native science , for the difference here is translated by near and far . Near is more alike to the same , finding more common , and far is alien , strangers and pausing before action , or observing , by making other others . Nicholas JardineAbstract Drawing on contributions to the conference Science in the Forest , Science in the Past , and on exemplary works of Annemarie Mol and Anna Lowenhaupt Tsing , this article offers reflections on the opportunities and challenges for historians of the sciences that are presented by the “ ontological turn . ” / what would be ontological turn for science ? For science first place assumed one nature , but how could they accept possible multiple natures , 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 , / here , we see that “ not only with … content ” but also with “ personae . ” Content in the science in the forest might be about the object , or making the object , but personae seems to remind us of characteristic , of characters , of characters in group , or group identity . What is critical in using the term “ personae ” is that it displays first place role adopted . There is a process of adoption , adopting process , the role different with the object role , or the role in the relation between the object and the subject . And secondly , this word implies that that role adopted also should be perceived by others . If we say about the ontological turn , it would be that not a common object , that we cannot establish the common object , but should perceive it in the relation . Likewise , people also should perceive that personae , that role of human beings in the relation with non - human beings and cannot essentialize both . 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 . / what should be resolved is the definition of distant sciences . This is the principle that when we so interpret the actions , declarations and material productions of others as to attribute to them success , whether practical or cognitive , it is incumbent upon us in cases where it is not obvious how it is achieved to provide explanation of that success . / is incumbent on us , not obvious how it is achieved , / about interpretation and explanation , translation , / rather than whether there are really different multiple natures , / it is about how interprets , how translates , their success with our terms , capturing the modes of existence that constitute others ’ worlds . Conversely , failure to find an explanation may cast doubt on the initial interpretation . To take just one example , the ethnobotanist Richard Evans Schultes spent many years in Amazonia failing to find a complete resolution of “ Schultes ’ enigma ” , the supposed ability of inhabitants of Northwestern Amazonia to distinguish at a glance specimens of the same species of plant that produce different kinds and degrees of hallucination ( Schultes 1986 ) .