How divination functions as a diagnostic instrument and what kind of reasoning it supports, and Hallen and Sodipo's finding that Yoruba herbalists distinguish knowledge from belief by a criterion stricter than the English one.
Machine na im translate dis page and no person don check am. The Yorùbá wey dem quote, the proverbs, the meanings and the citations dey exactly as the original. Everything else fit wrong.
The Yorùbá wey dem quote, the proverbs, oríkì, ẹsẹ Ifá, word list headwords, Odù names and citations dey exactly as the corpus record dem, for every language.
Two things dey happen inside Yoruba consultation wey modern reader go see as strange, and people dey usually mix dem together when dem suppose separate dem. The first one na divination, wey be diagnostic tool wey get specific structure and particular kind of reasoning behind am. The second one na the practitioner own standard for wetin e go talk say e know, wey research show say e tight pass the standard wey English speaker dey use when dem talk "I know". The first one na anthropology. The second one na philosophy, and na im be the subject of the most important work wey anybody don do on Yoruba medical thought.
How Ifá dey work na 05-ifa, and this file no repeat dem. Wetin matter here na wetin divination dey do inside medical encounter.
E dey answer the second question. File 01 explain the two-level structure of Yoruba diagnosis: wetin dey do person, wey be direct and physical thing, and why na this person and why now, wey dey about selection. Divination na the tool for the second question. E no usually be way to find out which sickness person get, and practitioner wey fit see the symptoms no need Ifá to tell am wetin dem be.
E dey bring out case, no be diagnosis. Wetin dey come out from the casting na odù, and attached to that odù na group of verse wey dem memorize, ẹsẹ Ifá. Each ẹsẹ na usually story: one named person face one situation, consult divination, dem tell am make e do one particular sacrifice, e do am or e no do am, and one particular result follow. The diviner go select from the verses wey dey attached to the odù the ones wey fit the client situation, and that match na the diagnosis.
The reasoning dey based on past cases. Na so the method really be and e good make person state am clearly, because e no be random thing and e no be deduction. The system hold plenty past cases wey dem arrange through one randomizing procedure. The diviner dey bring out group of cases, match the client condition with dem, and bring out prescription from the past case wey match. In terms of structure, na the same way case-based reasoning dey work for law or for clinical medicine before statistics come: the practitioner sense dey on top how e take hold plenty past cases and how e take judge which past case the present situation resemble.
Two things follow from this.
The randomising step dey do real work. Because the diviner no dey choose the odù, e no fit just bring out past case wey go back wetin e already dey suspect. The system dey force am to reason from case wey e no select. Whether this one get value for knowledge na something wey people fit argue from both sides: e dey stop particular bias, and e dey replace careful choice with random pick. But at least, e no be the same thing as diviner dey make things up, and any explanation wey treat divination like say na pure freestyle no describe the procedure well.
The interpretive step na where the expertise dey. The casting dey bring out one address; the verses for that address plenty and dem different from each other; for the strict versions of the procedure, dem no dey tell the diviner the client problem beforehand. To select which verse apply, and to see the client condition inside am, na skilled work of pattern-matching. Na why babaláwo wey their quality no be the same dey produce different consultation from the same odù, and why the training long.
Ifá no be the only way. The aláṣọtẹ́lẹ̀ dey diagnose without Ifá formal tools . Ẹ̀ẹ́rìndínlógún, sixteen-cowrie divination, na wetin òrìṣà priests dey use including many women, and dem treat am for 05-ifa/08. Direct physical checkup na normal and common thing: practitioner dey look, touch the body, ask question about stool and urine and appetite, and e go reach conclusion for normal way.
The point wey make sense to talk na say Yoruba practitioner no get compulsory duty to divine. E dey divine when the case call for am, especially when the sickness no get explanation, e don tey, e dey come back again, or e refuse treatment. How dem take dey use am so dey show something: dem dey bring divination enter when physical explanation no reach again, wey be exactly where the selection question dey become serious.
Knowledge, Belief, and Witchcraft: Analytic Experiments in African Philosophy na book wey come out for 1986 through Barry Hallen, wey be philosopher, and J. Olubi Sodipo, wey be Professor of Philosophy that time for wetin be Obafemi Awolowo University now, with foreword from W. V. O. Quine . E still remain the only sustained analysis of African belief system wey dem do from inside Anglo-American analytic philosophy, and their method na to hold long philosophical discussion with practicing oníṣègùn as colleagues instead of as informants .
The method matter. The position wey Hallen and Sodipo explain na say to learn from oral culture, you must meet members of that culture, because oral information dey come out from mouth . Dem approach the herbalists as fellow specialists inside body of knowledge and ask dem wetin their terms mean, at length, inside Yoruba. Wetin come out no be anthropological description of Yoruba beliefs. Na report of wetin group of expert practitioners talk about the conditions under which claim count as known.
The starting point na Quine thesis on the indeterminacy of translation . The worry wey Quine bring up na say when we translate language wey we no familiar with, we dey put our own conceptual scheme on top am, and we no fit go behind the projection go check am. Hallen and Sodipo apply this to one particular pair of words wey every dictionary and every previous ethnography don treat as normal without problem.
Normal translation dey give mọ̀ / ìmọ̀ as know / knowledge and gbàgbọ́ / ìgbàgbọ́ as believe / belief. Wetin Hallen and Sodipo find out be say this translation no correct, and the mistake matter well well, because the way the Yoruba pair divide how person take know things dey different from how the English pair take divide am .
Ìmọ̀ need first-hand experience. Wetin the onísègùn dey count as ìmọ̀ na wetin person don see with their own eye and experience by themself, plus another condition say the person must understand the experience well, no be just say e happen to am . To just waka pass book shelf no mean say you get ìmọ̀ of wetin dey inside the books. Talk wey dey describe this kind thing wey person see, experience, and understand by themself na wetin the onísègùn dey call òótọ́, true .
Ìgbàgbọ́ cover everything wey person receive from other people. Information wey come through another person, through book, through media, or through oral tradition na ìgbàgbọ́ . Look how far e reach. This no be say na category of doubtful or superstitious claim. E contain almost everything wey anybody believe, including things wey correct well well, and including everything wey dey inside the tradition wey the native doctor dey use work.
The condition to change am. Ìgbàgbọ́ no be say e go dey second class forever. If person fit test second-hand information and verify am like that, e get chance to turn to ìmọ̀ . The road from belief go knowledge dey pass through how the believer verify am by themself, no be say because the source dey reliable.
The word gbàgbọ́ by itself dey teach person something: na from gbà, to accept or receive, plus gbọ́, to hear, dem build am. To believe na to accept-wetin-person-hear. The origin of the word carry the philosophy of knowledge inside am, and the difference between am and mọ̀ na the difference between to hear and to get.
Three reason dey, and e good make person look each of dem separate.
E no be the same distinction as English. For normal English, people dey easily use "I know" for things wey dem learn from reliable source. I know the population of Lagos; but I never count am before. For wetin onísègùn dey use judge, that one no be ìmọ̀ but ìgbàgbọ́, no matter how I dey confident reach and no matter how reliable my source be. The Yoruba way put the boundary of knowledge for personal verification, but the English way no do like that. Two languages wey look like say dem get the same pair of concepts come out say dem no get am, and na Quine point be this, wey show for real-life matter instead of something dem just fabricate .
E turn the normal blame upside down. Wetin dem write during colonial time and mid-century about "traditional" thought na say that kind system dey just accept tradition without questioning and dey take inherited talk as fact. Wetin Hallen and Sodipo find out na the exact opposite. As dem put am: the model of African thought wey English culture produce dey describe am like say e dey treat second-hand information, oral tradition, and book knowledge as true thing, as knowledge, but na wetin the Yoruba system of knowledge openly and strongly refuse to do . Based on the rule wey herbalist dey actually use, wetin dey inside oral tradition no be knowledge strictly speaking, and e dey only turn to knowledge when dem test am and verify am . The system strict pass the English-speaking one on top matter of testimony, e no loose pass am at all.
E touch the matter of justified-true-belief analysis. Anglo-American epistemology spend the second half of the twentieth century dey argue whether knowledge na justified true belief and wetin dem need to add to handle Gettier cases. The Yoruba system no dey build knowledge from belief plus conditions at all. Ìmọ̀ no be type of ìgbàgbọ́; na different things with different sources, and no amount of justification fit change one go the other without that personal experience step. Whether this one better pass as analysis na open question. But the main finding be say na different analysis, wey non-academic specialists reach by themself as dem dey reason for language wey no get written philosophical literature.
If person apply this standard to herbalist wey dey work, the result dey clear.
Native doctor wey don use medicine and see how e work get ìmọ̀ of am. Native doctor wey his master tell am say the medicine dey work, but never use am by himself, get ìgbàgbọ́, and if we follow the strict rule, e no get right to talk say e know. So as tradition dey pass from hand to hand, wetin the person receive na belief wey dey wait make dem verify am first. That kind thing na surprising and remarkable thing for system of secret traditional knowledge to talk about itself.
E also give the standard for verification wey dem describe for file 02: person no dey just accept claim from another native doctor because of authority, dem go hold am until the hearer test am by himself. And e explain one behavior for native doctor talk wey people from outside dey often see like say dem dey dodge talk, which na the careful way experienced native doctors dey take hold their mouth on top claims wey dem never test by themself.
Person suppose explain the limits with the same care too. The standard dey talk about person own warrant, no be about how dem design experiment. If person observe patient wey recover after treatment by himself, e no get control, e no be blinded study, and all the confusing factors for clinical knowledge fit affect am, especially the fact say many sickness dey heal by themself. System wey every native doctor dey verify by himself, and wey nobody dey write down or share negative result, go pile up confident first-hand "knowledge" of treatments wey no dey do anything. The onísègùn standard really strict pass normal English usage on top where claim come from, and e no solve the problem wey controlled trial dey solve. The two talk na true, and one no cancel the other.
The title of the book include witchcraft, and how dem treat àjẹ́ na to apply the method to case wey hard pass.
Hallen and Sodipo challenge di comparative framework-dem wey earlier scholar-dem use, including Geoffrey Parrinder, because European witchcraft category-dem come mainly from court trial record and oda indirect evidence, and e no match wetin Yoruba traditional practitioner-dem dey talk really . Dem approach àjẹ́ through di Yoruba concept of ènìyàn, person, as dem dey treat di àjẹ́ like personality type inside Yoruba thought instead of occult category, and dey ask wetin systematic psychology wey dem build on dat kind idea of personhood go need address .
Di broader treatment of àjẹ́ and di Ìyáàmi belong to 06-orisa and 18-women. Wetin belong here na say di same epistemological result dey apply: claim-dem about àjẹ́ wey person make based on wetin dem hear na ìgbàgbọ́ by di practitioner-dem own standard, and dem dey open about dis matter for ways wey older ethnographic literature no record because e no ask.
Di work no be say everybody agree, and di objection dey specific.
Critic-dem argue say Hallen and Sodipo take unduly restrictive view of testimony inside Yoruba epistemic practice . Di objection talk say: if nothing wey person hear from oda person fit qualify as knowledge until di person check am by himself, dat mean say plenty things wey any society really know go drop comot, and di explanation no go fit explain how oral culture dey pass knowledge down at all. As a result, critic-dem don check different ways wey culture like Yoruba fit take treat testimony as correct source of justification without falling into blind respect for tradition wey people don historically accuse dat kind society of .
Another second, methodological question dey wey careful reader suppose ask on dia own: Hallen and Sodipo interview one specific group of specialist-dem wey dia work depend on deep esoteric knowledge wey dem pass down person to person and verify by themselves. People wey dey do work wey require direct personal experience as dia main professional capital fit hold tighter rule on di boundary of ìmọ̀ pass how Yoruba farmer or trader go do. Di study design no settle whether di finding fit apply from onísègùn to all Yoruba speaker-dem, and people don also challenge Hallen later work on Yoruba moral epistemology on top similar ground .
None of di two objection touch di main result, wey be say di Yoruba pair no match di English pair and say di difference dey systematic instead of say na mistake. Confidence say e generalize from onísègùn to all Yoruba speech: contested.
Yoruba diagnostic and epistemological practice-dem trace go back to early healing tradition for di region wey mix systematic botanical research with deep spiritual divination . During di rise of di Ọyọ Empire from di seventeenth to di eighteenth century, royal court-dem centralize healing and Ifá divination guild-dem, standardizing how dem dey check illness and mix herbal medicine across different territory .
Di collapse of Ọyọ and di civil war-dem wey follow for nineteenth century scatter dis lineage network-dem, dey disperse practitioner-dem enter military and commercial center-dem wey dey grow like Ìbàdàn and Abẹ́òkúta . Dis war wahala make herbalist-dem exchange practical knowledge well-well, and e bring new way of treating sickness. Around mid-nineteenth century, Christian missionary expansion bring direct competition from modern medicine and moral condemnation, as dem paint divination and indigenous epistemology as useless superstition .
During British colonial rule, law-dem like di 1900 Native Medicine Proclamation and later anti-witchcraft statute-dem systematically target traditional diagnostics and ritual healing . To respond to dis, Yoruba healer-dem between 1922 and 1955 form organized professional body-dem, like di African Herbalists Society, and begin use formal license and case register to defend dia empirical legitimacy against colonial suppression .
After Nigerian independence for 1960, state ministry-dem establish traditional medicine board-dem to bring indigenous practitioner-dem enter public health framework and institutional research . For modern times now, di oníṣègùn still dey work across Nigeria inside healthcare market wey get different option-dem, dey use personal verification join body with clinical biomedicine . Across transatlantic diaspora, including Lucumí for Cuba and Candomblé for Brazil, di core case-based reasoning of Ifá and sixteen-cowrie divination still dey active as diagnostic and healing framework .
The scale of the documented Yoruba pharmacopoeia, how plants are classified and named, the tonal wordplay that makes a plant's name a mnemonic for its use, and a worked table of named plants against what pharmacological research has and has not established.
What the instruments are, how a consultation runs from the client's whispered question to the prescribed offering, and which decisions belong to the diviner and which do not.
Ifá is a Yorùbá system for reaching a decision by casting a signature, retrieving the memorised verses filed under it, and reasoning from the precedents they contain.
Yoruba categories for mental disturbance, what traditional treatment consists of including the restraint that is its worst feature, Lambo's village system at Abeokuta and why it changed community psychiatry worldwide, and the trial evidence on collaboration with healers.
Hallen and Sodipo's finding that the Yoruba distinction between knowing and believing is drawn in a different place from the English one, why that is a genuine philosophical result, and what it exposes about Western epistemology.
How truth is determined in Yoruba thought and practice, the etymology and relationship of otito and ooto, Hallen and Sodipo's imo/igbagbo distinction, and the standards of evidence the tradition applies to testimony and oath.