The book Epistemologies of the South recognizes that there is a ghostly relationship between theory and practice, since those who produce progresist changes, in more recent times, have been precisely social groups totally invisible to Eurocentric critical theory, as they are, women, indigenous people, peasants, the unemployed. That is to say, it recognizes that a simplifying view of reality prevails to the detriment of a systemic, complex and inclusive view. Simplification is a practical, but reductionist artifice, since it imposes on the people, organizations and social systems of Latin America a limited model of themselves, in order to control them. Just two examples: the vast semantic wealth that the term “development” brings with it is impoverished to a single indicator: the growth of the GDP. It is, in addition, a misleading indicator, when counting as goods to societal ills such as armament, waste of energy or sterilization of soils with agrochemicals; and by hiding the strong distributive injustices that characterize undeveloped societies. Simplification of persons-object: human beings tend to be understood as objects of higher initiatives, rather than as subjects capable of building their own destinies; A large part of politicians, for example, see citizens and their organizations as authors of “demands” to them rather than as co-creators of public policies with them. One wonders why these simplifications apply in academia, in politics and in the economy of the undeveloped world, if they discard such vast potentials to create development. There are four reasons: they are practical, they are easy to use, they have prestige because of the scientific origin of their concepts and methods, and by simplifying they do nothing but apply common sense. And there is a fifth reason, which is not minor: apparently there are no concrete alternatives, which are available to intellectual, political or institutional leaders who are aware of the complexity of the real world and want to act without simplifying.