Is Māori Knowledge Considered Science?

[PeroK]

Yet science (exactly based on numerous bad experiences) is not supposed to be subject to any political agenda: and part of the role of the political figureheads of the scientific community is exactly to ensure this.

Your political agenda is that science is what you say it is. That only works until someone disagrees with you.

 

[Rive]

Your political agenda is that science is what you say it is.

Only, if you leave the definition of 'science' to politics and semantics.

Sorry, about that I'm just not interested.

Ps.: History tells us may really bad examples about having 'science' without independence, so independence could became an ideal, finally: and then a new bunch of nationalists pops up and tries to violate that independence exactly on basis of some of those bad examples. Just ... wonderful. Really.

 

[PeroK]

Only, if you leave the definition of 'science' to politics and semantics.

Sorry, about that I'm just not interested.

Let me give you a concrete example. When I was at school only boys took Engineering Drawing. Not the girls. A few years later that changed.

What is your apolitical solution?

If you retain the status quo and deny girls the opportunity to learn technical subjects, then that is a political decision. But, if you make the change and allow girls to study the technical subjects, then that too is a political decision. You can't avoid it.

Of course, you can take no part in the decision. But, someone must take that decision!

You could try to focus entirely on what the Engineering Drawing course entails. That, you suggest, is a purely scientific decision. But, what if someone suggests that the material is too focused on boys' interests and wants changes to make the course material more interesting to the girl students? Again, you are faced with a political decision that you cannot avoid.

How you can believe that the educational syllabus for Maori students can possibly be apolitical is beyond me.

 

[Rive]

How you can believe that the educational syllabus for Maori students can possibly be apolitical is beyond me.

Do I believe in that? That's something very novel to me.

But, have you considered that Universities teach all kinds of courses on non-scientific subject matter like this including, religion. And also have you considered that the entire body of Māori knowledge isn't necessarily only as valid as religion?

That list in the post you have answered contains not just one or two items which are not religion and not only as valid as religion, yet they are still not science, even while there are many universities and institutes teaching them. And nobody is really bothered by that - guess part because they does know what science intend to be and part because they does not really want to take the constraints of science upon themselves.

Now your interpretation seems to be that people are trying to put Māori knowledge on an equal footing as science.

Have you read the source linked in #10?
It tells a story. Especially if you dig a bit deeper on that direction.

 

[sysprog]

On these kinds of topics, I am just disappointed about the social dynamics a little bit.

For example, one such case involved an argument over whether objectively 2+2=4 or if this is just western imperialist propaganda and there are other equally valid answers. One side is now defending this, with all of the power of short social media posts consumed by people with 5 second attention spans, and the other side is claiming that there is a conspiracy to replace real math classes with new ones that teach 2+2=5.

And I'm then compelled to attempt to defuse the situation a little by tracing back the 2+2 can equal 5 comment back to the original idea that the comment was referencing, or at least to some reasonable version of the underlying ideas that might have led [fixed] to this, and then attempt to make a reasonable defense for those ideas. Because those are presumably the ones we should be talking about instead, regardless of whether I agree with that more reasonable version of the idea or not. In reality, I usually see some aspects I agree with and some that I don't.

You seem to me to be a really bright guy - how could you possibly not know that 2+2=22?

 

[russ_watters]

Or, on the contrary, it could be scientists arguing about something they know very little about. The fact is that Professor Elliffe wrote a letter and resigned his post as a result. Therefore, by definition, he did not understand what he was writing about - unless he accepted in advance that he would be forced to resign.

You're conflating two separate things. What he was wrong about was the level of backlash over what he said. That doesn't mean the point he was making was wrong. People don't resign over simply losing a debate/being wrong.

This was a concern to some faculty members because they thought it would cause a negative opinion of science. In there letter, they say Māori knowledge isn't science. People were offended by that, and the response led the faculty member to resign in protest.

The article doesn't say he resigned in protest, it says he resigned because of the intensity of the backlash. Usually when people resign in protest they make a statement making it clear that that's why they are resigning, otherwise there's no value to it. It's not a protest if you don't tell anyone.

Then, depictions of these ideas go viral on social media and society has a large scale discussion about it. That discussion plays out where most of the arguments are expressed through insults, memes, and snippets.

Current social debate "rules" allow that the side that argues loudest and angriest can win by forcing the other side to withdraw either because they don't want to be dragged down to that level or even because they come into/fear physical danger (that's what people mean when they cite/criticize "cancel culture"). But I think it is wise to view those instances the opposite way - often it's the unhinged one is probably wrong. And in this case, certainly academics should not be reacting with unhinged vitriol to an academic policy issue/debate.

 

[russ_watters]

Note that even if we judge/allow that ancient tribal knowledge is science/scientific, that still would not make it appropriate/useful to teach in science classes as part of the science curriculum. We frequently get people here trying to learn Relativity from Einstein's original text/papers. They are told that the theory as portrayed in those papers is not fully developed or presented in the most efficient way - given the context, that's just not what they are for. A modern textbook and more efficient derivation is the way to go.

Einstein may get a page as a historical footnote, separate from the teaching of the theory, but that is likely it (I see that in engineering textbooks, not sure if it is the same for physics textbooks). It won't be on the test.

 

[PeroK]

Note that even if we judge/allow that ancient tribal knowledge is science/scientific, that still would not make it appropriate/useful to teach in science classes as part of the science curriculum.

My understanding of the main issue is that some people in the Maori community would rather you didn't have the right to decide this on their behalf. Especially if, rightly or wrongly, they believe your ideas led to the destruction of their civilization.

That's partly why what Professor Elliffe said was political dynamite.

 

[woopydalan]

Sure. My first reaction was "I don't care what they teach in history class." However, if they are teaching "Scientists [engineers] are all a bunch of imperialist racists and you shouldn't listen to them" I think I would care.

You better care what they teach in history class

 

[russ_watters]

You better care what they teach in history class

I do; that comment was limited to the context of the thread. Insofar as what is taught in history class nothing to do with science (which is usually true), I don't (usually) care what they teach. But in this case I do care because it appears the intent is to undermine what is being taught in the science classrooms.

I do have other educational/personal/politics concerns, but those aren't necessarily related to the topic of the thread.

 

[russ_watters]

My understanding of the main issue is that some people in the Maori community would rather you didn't have the right to decide this on their behalf.

I think you're saying/looking at it backwards. He/I aren't trying to decide for them what to teach in their schools, they/their advocates are trying to decide what to teach in his.

Edit: there is also an element of teaching about him/his cohorts (scientists) things that he doesn't believe are accurate and may be derogatory.

That's partly why what Professor Elliffe said was political dynamite.

I recognize that, even if he didn't. In today's climate, the people with the vested interest - the actual responsibility - are sometimes not allowed to have/express opinions on the things they are responsible for because of their race/skin color. That's a bad direction for society to be going.

 

[russ_watters]

On the "what should be taught in science class" angle, there are many points to this and to rational/thoughtful people they should not be controversial:

1. Maori/indigenous knowledge is a valid source of knowledge.
2. Maori knowledge may or may not have been obtained scientifically (according to some form of acknowledged scientific standards).
3. Maori knowledge (specific items) may or may not be accurate.
4. Maori knowledge is likely to be inferior to current scientific knowledge in nearly all cases where they overlap. Example: as impressive as it was that the Mayans developed astronomy and created a calendar, we don't use their calendar today because our modern calendar is better.
5. Maori knowledge/processes do not currently have a significant place in the scientific community, approach or body of knowledge.
6. Maori knowledge did not contribute to the development of current scientific knowledgebase (this is a guess based on my understanding of other indigenous knowledge, e.g. Mayan astronomy).

All of this should point clearly to Maori knowledge being inappropriate to teach in science class, "on par" with mainstream science. Note, that's what the title and opening post of the thread are about. What happens in history class is more complicated and a very different question.

Note, the thesis of the response letter signed by other scientists starts by addressing this:

Indigenous knowledges - in this case, Mātauranga - are not lesser to other knowledge systems.

This is a stunningly false claim/response, at face value and in the context of the topic (on par withs science). The scientific process has been developed and adopted specifically because it is the best we have. Accepted scientific theories are accepted specifically because they are the best performing. Where they overlap, Maori/Indigenous knowledge is absolutely going to be inferior.

People don't like being told such things about themselves/their heritage, and while they have some freedom to decide for themselves if these things are true, where the rubber meets the road, most do not actually believe them even if they believe they believe them. And I say that in full recognition of the COVID anti-vax/science climate. This situation is an outlier and while the COVID example is big, the number of examples are very limited. There's no equivalent in most disciplines. Nobody throws away their air conditioner and says they have faith in God to make their house cool.

 

[Office_Shredder]

I think you're saying/looking at it backwards. He/I aren't trying to decide for them what to teach in their schools, they/their advocates are trying to decide what to teach in his.

I'm sorry, what the heck makes this school his, and not theirs? Like, I don't know, this statement kind of comes across as super racist the way it's stated? You probably didn't mean it that way, but I think it's pretty suggestive that you just assume the Maori side consists of outsiders trying to hijack a system they have no right to interact with.

The article quotes multiple people who are already professors at this school.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm sorry, what the heck makes this school his, and not theirs? Like, I don't know, this statement kind of comes across as super racist the way it's stated? You probably didn't mean it that way, but I think it's pretty suggestive that you just assume the Maori side consists of outsiders trying to hijack a system they have no right to interact with.

The article quotes multiple people who are already professors at this school.

Maybe I missed something here, because your reaction to what I said is so far off the deep end I can't even imagine where it came from. It was my understanding that this is an internal debate at a public college. Is that not the case?