"Māori knowledge isn't science"

[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?