Should we teach Matauranga Māori or normative Science to our children?

[Chief Stipe]

An extract from an excellent essay.

https://skepticalinquirer.org/2023/06/the-ideological-subversion-of-biology/

6. Indigenous “ways of knowing” are equivalent to modern science and should be respected and taught as such. Because indigenous peoples such as New Zealand’s Māori and the New World’s Native Americans were the victims of colonialism, their traditional knowledge is often lauded as an alternative version of modern science—a “way of knowing” developed independently from what’s called “colonialist science” but seen by many as of equal value. In fact, the New Zealand government requires indigenous ways of knowing to be given equal status to modern science in the classroom—and to other subjects in all secondary school education. South Africa is also experiencing a decolonization of biology. An article in the prestigious journal Nature calls for decolonizing pharmacology in that country, concentrating on local herbal remedies to “anchor the curriculum in local experience.” While this adds a home-grown flavor to learning, dropping an anchor in local experience can only divert the student from an education in modern pharmacology.

 

Matauranga Māori, the indigenous way of knowing in New Zealand, is a mélange of empirical knowledge derived from trial and error (including the navigational ability of their Polynesian ancestors and Māori ways of procuring and growing food) but also includes nonscientific areas such as theology, traditional lore, ideology, morality, and legend. Yet all these are considered worthy of teaching as coequal to the methods and results of modern science. Māori scholars, for example, have advanced the improbable claim that Polynesians—the ancestors of the Māori—were the first to discover Antarctica in the seventh century. This claim is surely false, probably based on faulty translation of an oral legend. In fact, Antarctica was first seen by the Russians in 1820. Nevertheless, New Zealand’s Royal Society, the nation’s most prestigious scientific organization, gave a $660,000 grant to the Māori to explore this bogus narrative. There’s also been a revival of the traditional herbal and spiritual remedies of Matauranga Māori, which incorporate chanting as a means of healing. While local remedies may occasionally be helpful, they are almost never tested using the gold standard for medicine: randomized controlled trials.

 

Indigenous ways of knowing usually include some practical knowledge, which includes observations about the local environment and useful practices developed over time, including, in the case of Matauranga Māori, ancient methods of navigating and the best way to catch eels. But practical knowledge is not the same as the systematic, objective investigation of nature—free from assumptions about gods and spirits—that constitute modern science. Conflating indigenous ways of knowing with modern science will confuse students not only about what constitutes knowledge but also about the nature of science itself. It is true that modern science arose in Western Europe in the seventeenth century, a time when women were denied education and most of the population was white. This situation, due to bias, severely restricted people’s opportunities but provides no reason to discredit science itself—the best way of generating accepted knowledge about the universe—as “Western” or colonialist. (“Western” has become a total misnomer and insults the many people in other countries who practice the same brand of science.)

 

A related issue that pits indigenous culture against modern science is forensic anthropology: the study of ancient societies using human remains and artifacts. In North America, for instance, human remains, depending on where they’re found, can be claimed by Native Americans as their own, withheld from scientific study because they’re seen as ancient members of modern indigenous groups. Indeed, federal law mandates the return of bones and other artifacts to the indigenous groups who claim them. The remains must be reburied without scientific study, even if there’s no clear genealogical connection between the human bones and the Native Americans linked to where the remains were found. In the case of Kennewick Man, the indigenous “scientific” claims included a Native American leader rejecting the truth that his ancestors arrived via the Bering Strait from Asia on these grounds: “From our oral histories, we know that our people have been part of this land from the beginning of time,” says Mr. Minthorn. “We do not believe that our people migrated here from another continent.”

 

One victim of this mindset is physical anthropologist Elizabeth Weiss of San Jose State, who studies 500–3,000 year old bones from California. For simply studying those remains, Weiss was demoted by her university and banned from studying her department’s collection of bones. But it’s even worse: she’s not allowed to study X-rays of the remains or even show a photograph of the boxes in which they are kept. Many other universities, such as Berkeley, are also sending back or reburying artifacts and old bones. The result: valuable human history and anthropology remain off limits because remains and artifacts are considered sacred. Clearly, the best solution would defer burial until after scientific study or DNA collection. The present policy simply prevents us from learning about our past.

 

The promotion of these other ways of knowing comes from a desire to valorize oppressed groups by holding up much of their culture as having the same epistemic authority as science, a view that philosopher Molly McGrath called “the authority of the sacred victim.” In its secular form, this authority derives from postmodern views that science is just one of many “ways of knowing” and that the hegemony of science reflects power rather than accomplishment. This is encapsulated by the motto, espoused by some on both the Right and the Left for decades, that “science is always political.”

 

Like biblical creationism, much indigenous knowledge has a substantial spiritual or theological component that comes not from evidence but from authority or revelation. To add any of this knowledge to modern science, you must first separate the empirical wheat from the spiritual chaff. This is what the nondenominational Pastor Mike Aus meant when, after giving up his faith, he described “religious knowledge” this way: “There are not different ways of knowing. There is knowing and not knowing, and those are the only two options in this world.”

[Freda]

Excellent essay indeed.

Early writings from the likes of Samuel Marsden, who had the opportunity to meet with, and see first hand the customs of many Maori from multiple districts, showed his dismay when ill folk were put outside in the cold and damp, and deprived of food.

His conclusion was that the treatment meted out to sick members of a community had as much to do with their ultimate demise as the malady itself.

[curious]

On the other hand, the authors, seem to have taken the same colonialist view of things that they are purportedly critically examining. About a C+ for mine.

[Chief Stipe]

4 hours ago, curious said:

On the other hand, the authors, seem to have taken the same colonialist view of things that they are purportedly critically examining. About a C+ for mine.

How is it colonialist?  I thought it was comparing Matauranga with traditional evidence-based science.  

Isn't it a bit like NZTR saying "we know best but thanks for your data analysis"?

 

[curious]

21 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

How is it colonialist?  I thought it was comparing Matauranga with traditional evidence-based science.  

Isn't it a bit like NZTR saying "we know best but thanks for your data analysis"?

 

My read was they were dismissing Matauranga Māori from a western science based perspective, not comparing them from any neutral stance.

[Freda]

On 27/06/2023 at 1:12 PM, curious said:

My read was they were dismissing Matauranga Māori from a western science based perspective, not comparing them from any neutral stance.

I might be a bit thick, but I didn't get that impression overall.  Of course knowledge of indigenous folk is valuable, and has much to teach us all.  But to override science-based research is not, I don't think, a good idea.

Moderation and respect for both, the ideal, surely.

Interestingly  the assertion that Antarctica was first seen by the Russians in 1820 strongly contradicts the diagram [ can't remember which book I found it in ] of the Piri Reis maps clearly showing the coast of Antarctica sans ice.

Edited June 28, 2023 by Freda

[Special Agent]

On 6/28/2023 at 5:34 PM, Freda said:

I might be a bit thick, but I didn't get that impression overall.

Neither did I.  Maybe we read too much at whacky hours.

Anyway, what happened to choosing the subjects you are interested in learning about?

[Chief Stipe]

The Science Curriculum doesn't have core fundamentals yet they want to teach Matauranga that has no science foundation.  Path to ignorance if you ask me.

 

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/dr-michael-johnston-the-ministry-of-ignorance-strikes-again/ILXI6IP5CJB2NAQ5GXKUN67XQE/

[Chief Stipe]

On 27/06/2023 at 1:12 PM, curious said:

My read was they were dismissing Matauranga Māori from a western science based perspective, not comparing them from any neutral stance.

Are you suggesting "western science" is wrong?  Do we abandon physics and focus on the earth mothers forces?

[curious]

2 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

Are you suggesting "western science" is wrong?  Do we abandon physics and focus on the earth mothers forces?

Your question suggests that you think that Matauranga Māori knowledge, for example, isn't achieved by empirical observation of the natural and physical world and that derived theories are not testable? I think it is if that's what you are asking.

[Chief Stipe]

What is mātauranga Māori?

Giving a definitive translation of mātauranga Māori is challenging, as it covers a wide expanse of knowledge and understanding. At its simplest, mātauranga Māori might be described as ‘Māori knowledge’. Within this body of knowledge originating from Māori ancestors are Māori world views, values and perspectives, Māori creativity, and cultural practices and recognition of the inter-related connectedness between all life forces, both those seen and unseen with the human eye.

[Chief Stipe]

12 minutes ago, curious said:

Your question suggests that you think that Matauranga Māori knowledge, for example, isn't achieved by empirical observation of the natural and physical world and that derived theories are not testable? I think it is if that's what you are asking.

Why reinvent the wheel?  Is Matauranga "Maori knowledge" just a process of renaming science theories supported by evidence based research?  If so why do it? 

[curious]

26 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

Why reinvent the wheel?  Is Matauranga "Maori knowledge" just a process of renaming science theories supported by evidence based research?  If so why do it? 

Why do what?

[Chief Stipe]

20 minutes ago, curious said:

Why do what?

Why bother with Matauranga.

[curious]

To me it is a contributor to the larger global body of knowledge about various things, perhaps particularly relevant and accessible here. No different really than say an RCT that includes only participants from a specific population with a certain diagnosis and no comorbidities. So, why not? Why dismiss it?

[Freda]

11 hours ago, curious said:

To me it is a contributor to the larger global body of knowledge about various things, perhaps particularly relevant and accessible here. No different really than say an RCT that includes only participants from a specific population with a certain diagnosis and no comorbidities. So, why not? Why dismiss it?

What's an RCT ?

[curious]

36 minutes ago, Freda said:

What's an RCT ?

Randomised Controlled Trial. Pretty much the gold standard for assessing effect of health treatment outcomes among other things.

[Honestjohn]

I don't know or want to know the dead language forced upon us.  My grandkids are being taught all this bullshit.  it will be of no use to them.  just the Maori Party using it as leverage for Cindy's support. 

I was taught German  and French at school.  I have used it overseas. 

4% speak it.  Stop making public utilities in ta rayo 

 

hj

[Freda]

To be fair, I don't have a problem with Te Reo, and I don't think it does, or will do, any harm to teach kids another language.

I learned French and Latin at school.  Didn't hurt me at all - and Latin is a 'dead' language - although the basis for many spoken languages today.  And what a buzz it was translating a passage actually written by Julius Caesar for a School C assignment.

Local rider Rohan Mudhoo speaks English, French, Creole and Hindi - and also understands Urdu.  All Mauritian lads I have met can converse readily in at least three of those.

Scandinavian children are taught English [ or they were ] as a matter of course.   Many from other jurisdictions - Singapore, Malaysia - know either English or French as the language of govt. and commerce, as well as native or local dialects. 

The brain is not like the memory in a smartphone, getting clogged up with too much information and needing to be decluttered.   There is room for a lot more than we store there.! 

Many Kiwis I know don't even speak English well.  Some exercise of the grey matter wouldn't hurt at all.

However, as I reflected above - while native practices, both medical and otherwise, should be respected, and learned about wherever possible - to shove knowledge gained through accepted trials and research to the back, and/or make it irrelevant or less important, is dangerous and stupid in the extreme.  IMO.

And to end - the assertion in the initial article that modern medical science arose in western Europe in the 17th century, fails to recognise that Arab scholars and surgeons were active well before then with some very advanced knowledge indeed.   I have seen evidence of cataract surgery carried out [ successfully ]  much earlier, by an Arab surgeon in Spain.

Edited July 26, 2023 by Freda

[Honestjohn]

They  don't set a good example. 

 

Kiri  Allan tracked down by police dogs after fleeing accident.   Piece of crap. 

hj