Graham Adams: Seven professors’ criticism of mtauranga Mori in science has missed its mark

[ad_1]

The main point of the letter from the University of Auckland professors is: “Indigenous knowledge can indeed help advance scientific knowledge in some ways, but it is not science”. Photo / 123RF

OPINION:

Despite their outrage, opponents have avoided declaring that mtauranga Mori is scientific. Graham Adams asks why they are getting around the main problem.

A rather curious feature of the backlash against the letter published in the Listener titled “In Defense of Science” is that none of its most prominent critics actually defended mtauranga Mori (traditional Mori knowledge) as being scientific.

Yet the main point of the letter from the University of Auckland professors and the main point of contention for its critics was summed up in its inflammatory conclusion: “Indigenous knowledge can indeed help advance scientific knowledge in some ways, but it is not science ”.

The seven professors who signed the letter were responding to a proposal from a government working group of the NCEA that mtauranga Mori should be “on par” with “other bodies of knowledge accredited by the NCEA (particularly Western epistemologies / Pkeha) “in the science school curriculum.

“Epistemologies”, that is, science, was also called “Western European invention”.

The professors objected to science being characterized in this way, on the grounds that “science is universal, not especially in Western Europe”.

They pointed out that the origins of science can be traced to many non-Western sources, including ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia and India “with significant contributions in mathematics, astronomy and physics from medieval Islam before. to expand in Europe and later in the United States, with a strong presence across Asia.

They also said: “In the discovery of empirical and universal truths, [mtauranga] is far below what we can define as science itself. “

In response to what she seems to consider heresy, University of Auckland Vice-Chancellor Dawn Freshwater announced that the letter’s question of “whether mtauranga Mori can be called science has caused harm and considerable consternation among our staff, students and alumni ”.

Related Articles

Proclaiming feelings of dismay and hurt is of course not a refutation of the professors’ claim that mtauranga Mori is not scientific nor does it describe it as a “distinctive and valuable knowledge system”, as Freshwater continued to do so.

Whether she was aware of it or not, the VC was indeed offering very low praise. A “distinctive and valuable knowledge system” might also describe Christian knowledge such as creationism that is part of the cultural heritage of the New Zealanders of Pakeha. Yet very few would like to be given the same weight as science in a school curriculum.

In fact, the professors’ letter did not say anything that could be interpreted as hostile to a description of mtauranga Mori as a “distinctive and valuable knowledge system”. Indeed, they said: “Indigenous knowledge is essential for the preservation and perpetuation of local culture and practices, and plays a key role in management and policy.

Freshwater added a slight further endorsement: “We believe that mtauranga Mori and Western empirical science are not at odds and need not compete with each other. They are complementary and have a lot to learn from each other.

Again, this says nothing about the scientific character of mtauranga Mori. And the question that Professor Freshwater and others have yet to answer is if that can’t be defended as a scientist, what is he doing in the science curriculum?

A similar reluctance to respond directly to professors’ controversial claim about mtauranga Mori was evident in the statement from the Royal Society Te Atrangi, the country’s premier body representing science and the humanities.

He vehemently opposed the professors’ position, writing: “The recent suggestion by a group of academics from the University of Auckland that mtauranga Mori is not a valid truth is totally rejected by the Royal Society Te Atrangi. The company strongly supports the value of mtauranga Mori and rejects the narrow and outdated definition of science set forth in the Auditor.

The professors, of course, never said anything that implied that mtauranga Mori is not a “valid truth” whatever that means, but simply stated that, in their opinion, it is not science. .

The company’s statement that professors use a “narrow and outdated definition of science” also does not directly claim that mtauranga Mori is scientific, although it does imply that it could be integrated into a larger and more comprehensive view. modern science than the one that professors hold.

Perhaps the most extraordinary public denunciation, however, came in the form of a thundering open letter against professors that quickly garnered over 2,000 signatures, the vast majority of academics and researchers.

This was the brainchild of Professor Shaun Hendy of the University of Auckland and Associate Professor Siouxsie Wiles. As the authors of the open letter, they also couldn’t bring themselves to say that mtauranga Mori represents a scientific worldview. However, they insisted on the fact that: “Indigenous knowledge in this case, mtauranga is not less than other knowledge systems. method.”

Presumably, the overlap includes parts of mtauranga Mori that are not mystical or animistic (i.e., do not include taniwha, or anthropomorphic mountains or other natural features). Notably, the authors have given no real idea of ​​what these “overlaps” are or of their importance.

They described mtauranga as offering “ways of seeing the world that are unique and complementary to other knowledge systems”. This description, again, could be applied to any distinct belief system, including the three Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, and has not been denied by professors.

The open letter is particularly notable for the fact that Dr Shaun Hendy and Dr Siouxsie Wiles have both been deeply involved in the government’s Covid strategies and management since the start of the pandemic, including regularly discussing the topic in public. . But here, they castigate their academic peers who defend scientific methodology.

The doozy in their open letter must be this paragraph: “Professors present a series of global crises [including Covid] that we must once again “fight” against science by failing to recognize the ways in which science has contributed to the creation of these challenges. Putting science on a pedestal does not take us any further in solving these crises. “

Say what? As New Zealanders eagerly await a photo of an effective vaccine created by legions of scientists around the world, the microbiologist named New Zealand Woman of the Year tells them about her leadership in responding to Covid- 19 and the scientist whose predictions of 80,000 Covid deaths helped put the nation under lockdown in March 2020 that science is not paramount in the fight against Covid.

The news that more than 2,000 academics and researchers, mostly academics and researchers, have endorsed science being knocked off its pedestal will be music to the ears of those who oppose wearing a mask in public or are wary of being vaccinated, which are regularly denounced for not “following the science”.

What is most disturbing about the open letter, however, is that by collecting supporting signatures, it appears to be an attempt to silence an opposing point of view. Dr Wiles reinforced this impression by tweeting: “Calling all academics in Aotearoa New Zealand. Add your name to the open letter if you are also appalled by this letter claiming to defend science published last week in the NZ Listener. & reports major problems with some of our colleagues.

Among the troublesome advocates of science who are said to have caused “untold harm and injury” is an emeritus professor of philosophy, Dr Robert Nola, who is a fellow of the Royal Society and who studies, writes, and lectures on philosophy. of science for over 45 years. years.

In late 2016, shortly after Donald Trump won the US Presidency, Dr Nola wrote in the NZ Herald to caution against the “post-truth.” As he put it: “This fancy new word tells us, ‘Objective facts have less influence in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.’ No need for truth, it’s the notion of yesteryear

“To the extent that studies in the humanities have not stood up to the views of post-truths, so much the worse for the humanities. But what about science?

“In science we have models of what the rational approach to belief should be. If followed, they are an important way to prevent the post-truth era from engulfing us.”

Less than five years later, it became clear that Dr Nola’s warning fell on deaf ears. As the firestorm on the professors’ letter shows, New Zealand science is indeed engulfed by the post-modern mantra that objective truth does not exist.

And it is also clear that any dissenting person must be silenced.

– Graham Adams is a journalist, columnist and critic who has written for numerous media outlets across the country including Metro, North & South, Noted, The Spinoff and Newsroom

[ad_2]