In this post ‘science is god people’ refers to people who believe that science is either the the one true way of understanding the world, or is the best way, superior in a hierarchy above all others.
Western Science refers to the lineage of how this form of science developed over time and geography. It’s not saying that only Westerners can do science or that it’s only done in the West.
I was in a twitter conversation recently about Mātauranga Māori, where a comparison had been made between rejection of Mātauranga Māori and acceptance of Traditional Chinese Medicine practice of acupuncture.
Someone pointed out that chi, one of the core concepts used in traditional acupuncture practice, had never been tested/evidenced in a repeatable experiment. I don’t know if that’s true, but the idea that if chi hasn’t been measured by Western Science, it doesn’t exist, strikes me as irrational.
By all means hold a belief that chi doesn’t exist, and make an argument for that belief. But presenting it as a fact rather than a belief is, well, not very scientific. It’s like belief is seen as a dirty word, which is part of the problem with this debate. Belief is used to cast aspersions but there’s also a fair amount of denial of the rationalist caster’s personal beliefs. Let’s just be honest about our biases and see how we get along.
If we can say that chi doesn’t exist in the absence of evidence that it does, does this mean that bacteria didn’t exist before the advent of microscopes? Humans could definitely observe and study bacterial infections before that time, so they even in the absence of being able to see bacteria, they knew that something was going on that led to particular outcomes. Contrary to the belief of some of the science is god people, humans also knew how to treat bacterial infections before the advent of either microscopes or antibiotics.
Someone posted this article as an example of the problems with teaching Mātauranga Māori alongside Western Science: Mātauranga Māori and science, from a government-funded science learning hub,
This paragraph in the piece was given as an example of mythology being presented as fact,
From chaos sprang Papatūānuku, the Earth mother. Then Papa-matua-te-kore, the parentless, appeared. She mated with Rangi-a-Tamaku. Their firstborn was Putoto, whose sister was Parawhenuamea, the personified form of water. Putoto took his sister, Parawhenuamea, to wife. She gave birth to Rakahore, who mated with Hinekuku, the clay maiden. Hinekuku gave birth to Tuamatua. Tuamatua was the guardian of the different stones and gravel found on sea coasts. The younger brother of Tuamatua, Whatuaho, typified greywacke and chert. Next came Papakura, the origin of volcanic stone…
However, when one reads the whole article, it becomes clear that this is being used as an example of how Māori traditionally passed on knowledge of the natural world within an oral culture that didn’t have written records. It’s describing both a categorisation system, and how that was communicated across generations. It’s not saying to teach ‘Papatūānuku created greywacke by giving birth to Putoto’ as literal truth.
Further, it goes on to say this,
There has been debate as to whether mātauranga Maori can be referred to as Māori science. Some suggest that mātauranga Māori is not science. Science and mātauranga Māori do not seek to do the same thing. Mātauranga Maori is knowledge – knowing about things (such as preparing poisonous karaka berries for eating). Science is about finding out why and how things happen (such as why and how karaka berries are poisonous and how preparation removes the poison).
Which is an excellent explanation of both how Mātauranga Māori and Western Science can be used together, as well as the value of Mātauranga and Western Science each in their own right. It also somewhat dispels the notion that proponents of Mātauranga are intent on teaching religion as science.
As it turns out acupuncture is relatively well studied by Western Science, but the science is underutilised. Back in the day, science is god people used to disparage acupuncture as woo in similar ways as people currently talk about Mātauranga Māori.
Writing off a discipline as woo isn’t critique. It’s biased thinking at best, outright bigotry at worst. The arguments back in the day against acupuncture weren’t science based, they were ignorant and irrational, stemming from the Western mind’s inability to grasp concepts from different thinking systems, and some people’s unwillingness to bridge the cultural gap. I don’t think that all concerns about teaching Mātauranga Māori are like that, but some definitely are.
Both Traditional Chinese Medicine and Mātauranga Māori require conceptual literacy that is not common in Westerners. It’s like speaking two languages with someone who isn’t even aware that the other language exists but where both languages are need to discuss certain concepts. If this sounds snobby, consider talking with a theoretical physicist or mathematician without knowing what physics or maths is.
We’re seeing scientists with no expertise or even basic understanding of Te Ao Māori talking about it in disparaging ways (looking at you too Dawkins). The presumption is that because they are scientists their opinion on Mātauranga Māori is somehow relevant despite their profound ignorance of it. It’s hard not to see this as a long standing hubris from science culture that is also systemically racist. In addition to people of influence promoting that ignorance, they’re also feeding into the strong political narrative of racism in New Zealand.
So much of the ongoing debate about Mātauranga Māori is based on belief, and often unevidenced belief about what Mātauranga Māori is and how it is being used. I think we can do better than this. If we want to shift out of the polarisation, we have to use evidence-based arguments, examine our own biases, and be prepared to learn ways of thinking that are novel.
Further reading:
Professor Ella Henry, Director of Māori Advancement at the AUT Business School in Auckland, has a piece at The Spinoff Busting the myths about mātauranga Māori
Sociologist and author Scott Hamilton writes at North and South, As a Matter of Fact
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress