theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
I know, both myths are equally silly for the same reason.
That was the point.
Hah. Well played.
I know, both myths are equally silly for the same reason.
That was the point.
We can hopefully fire Chris Hipkins in October, but how are we going to get his mother and her ilk out of powerful academic positions? That's going to be an enduring malignant problem.To understand the depravity and destruction, it is worth seeing this post from kiwiblog that describes how the prime Minister and his mother are the engineers. Remember Chris Hipkins was minister of education til Ardern deserted:
It is starting to make sense..
You may recall that Chris Hipkins’ mother works for the New Zealand Council of Educational Research. She was one of the architects of the new science curriculum, now being ridiculed.
This document explains the priorities of the Council.
https://www.nzcer.org.nz/about-nzcer/corporate-documents
There is nothing about lifting education achievement.
The first priority is to “decolonise education”.
The second priority is to “uphold Mana Maori”….
Eta
I read the "English" version and they could not help themselves using a host of te reo words I don't understand.
I'd rather have that than ads for humongous ICE SUVs. You know, the kind of advertising that is actively destroying the planet. Ads for gas cars should be banned.Same. Every channel, saturation advertising, and I couldn't begin to tell you why that was.
TV ads are about $10k/minute on average and there must have been at least 2000 ads, so there's 2 mio without even trying.
Very appropriate signature.I'd rather have that than ads for humongous ICE SUVs. You know, the kind of advertising that is actively destroying the planet. Ads for gas cars should be banned.
________________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
I'd rather have that than ads for humongous ICE SUVs. You know, the kind of advertising that is actively destroying the planet. Ads for gas cars should be banned.
Tried to find reliable figures from internet but it was like throwing darts with a blindfold on.
Institutional infestation of stone age idiocy, not too different to Terf bashing by the Telecom PR child chicks in control.I've already had a laugh about that this morning.
I don't think it's racist, but it's definitely absurd.
I've already had a laugh about that this morning.
I don't think it's racist, but it's definitely absurd.
I know. I am not a good subject these days. I admire your fortitude.Yeah, you've definitely lost the plot entirely.
In this recorded webinar Pauline Waiti and Rosemary Hipkins explore the idea of knowledge systems with examples from science and mātauranga Māori.
The report Enduring Competencies for Designing Science Learning Pathways introduced the idea of exploring both science and mātauranga Māori as knowledge systems. Thinking about knowledge as a system is likely to be an unfamiliar idea for many teachers. In this webinar we unpack the metaphor, using familiar science concepts to show which of them might be appropriately explored through both knowledge lenses (i.e. science and mātauranga Māori) and when this might not be helpful.
Small matter but I'm sure one of the contributors is the Mother of the current PM of New Zealand.There's a slideshow that's gone up on the NZ 'Science Learning Hub' with the title 'What is a knowledge system'.
One of the contributors is the wife of the current PM of New Zealand.
It's well worth looking at as it explains the difference between 'mātauranga Māori' and 'Northern Beliefs' (aka science)
https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/resources/3272-what-is-a-knowledge-system
There's a slideshow that's gone up on the NZ 'Science Learning Hub' with the title 'What is a knowledge system'.
One of the contributors is the wife of the current PM of New Zealand.
It's well worth looking at as it explains the difference between 'mātauranga Māori' and 'Northern Beliefs' (aka science)
https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/resources/3272-what-is-a-knowledge-system
Whitey's getting so upset about its smug superiority being threatened that it lets slip its actual beliefs by using the pronoun for inanimate objects instead of people.Anyone that believes and claims science can be represented by "'northern beliefs", or beliefs of any kind, simply doesn't understand how science works.
“That Can Refer to People" - https://www.grammar.com/That-Can-Refer-to-PeopleWhitey's getting so upset about its smug superiority being threatened that it lets slip its actual beliefs by using the pronoun for inanimate objects instead of people.
FTFY - I couldn't resist . . .New Zealand is about to elect a government which will roll back our efforts to combat climate change, reverse the nonprogress made towards getting more people interested in nonscience
“That Can Refer to People" - https://www.grammar.com/That-Can-Refer-to-People
The rest of the post also represents merely typically woke attitude rather than credible or correct argument.
Whitey's getting so upset about its smug superiority being threatened that it lets slip its actual beliefs by using the pronoun for inanimate objects instead of people.
Science 'works' through people. And those people are steeped in cultural bias, which colors how they do science and what they use it for. Nobody is immune to this bias. However there is a prevailing attitude in 'the West' (or 'the North') that their culture - including their particular biased brand of 'science' - is superior to all other knowledge systems, which are therefore invalid and not worth discussing.
A defining feature of bias is that people are usually not conscious of it, or not aware of how much influence it has on their thoughts. The science practiced in 'the West' today has a strong bias aligning with Western culture. But science advocates don't recognize this bias because they are steeped in that same culture. So despite the inherent intertwining of science and culture, they attempt to separate out the 'science' part and elevate it to a status that must not be questioned. They then ironically complain that people treat 'science' as something separate from their daily lives that can be dismissed when inconvenient.
Western science is currently in crisis. Despite its confident assertion that it alone is the only valid knowledge system, most of the population only pays it lip service at best. Even in America - the richest most powerful country in the World which owes a lot of its status to science - 40% of the population does not trust science on such vitally important topics as deadly viruses and climate change. YouTube is awash with BS masquerading as science, TV 'documentaries' and 'popular science' magazines misrepresent it, and even science advocates promote BS such as 'you wouldn't have smartphones and GPS today if it wasn't for Science'. With so much BS saturating the media it's no wonder people are confused.
New Zealand is about to elect a government which will roll back our efforts to combat climate change, reverse the progress made towards getting more people interested in science, and treat it as the servant of capitalism. In short, bad news for science. Yet in this thread all we hear about is how terrible it is that 'Maori creationism' is being taught in schools. You know that's what all the people voting National think too, right?
“That Can Refer to People" - https://www.grammar.com/That-Can-Refer-to-People
The rest of the post also represents merely typically woke attitude rather than credible or correct argument.
Science 'works' through people. And those people are steeped in cultural bias, which colors how they do science and what they use it for. Nobody is immune to this bias. However there is a prevailing attitude in 'the West' (or 'the North') that their culture - including their particular biased brand of 'science' - is superior to all other knowledge systems, which are therefore invalid and not worth discussing.
Can you give some examples of how science is biased by Western culture?A defining feature of bias is that people are usually not conscious of it, or not aware of how much influence it has on their thoughts. The science practiced in 'the West' today has a strong bias aligning with Western culture. But science advocates don't recognize this bias because they are steeped in that same culture. So despite the inherent intertwining of science and culture, they attempt to separate out the 'science' part and elevate it to a status that must not be questioned. They then ironically complain that people treat 'science' as something separate from their daily lives that can be dismissed when inconvenient.
Western science is currently in crisis. Despite its confident assertion that it alone is the only valid knowledge system, most of the population only pays it lip service at best. Even in America - the richest most powerful country in the World which owes a lot of its status to science - 40% of the population does not trust science on such vitally important topics as deadly viruses and climate change. YouTube is awash with BS masquerading as science, TV 'documentaries' and 'popular science' magazines misrepresent it, and even science advocates promote BS such as 'you wouldn't have smartphones and GPS today if it wasn't for Science'. With so much BS saturating the media it's no wonder people are confused.
New Zealand is about to elect a government which will roll back our efforts to combat climate change, reverse the progress made towards getting more people interested in science, and treat it as the servant of capitalism. In short, bad news for science. Yet in this thread all we hear about is how terrible it is that 'Maori creationism' is being taught in schools. You know that's what all the people voting National think too, right?
The single example I can understand is that there can be a bias in *what* is studied; that is, which questions get asked. One common example is the relative lack of science concerning the special medical risks that females might face (beyond the obvious ones like pregnancy; this imbalance is beginning to get addressed, IIRC, as in understanding that heart attacks in female can present very differently from the commonly understood symptoms in males). IIRC.Science is superior to other knowledge systems, if your goal is to understand how the world works. Can you name another knowledge system that has the same success as science in describing the Universe?
Can you give some examples of how science is biased by Western culture? . . . .
That's a bit unfair, leading in with blatant racism is hardly 'woke'.
No it doesn't. Don't be bringing your personal prejudices and blind spots into the conversation.
Woke racism . . .What's so special about Maori creationism that it gets a pass where Christian creationism doesn't.
The conversation consists of nothing but personal prejudices and blind spots, if you ask me.No it doesn't. Don't be bringing your personal prejudices and blind spots into the conversation.
No, that's not all that matters.All that matters is how close it is to getting things right,
If that's what it's really about then this thread should have been closed immediately - since Maori creationism is not 'in' science lessons.I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here. This thread is specifically about Maori creationism, it's right there in the title. Why shouldn't we talk about Maori creationism on here? There are other threads for climate change.
Have you not been reading any of the articles posted on this thread and elsewhere? Maori creationism may not yet be in science lessons but that is they direction in which New Zealand seems to be headed.If that's what it's really about then this thread should have been closed immediately - since Maori creationism is not 'in' science lessons.
You mean like accusing people who disagree with you of being racists?Or perhaps we should use it as an example of how inciteful words are used to evoke a knee-jerk reaction - in this case to getting the 'wrong' people more interested in science - by racists. Because racism is actually what it's all about.
Science is a rational pursuit of knowledge, but it does not exist in splendid isolation. If this is painted as the ‘ideal’ science, then it is incomplete. People do science, and people and their culture/s are inseparable.
In Aotearoa/New Zealand our nation’s origins lie with the Treaty of Waitangi. The Treaty is a formal agreement with the third article guaranteeing Māori equal rights and privileges. That means access to education within a system that seeks to fulfil the potential of every individual.
I suspect the heart of the issue is the notion that education should be secular and devoid of any form of spirituality. Proponents of this view would say a karakia (sometimes interpreted as a prayer) to open or close an event, or before guests eat afternoon tea, has no place in education. But in the context of Māori practices and values, and bringing Treaty articles to life, this makes perfect sense. And is absolutely integral.
Another high ranking NZ Educator, in this case the deputy dean of the Faculty of Science at the University of Auckland as well as a geologist and the Director of the Ngā Ara Whetū | Centre for Climate, Biodiversity & Society, tries to explain why Maori spirituality, needs to be integrated into the science curriculum.
People do science, and people and their culture/s are inseparable.
Again, I'm observing that people are saying that what they're doing in science classrooms is bad, without any evidence of what they're actually doing in science classrooms.
Is there any evidence that "it" is being done?As long as we agree that it shouldn't be done, that anyone who wants to start doing it should be prevented from starting it, and that if anyone does do it they should be stopped, I'm happy.
Already addressed.Is there any evidence that "it" is being done?
Is there any evidence that "it" is being done?
It depends on what "it" is. In fact, I think that determining what "it" is is actually critical.This seems like a pretty good reply to that question:
"As long as we agree that it shouldn't be done, that anyone who wants to start doing it should be prevented from starting it, and that if anyone does do it they should be stopped, I'm happy."
I'm happy to agree that we don't know if "it" is being done or not. Do you agree with the above?