Split Thread Maori Creationism in Science lessons

[theprestige]

Smithsonian Institution

While the Smithsonian is funded out of the budget of the executive branch, it's unlikely that their position on this has risen to the notice of the president or his cabinet, let alone represents some policy of the US government.

Let me know when the USN accepts doctrinal or operational trade offs in the Pacific, out of an abundance of respect for Maori superstition.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

I am super down with not including Maori non-iteration on scientific epistemology in science lessons. I am totally okay with including it in history lessons.

You said,

the local traditional beliefs... contributed nothing to the development of scientific thought and the scientific method.

If the Maori had iterated on mythology until they arrived at science, it would be a different story.

Well I say Aristotle's traditional beliefs didn't do much to develop scientific thought either, in fact his unscientific nonsense held it back for 2000 years. Yet somehow he managed to get into science lessons, if only to show how wrong he was. And Isaac Newton, a Christian who believed the hand of God was present in the universe, gets elevated to sainthood even though he spent much of his life trying to turn lead into gold (a stupid idea even if it could be done).

Then you insultingly asserted that,

now they're butthurt that their lack of contribution to the global body of knowledge isn't being privileged in the education of their children. Too bad, so sad.

This because you know they don't have anything to contribute. But how do you know that? I bet you don't know at all, and you didn't try to find out. I bet you just saw 'Maori Creationism in Science lessons' and presumed it was whatever popped into your head.

You say they didn't contribute anything to science, but how could they when New Zealand was unknown to Europeans until the 1800's, when missionaries were far more interested in converting them to Christianity than listening to any scientific ideas? It's taken another 200 years for whitey to even consider the possibility that Maori might have had something to contribute. During that time whitey did the opposite, insisting that western science was the only true science, and everything Maori was inferior and should be forgotten (if they even remembered it after having their minds filled up with 200 years of Christian garbage).

 

[ynot]

Why some want “The Maori Way of Thinking” (which includes Maori creationism) to be included in science education, isn’t rocket science, but it is racket science! It’s all about promoting and empowering the “Maori Wonderfulness” BS racket.

 

[theprestige]

You said,
Well I say Aristotle's traditional beliefs didn't do much to develop scientific thought either, in fact his unscientific nonsense held it back for 2000 years. Yet somehow he managed to get into science lessons, if only to show how wrong he was. And Isaac Newton, a Christian who believed the hand of God was present in the universe, gets elevated to sainthood even though he spent much of his life trying to turn lead into gold (a stupid idea even if it could be done).

Then you insultingly asserted that,

This because you know they don't have anything to contribute. But how do you know that? I bet you don't know at all, and you didn't try to find out. I bet you just saw 'Maori Creationism in Science lessons' and presumed it was whatever popped into your head.

You say they didn't contribute anything to science, but how could they when New Zealand was unknown to Europeans until the 1800's, when missionaries were far more interested in converting them to Christianity than listening to any scientific ideas? It's taken another 200 years for whitey to even consider the possibility that Maori might have had something to contribute. During that time whitey did the opposite, insisting that western science was the only true science, and everything Maori was inferior and should be forgotten (if they even remembered it after having their minds filled up with 200 years of Christian garbage).

Cool story.

I think there's a huge difference between trying to figure out reality and getting it wrong, and going along with the version of reality that's been passed down to you. Where's the Maori Aristotle? Where's the Maori quantum leap forward, because they doubted their senses and sought a more foundational source of truth? Where's the Maori step beyond religion into a first pass at science?

 

[arthwollipot]

Why some want “The Maori Way of Thinking” (which includes Maori creationism) to be included in science education, isn’t rocket science, but it is racket science! It’s all about promoting and empowering the “Maori Wonderfulness” BS racket.

Can you tell me a little bit about Māori creationism?

 

[ynot]

Can you tell me a little bit about Māori creationism?

I could, but I won't, do your own homework.

I will help you a little bit . . .

https://teara.govt.nz/en/maori-creation-traditions

https://www.thetereomaoriclassroom.co.nz/2019/07/the-maori-creation-story/

ETA - I suspect much, if not most of the content given via these two links has been made-up by part-Maori, post Whitey arriving. All part of the "Maori wonderfulness" BS. An example . . .

"Written language, reading and writing - The arts of whakairo and moko originate from Tangaroa and Rūaumoko. These are forms of tuhituhi, writing and communicate our knowledge to the world."

Pre-Whitey Maori had no written language and could neither read nor write. Pure "Maori wonderfulness" BS.

Click this Link for More

Your welcome . . .

 

[The Atheist]

Three quick examples of the Maori "way of thinking" regarding biology and environmentalism - Hunting and killing native species like Moa and Huia to extinction. Destroying large areas of native forest with fire. Killing, torturing, enslaving, raping and eating other "rival" Maori.

I mentioned the great burning way back in the thread when someone pointed the finger at Pakeha, who burned a minuscule fraction what Maori had already done.

Another way of looking at this whole sordid business is not just Maori myths being given bandwidth in the classroom, but the absolute truth that certain events can not be taught.

Right now, those things include:

Maori cannibalism
The Great Burnoff
Maori being responsible for the vast majority of deaths in the Land Wars
Genocide of the Moriori
Maori being neolithic

 

[jt512]

Once again I repeat - so far I haven't seen any good evidence that anybody is even suggesting teaching Māori creationism in science lessons.

That argument is only meaningful if you've first looked for such evidence.

 

[Paul2]

Once again I repeat - so far I haven't seen any good evidence that anybody is even suggesting teaching Māori creationism in science lessons.

So far I haven't seen an actual definition of "Māori creationism". No, it is not the same as Mātauranga Māori, as has been defined way back at the beginning of the thread.

The issue is not about Māori creationism. The issue is not even about science. The issue is whether Mātauranga Māori should be taught in schools. And I think that if it is done with appropriate care and attention to detail, it can and should. With science, history, culture and mathematics, but not instead of them.

Not creationism per se, but still Matauranga Maori as science.

 

[ynot]

I mentioned the great burning way back in the thread when someone pointed the finger at Pakeha, who burned a minuscule fraction what Maori had already done.

Another way of looking at this whole sordid business is not just Maori myths being given bandwidth in the classroom, but the absolute truth that certain events can not be taught.

Right now, those things include:

Maori cannibalism
The Great Burnoff
Maori being responsible for the vast majority of deaths in the Land Wars
Genocide of the Moriori
Maori being neolithic

And “Maori Wonderfulness” being yet another myth that must be hidden and protected from the truth.

Hopefully “Restore balance to the history curriculum” in the coalition agreement also means “Restore truth”.

Shakespeare - “at the length truth will out”.

 

[The Atheist]

Shakespeare - “at the length truth will out”.

Goebbels - Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes truth.

The best example I know of is the myth that Maori kids were beaten for speaking Maori. That is now accepted as true and it's 100% bollocks.

Maori history is controlled by what 2023 Maori say it is, just as the 1840 Treaty says what 2023 Maori say it means. Next year it might be completely different - it's pretty funny how an illiterate culture embraces Orwell so completely.

 

[ynot]

Goebbels - Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes truth.

The best example I know of is the myth that Maori kids were beaten for speaking Maori. That is now accepted as true and it's 100% bollocks.

Maori history is controlled by what 2023 Maori say it is, just as the 1840 Treaty says what 2023 Maori say it means. Next year it might be completely different - it's pretty funny how an illiterate culture embraces Orwell so completely.

Hopefully Shakespeare trumps Goebbels "at the length".

If Maori kids were beaten for speaking Maori it would've been their parents and whanau (extended family group) that did the beating.

Unfortunately it's not just 2023 Maori in control, it's also 2023 whitey woke politicians, academics and media liars in positions of power and influence.

 

[arthwollipot]

That argument is only meaningful if you've first looked for such evidence.

I have.

Not creationism per se, but still Matauranga Maori as science.

Yeah, Jerry Coyne is one of those that I was referring to when I said this:

...what is happening is that a whole lot of people, including Richard Dawkins, are going "OMG they're saying that they're teaching religious gobbledygook as science!!!11!!1" without providing a shred of evidence that this is the case.

He, Dawkins, ynot and others look at Mātauranga Māori, and characterise it as mysticism, religion, fantasy, without seeing what it actually is. That's why I asked ynot to define Māori creationism, which he declined to do because there really isn't any such thing. There is a Māori creation myth - yes, Māori culture has one of those, just like literally every other culture on the planet but nobody has shown me that any current or proposed curriculum is suggesting that this creation myth is scientific.

This whole thing is a storm in a teacup. If Dawkins hadn't got a bee in his British colonialist bonnet, nobody would be talking about it.

 

[Orphia Nay]

Biology? Absolutely. Environmentalism? Depends what we're talking about, exactly. I wouldn't be surprised if some Maori have some specialist experience with their local ecosystem that colonists and foreign researchers aren't yet familiar with.

Thank you. That was my point.

 

[arthwollipot]

Thank you. That was my point.

Mine, too, partly.

 

[The Atheist]

Unfortunately it's not just 2023 Maori in control, it's also 2023 whitey woke politicians, academics and media liars in positions of power and influence.

Not any more. As has been noted a few times, this is the furthest-right government this century, and I'd say since Muldoon.

It's interesting that both of the main proponents of de-Maorisation are both tangata whenua.

 

[theprestige]

Thank you. That was my point.

Mine, too, partly.

I don't think it was your point. My point was that the Maori could well have learned through trial and error the best way to catch a particular local fish, and passed that down to the present generations as rote tradition, without any scientific concept at all. If you wanted to generously mention that scrap of Maori knowledge in an "environment" curriculum - whatever that means - I probably won't complain overmuch.

What was your point - in your own words, not mine?

 

[Paul2]

I have.

Yeah, Jerry Coyne is one of those that I was referring to when I said this:



He, Dawkins, ynot and others look at Mātauranga Māori, and characterise it as mysticism, religion, fantasy, without seeing what it actually is. That's why I asked ynot to define Māori creationism, which he declined to do because there really isn't any such thing. There is a Māori creation myth - yes, Māori culture has one of those, just like literally every other culture on the planet but nobody has shown me that any current or proposed curriculum is suggesting that this creation myth is scientific.

This whole thing is a storm in a teacup. If Dawkins hadn't got a bee in his British colonialist bonnet, nobody would be talking about it.

I am having a hard time finding an authoritative source, but there seems to be a supernatural element to matauranga maori, but it’s unclear whether that supernatural element is divorced from whatever part of mm is included as part of science, especially since mm is holistic, which would argue against anything being divorced out of it.

 

[ynot]

Not any more. As has been noted a few times, this is the furthest-right government this century, and I'd say since Muldoon.

It's interesting that both of the main proponents of de-Maorisation are both tangata whenua.

A major battle has been won for sure, but the war has only just begun. Positions of power are still occupied by Maori wonderfulness/victim mentality warriors, whitey woke politicians, academics and media liars. There's still many battles to be won before we can claim the victory of "not any more".

 

[ynot]

I don't think it was your point. My point was that the Maori could well have learned through trial and error the best way to catch a particular local fish, and passed that down to the present generations as rote tradition, without any scientific concept at all. If you wanted to generously mention that scrap of Maori knowledge in an "environment" curriculum - whatever that means - I probably won't complain overmuch.

What was your point - in your own words, not mine?

If anyone thinks the actual knowledge of Neolithic Maori was in any way more comprehensive and valuable than what has been discovered and learned about NZ by Whitey science since colonisation, then they are indulging in “Maori Wonderfulness”.

 

[The Atheist]

My point was that the Maori could well have learned through trial and error the best way to catch a particular local fish, and passed that down to the present generations as rote tradition, without any scientific concept at all.

Fortunately, we know that isn't the case.

A northern Iwi (tribe) placed a rahui (ban on taking food) on an area up north a few years back because they didn't like Pakeha divers taking all the kina (sea urchins).

They lifted it recently, because kina had grown unchecked during the rahui and they've created a kelp desert because kina eat kelp.

 

[theprestige]

Fortunately, we know that isn't the case.

A northern Iwi (tribe) placed a rahui (ban on taking food) on an area up north a few years back because they didn't like Pakeha divers taking all the kina (sea urchins).

They lifted it recently, because kina had grown unchecked during the rahui and they've created a kelp desert because kina eat kelp.

In that instance they don't seem to be much worse than typical western environmentalism. Maybe arth and Orphia have a piont after all.

 

[ynot]

In that instance they don't seem to be much worse than typical western environmentalism. Maybe arth and Orphia have a piont after all.

No. The debate here is all about whether or not Neolithic ancestral Maori knowledge (aka - Matauranga) should be taught in science education. It has nothing to do with what some more educated part-Maori or Whitey do or know in more modern times.

Arth, Orphia and their ilk are arguing that Neolithic ancestral Maori knowledge should be included in science education because it will/might add to the knowledge base of modern science.

 

[ynot]

I am having a hard time finding an authoritative source, but there seems to be a supernatural element to matauranga maori, but it’s unclear whether that supernatural element is divorced from whatever part of mm is included as part of science, especially since mm is holistic, which would argue against anything being divorced out of it.

Neolithic periods of all evolving cultures were probably the “birthday” of many of the supernatural, spiritual and god beliefs that endure in those cultures. When humans don’t know stuff they tend to make it up, Neolithic Maori didn't know a lot of stuff. It's a safe bet to conclude that much of what Neolithic Maori considered to be knowledge was in fact superstitious, supernatural belief.

The really sad thing is that so many "educated" people in modern times still think that the superstitious, supernatural beliefs of their ancestors are factual knowledge. Consider modern Christians that want their particular creation myth to be taught in education as being factual, and have scientifically factual evolution removed.

 

[arthwollipot]

What was your point - in your own words, not mine?

Oh, you're actually asking? I didn't expect that. I've been making my point all thread, and it is this: "Māori creationism" is not being taught as science, and Dawkins, Coyne and others are raising hell over nothing.

I am having a hard time finding an authoritative source, but there seems to be a supernatural element to matauranga maori, but it’s unclear whether that supernatural element is divorced from whatever part of mm is included as part of science, especially since mm is holistic, which would argue against anything being divorced out of it.

Asking which parts of Mātauranga Māori are science is asking the wrong question, in my opinion. Not all of the world divides neatly into "science" and "not science".

Arth, Orphia and their ilk are arguing that Neolithic ancestral Maori knowledge should be included in science education because it will/might add to the knowledge base of modern science.

Ah, so much for people asking me what I believe rather than telling me. I thought that might be too good to be true.

 

[theprestige]

Oh, you're actually asking? I didn't expect that. I've been making my point all thread, and it is this: "Māori creationism" is not being taught as science, and Dawkins, Coyne and others are raising hell over nothing.

So, nothing to do with the point I was making in answer to Orphia's question. Why did you say my point was your point?

 

[arthwollipot]

So, nothing to do with the point I was making in answer to Orphia's question. Why did you say my point was your point?

Orphia's point is related to mine.

 

[ynot]

So, nothing to do with the point I was making in answer to Orphia's question. Why did you say my point was your point?

It's like trying to get theists to define their god.

 

[Roboramma]

Orphia's point is related to mine.

Orphia said that this:

Biology? Absolutely. Environmentalism? Depends what we're talking about, exactly. I wouldn't be surprised if some Maori have some specialist experience with their local ecosystem that colonists and foreign researchers aren't yet familiar with.

Was her point. You said, "mine too, partly".

Can you explain the relationship of the above quote to a point you are making?

It doesn't seem at all related to "I've been making my point all thread, and it is this: "Māori creationism" is not being taught as science, and Dawkins, Coyne and others are raising hell over nothing."

Which was your response when theprestige asked you what "mine too, partly" referred to.

 

[arthwollipot]

Orphia said that this:

Was her point. You said, "mine too, partly".

Can you explain the relationship of the above quote to a point you are making?

It doesn't seem at all related to "I've been making my point all thread, and it is this: "Māori creationism" is not being taught as science, and Dawkins, Coyne and others are raising hell over nothing."

Which was your response when theprestige asked you what "mine too, partly" referred to.

I'm able to recall what I said, thank you.

The reason you (and theprestige) may be having problems with this is that you aren't able to recognise that I am capable of keeping multiple separate but related points in my mind simultaneously.

No, Orphia's statement was not directly related to the point I happened to be making in those posts, but it is still part of the context of my overall thesis in this thread. And nitpicking the direct literal meaning of words without taking context into account is less than helpful, in my opinion.

 

[Roboramma]

I don't think you've said anything in this thread that was basically equivalent to the point that theprestige made in the passage that Orphia said was basically her point, so I think it's dishonest of you to claim that it was also the point you've been making. And when asked to clarify how the passage that theprestige wrote was also your point ("mine too, partly") have mentioned something completely unrelated to anything he wrote.

You also keep saying "Orphia's statement". You weren't claiming agreement with Orphia's statement, you were claiming agreement with theprestige's statement. If I say I agree with theprestige's statement X and you say "me too", you're not agreeing with my statement, you're agreeing with his.

It'd be nice if you could give an account that makes sense of how you actually agree with thepretige's statement, or just admit that you actually don't agree with it.

So far, you've claimed that something completely unrelated to what he said was what you were referring to when you said you agreed with him.

I'd also be happy if you said, "roboramma you're totally wrong about this, when I said "mine too, partly", I was.." and somehow explain how I'm totally mistaken here in a way that makes sense. That'd be great too! I just want an explanation that make sense.

 

[Paul2]

Asking which parts of Mātauranga Māori are science is asking the wrong question, in my opinion. Not all of the world divides neatly into "science" and "not science".

But some of it surely does, and those were the parts I’m asking about.

If they exist in MM, it seems they would be difficult to extricate out of a science class, despite other parts of MM potentially being excellent science, because of the holistic nature of MM

 

[theprestige]

I'm able to recall what I said, thank you.

The reason you (and theprestige) may be having problems with this is that you aren't able to recognise that I am capable of keeping multiple separate but related points in my mind simultaneously.

No, Orphia's statement was not directly related to the point I happened to be making in those posts, but it is still part of the context of my overall thesis in this thread. And nitpicking the direct literal meaning of words without taking context into account is less than helpful, in my opinion.

It's not about keeping them in your mind, it's about distinguishing them in your writing. Which you absolutely do not do.

Anyway, I'm open to the possibility that "Maori ways of knowing" amount to nothing more than handed-down cargo-cult traditions in animal husbandry and agriculture. I'm not sure why that would need to be taught in school, though. Let alone as science. What's the lesson supposed to be? "Here's something the Maori do when fishing. It seems to work. They don't know why. We don't know why. Maybe the question interests you enough to do some research and publish the results for your master's thesis."

 

[arthwollipot]

I'd also be happy if you said, "roboramma you're totally wrong about this, when I said "mine too, partly", I was.." and somehow explain how I'm totally mistaken here in a way that makes sense. That'd be great too! I just want an explanation that make sense.

I have absolutely no motivation to accede to your wishes in this matter. Either what I said makes sense to you, or it's one of life's little mysteries. Either way, like I said, nitpicking on the minutiae of language usage is not a productive way to progress the discussion, in my opinion.

 

[arthwollipot]

But some of it surely does, and those were the parts I’m asking about.

If they exist in MM, it seems they would be difficult to extricate out of a science class, despite other parts of MM potentially being excellent science, because of the holistic nature of MM

They may be what you're talking about, and what Dawkins and Coyne are talking about, but unless it can be demonstrated that they are actually impinging on science education, they don't need to be talked about.

 

[arthwollipot]

It's not about keeping them in your mind, it's about distinguishing them in your writing. Which you absolutely do not do.

Anyway, I'm open to the possibility that "Maori ways of knowing" amount to nothing more than handed-down cargo-cult traditions in animal husbandry and agriculture. I'm not sure why that would need to be taught in school, though. Let alone as science. What's the lesson supposed to be? "Here's something the Maori do when fishing. It seems to work. They don't know why. We don't know why. Maybe the question interests you enough to do some research and publish the results for your master's thesis."

Mmm. Yes - colonialistic dismissal of deeply-held cultural traditions. Fascinating. Not entirely unexpected, though.

 

[Roboramma]

I have absolutely no motivation to accede to your wishes in this matter. Either what I said makes sense to you, or it's one of life's little mysteries. Either way, like I said, nitpicking on the minutiae of language usage is not a productive way to progress the discussion, in my opinion.

I don't see any mystery, and it's not about language. You made a clearly false claim, and now don't want to to either concede that it was false or defend it. The conversation went something like this:

Arth: "That was my point"
prestige: "Doesn't seem like it, what was your point exactly?"
Arth: "[something completely different than the thing claimed to be his point]"
me: "Those two things aren't the same, can you explain how you think they are?"
Arth: "I don't want to talk about it, their similarity is just one of life's mysteries"
Me (now): "Okay, don't talk about it, but they clearly aren't the same"

But, okay, you don't need to accede to any expectation of coherence on my part. I'm pretty happy with my conclusion about this whole so far. No mysteries are present.

 

[arthwollipot]

You made a clearly false claim...

No, I did not. I acknowledged an argument that was parallel to the general points I have been making.

 

[Roboramma]

No, I did not. I acknowledged an argument that was parallel to the general points I have been making.

If that were true you'd be able to point to the points you made that actually were parallel to the quote by theprestige. When asked to do so you said something completely unrelated to what he said.

I'm happy to accept that you agree with the words in his post. I'm even happy to accept that you think it strengthens your case. I'll further accept that such an argument has some strength (not just that you think it does).

But all of that is separate from the thing that you said, which was that it was the point that you've been making.

It's a separate point: one that you have not been making.

 

[arthwollipot]

If that were true you'd be able to point to the points you made that actually were parallel to the quote by theprestige. When asked to do so you said something completely unrelated to what he said.

I'm happy to accept that you agree with the words in his post. I'm even happy to accept that you think it strengthens your case. I'll further accept that such an argument has some strength (not just that you think it does).

But all of that is separate from the thing that you said, which was that it was the point that you've been making.

It's a separate point: one that you have not been making.

Okay, fine whatever you got me.

Would it help if you mentally substitute a dull "I agree" for the contentious post?