Split Thread Maori Creationism in Science lessons

[The Atheist]

The problem is that it is being taught in schools as part of the Science curriculum. Kids are being indoctrinated at an early age that this gobbledygook is a valid part of science when in fact it is not. It is culture and religion, and it belongs in History teaching. Kids are wasting valuable educational time learning stuff at school which has absolutely no practical application in real life. That will have downstream effects on their learning when they come to real universities that don't include this bollocks.

I know all that - it's where the thread started. I was replying specifically to the point on universities.

I'm more ambivalent to the school angle - we have religious schools that teach the earth was formed by some mythical entity 8,000 years ago. My youngest bloke is 15, so I see the Maori stuff every day. It's bollocks, but so are classes on Values, Global/Social Studies and a load of other crap they get taught.

 

[arthwollipot]

OK, so you're sticking your head in the sand like an ostrich and pretending the rest doesn't exist? How very skeptic of you!

No, I'm just replying to the part of the post that I wanted to reply to.

 

[theprestige]

I guess my questions are these: Is a school child allowed to say that Maori Knowledge doesn't lead to scientific understanding? Is a teacher allowed to teach that?

 

[arthwollipot]

I deny the premise of your question.

Is a school child allowed to say...

It has precisely nothing to do with what school children are or are not "allowed" to say.

 

[lionking]

I deny the premise of your question.

It has precisely nothing to do with what school children are or are not "allowed" to say.

It’s a fair question though. Even in the 1960s I was able to opt out of religious instruction in a Catholic school. Are NZ children able to opt out of Maori “science” classes?

 

[smartcooky]

It’s a fair question though. Even in the 1960s I was able to opt out of religious instruction in a Catholic school. Are NZ children able to opt out of Maori “science” classes?

Yes they can - parents can opt their children out of any class except, I think English language, so Mātauranga classes would be included in that. But the instigators of having this cultural mambo-jumbo taught in school have been very cunning in how they have gone about it. It has been insinuated and entangled into other classes, so you can't really opt them out without removing them from the classes you want to keep them in for learning the useful stuff. This is why a number of people have been taking their kids out of public schools and moving them into private schools which don't teach this rubbish.

One of my neighbors has opted their 11/12 year old out of science class in a local school because they are teaching MM as part of science classes. Instead, they pay for private tuition from a former science teacher. The problem for her is that the kid does not compete on a level field at exam time, because there is part of the curriculum she has not learned. Nonetheless, even without ever having learned MM from her tutor, she still topped her Year 8 science and math classes last year, and they expect she may do even better this year at high school where she will be taking Physics and Chemistry.

Interesting aside - she wants to be Aerospace Engineer. I have talked to he a number of times, and she absolutely floors me with her knowledge and her ability to quickly grasp complex rocket engineering principles. A few months ago, she delighted in explaining to me the differences, advantages and disadvantages between the various types of rocket engine cycles - Open Cycle (Gas Generator) v Closed Cycle Staged v Fuel-Rich Staged v Full-Flow Staged Combustion Cycle... she just turned 12 a few weeks ago

 

[lionking]

Yes they can - parents can opt their children out of any class except, I think English language, so Mātauranga classes would be included in that. But the instigators of having this cultural mambo-jumbo taught in school have been very cunning in how they have gone about it. It has been insinuated and entangled into other classes, so you can't really opt them out without removing them from the classes you want to keep them in for learning the useful stuff. This is why a number of people have been taking their kids out of public schools and moving them into private schools which don't teach this rubbish.

One of my neighbors has opted their 11/12 year old out of science class in a local school because they are teaching MM as part of science classes. Instead, they pay for private tuition from a former science teacher. The problem for her is that the kid does not compete on a level field at exam time, because there is part of the curriculum she has not learned. Nonetheless, even without ever having learned MM from her tutor, she still topped her Year 8 science and math classes last year, and they expect she may do even better this year at high school where she will be taking Physics and Chemistry.

Interesting aside - she wants to be Aerospace Engineer. I have talked to he a number of times, and she absolutely floors me with her knowledge and her ability to quickly grasp complex rocket engineering principles. A few months ago, she delighted in explaining to me the differences, advantages and disadvantages between the various types of rocket engine cycles - Open Cycle (Gas Generator) v Closed Cycle Staged v Fuel-Rich Staged v Full-Flow Staged Combustion Cycle... she just turned 12 a few weeks ago

The problem with this, of course, is that if (say) Science exams include questions about Maori science ********, the student will be disadvantaged.

 

[theprestige]

I deny the premise of your question.

It has precisely nothing to do with what school children are or are not "allowed" to say.

I bet it does have to do with that.

A student in a classroom appeals to Maori knowledge. Another student replies that Maori knowledge isn't science, and their classmates conclusions are mistaken. Is that allowed? Or will the dissenting student face sanctions?

What about if a teacher tells their students that Maori knowledge is unscientific, and demonstrates some of its incorrect conclusions about reality? Is that permitted in the curriculum?

 

[8enotto]

I see where Maori/traditional folklore becomes an unteachable subject pretty quick.
Tell the story, don't openly disparage it and move on. Time was lost sadly but law was fulfilled. No need to put anything about it on the semester exams at all.

Not like a science teacher can demonstrate how some ancient god created the red mountain anyway. Why dwell on it?

And work like the devil to get the stupid law off the books. But not in the classroom.

 

[Klimax]

Yes they can - parents can opt their children out of any class except, I think English language, so Mātauranga classes would be included in that....

Huh? WTF? Why can you do that???

 

[arthwollipot]

I bet it does have to do with that.

A student in a classroom appeals to Maori knowledge. Another student replies that Maori knowledge isn't science, and their classmates conclusions are mistaken. Is that allowed? Or will the dissenting student face sanctions?

What about if a teacher tells their students that Maori knowledge is unscientific, and demonstrates some of its incorrect conclusions about reality? Is that permitted in the curriculum?

Once again you are conflating Maori knowledge with science, when all of the literature - all of the literature - says clearly that Maori knowledge is not science.

 

[Roboramma]

Once again you are conflating Maori knowledge with science, when all of the literature - all of the literature - says clearly that Maori knowledge is not science.

I don't see how saying "Maori knowledge isn't science" is conflating Maori knowledge with science.

 

[arthwollipot]

I don't see how saying "Maori knowledge isn't science" is conflating Maori knowledge with science.

Huh?

 

[lionking]

Once again you are conflating Maori knowledge with science, when all of the literature - all of the literature - says clearly that Maori knowledge is not science.

Will you acknowledge that what is being taught is that sometimes Maori knowledge is superior to western knowledge, including some western scientific knowledge ? Because that is what it looks to me.

 

[arthwollipot]

Will you acknowledge that what is being taught is that sometimes Maori knowledge is superior to western knowledge, including some western scientific knowledge ? Because that is what it looks to me.

No, that's not what it looks like to me at all. In fact, you saying that makes me think that you haven't actually read anything about it, you've only read what other people are saying about it.

An actual curriculum was posted somewhere upthread. I challenge you to find anywhere in that curriculum that says that mātauranga Māori is "superior" to any kind of "western" knowledge.

 

[lionking]

No, that's not what it looks like to me at all. In fact, you saying that makes me think that you haven't actually read anything about it, you've only read what other people are saying about it.

An actual curriculum was posted somewhere upthread. I challenge you to find anywhere in that curriculum that says that mātauranga Māori is "superior" to any kind of "western" knowledge.

I did read the curriculum. Perhaps you are misreading it. But whatever, the curriculum and policy surrounding it must be poorly articulated because a lot of commentators read it much the same way as me.

 

[Roboramma]

Huh?

theprestige's post had various people saying that Maori knowledge isn't science, and asked if this is acceptable in the current system. You said this conflates Maori knowledge with science. I don't think that makes any sense, and it is in fact doing the opposite.

Conflating X and Y is treating them as though they were the same thing.

theprestige asks what happens when someone points out the differences between X and Y. You reply that he is conflating X and Y. Your response makes zero sense to me.

 

[arthwollipot]

I did read the curriculum. Perhaps you are misreading it. But whatever, the curriculum and policy surrounding it must be poorly articulated because a lot of commentators read it much the same way as me.

I think a lot of commentators come at it from a biased position.

I mean look at the thread title! "Maori Creationism in Science lessons". Fortunately we established pretty early on in the thread that this was not even remotely a fair characterisation of what was happening. But it indicates that the default assumption is the least charitable one.

 

[arthwollipot]

theprestige's post had various people saying that Maori knowledge isn't science, and asked if this is acceptable in the current system. You said this conflates Maori knowledge with science. I don't think that makes any sense, and it is in fact doing the opposite.

No, theprestige's post had various people saying that Maori knowledge is in competition with science, that it is being taught as though it is science, or at least that promoters of mātauranga Māori are saying that it should be, when they are not and never have been.

Nobody disagrees that mātauranga Māori is not science. What the promotors are saying is that teaching mātauranga Māori is not incompatible with science.

Read this again:

We are mindful that we cannot raise up Māori knowledge by denigrating science. It is important for Māori/Pasifika commentators not to speak about science in the highly-publicised ways that some scientists and academics have spoken about Māori/Indigenous knowledge. This observation crystallizes the purpose of establishing a discussion group on respectful relations between science and Māori/Indigenous knowledge.

Ibid.

In fact, read that whole damn article again. Because it is describing exactly what is happening in this very thread.

 

[smartcooky]

I mean look at the thread title! "Maori Creationism in Science lessons". Fortunately we established pretty early on in the thread that this was not even remotely a fair characterisation of what was happening. But it indicates that the default assumption is the least charitable one.

You have no bloody idea Arth - none whatsoever!

This mātauranga Māori rubbish not Science, it is religion. Science requires that ANY and ALL claims are testable and falsifiable. Tell me what about the Māori claim relating to the creation of the North and South Islands will be testable...

Māui, a demigod, tricked his brothers into leaving him behind on a fishing trip. He then used a magical fishhook to catch a giant fish, which became the North Island. Māui's canoe became the South Island, and Stewart Island became known as Te Punga a Maui, or "Māui's anchor"​

Test that!!!!

Mātauranga Māori absolutely IS being taught in science classes in this country. Even worse, it is taught as having equal standing with actual scientific fields such as physics, chemistry and biology! Equal standing FFS!!! That means its proponents are are in agreement with the Māori claim that Tane, the god of the forest is the creator of all humans, plants and creatures of the forest, and that rain happens when the goddess Papatuanuku sheds tears. It therefore means kids are being taught that these claims are every bit as much truth and fact as Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion, and Einstein's theories of relativity - that is what "equal standing" means

And to be absolutely clear on this, I have no objection to mātauranga Māori being taught in school, either as its own subject, or as a part of History or Religious Studies classes. But I object to its teaching in Science, just as I would object to the teaching of Biblical Creation or Intelligent Design or the Shatapatha Brahmana or the Greek Theogony in Science. That this bull-**** is being allowed to be taught in Science classes is wrong! Period! It should not be happening. It will negatively impact the teaching of science. It risks deterring young people from even wanting to learn about science at all....

Furthermore, the whole idea of teaching it science is based on some of the most horrible ideological claptrap I have ever heard.... from the course description...

"Discussion and analysis of the ways in which science has been used to support the dominance of Eurocentric views … and the notion that science is a Western European invention and itself evidence of European dominance over Māori and other indigenous peoples."​

FFS!! No-one "invented science", but the astronomers, chemists and medical practitioners of ancient Persia and India would be interested to hear about how their science is "Eurocentric"
‎
‎

 

[arthwollipot]

This mātauranga Māori rubbish not Science
‎

Oh for ****'s sake.

EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT IT IS NOT SCIENCE. IT IS NOT BEING PROMOTED AS SCIENCE. THE PROMOTIONAL MATERIALS EXPLICITLY SAY THAT IT IS NOT SCIENCE, AS I HAVE QUOTED SEVERAL TIMES IN THIS THREAD.

Look, here's the thing. Do some people sometimes say stupid ****? Yeah, some people sometimes say stupid ****. If you go looking for people saying stupid **** about something, you will find people saying stupid **** about it. That doesn't mean that the stupid **** is all that there is.

Mātauranga Māori is not science. Nor is it hostile to, or in opposition to science. Nor do those who promote it say that it should be taught instead of science, or that it is better than science. If someone is telling you that they are, they are lying, and I have provided ample demonstration of this in this thread already.

Now stop saying stupid ****.

 

[Orphia Nay]

Furthermore, the whole idea of teaching it science is based on some of the most horrible ideological claptrap I have ever heard.... from the course description...

"Discussion and analysis of the ways in which science has been used to support the dominance of Eurocentric views … and the notion that science is a Western European invention and itself evidence of European dominance over Māori and other indigenous peoples."​

FFS!! No-one "invented science", but the astronomers, chemists and medical practitioners of ancient Persia and India would be interested to hear about how their science is "Eurocentric"
‎
‎

Do you have a link to this course description? Your quote appears to be edited, but what is there seems to be a statement about what the course doesn't teach.

 

[smartcooky]

Do you have a link to this course description? Your quote appears to be edited, but what is there seems to be a statement about what the course doesn't teach.

Sure

Second paragraph
https://thespinoff.co.nz/media/12-1...t-off-a-still-boiling-battle-over-free-speech

Between the second and third paragraphs.
https://www.scienceunderattack.com/...osal-to-equate-mori-mythology-with-science-95

The open letter itself
https://imgur.com/0tgK67A

Its very hard to get a hold of the actual course description. Its not published online... I wonder why that is?

 

[smartcooky]

Oh for ****'s sake.

EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT IT IS NOT SCIENCE. IT IS NOT BEING PROMOTED AS SCIENCE. THE PROMOTIONAL MATERIALS EXPLICITLY SAY THAT IT IS NOT SCIENCE, AS I HAVE QUOTED SEVERAL TIMES IN THIS THREAD.

IT IS BEING TAUGHT IN SCIENCE CLASSES.

As such TEACHING IT WASTES VALUABLE LEARNING TIME THE SCIENCE STUDENTS COULD BE SPENDING LEARNING ACTUAL SCIENCE INSTEAD OF THIS RELIGIOUS CLAPTRAP!!

Matauranga Maori is the Maori religionist equivalent of Fundamentalist Christian Creationism - IT DOES NOT BELONG IN A ******* SCIENCE CLASS!!!!!!!

(And this time I am shouting, because you are willfully refusing to listen!)

 

[Orphia Nay]

Sure

Second paragraph
https://thespinoff.co.nz/media/12-1...t-off-a-still-boiling-battle-over-free-speech

Between the second and third paragraphs.
https://www.scienceunderattack.com/...osal-to-equate-mori-mythology-with-science-95

The open letter itself
https://imgur.com/0tgK67A

Its very hard to get a hold of the actual course description. Its not published online... I wonder why that is?

Is this it? From the first page of the thread:

I found in the comments to Coynes posting a link to part of the proposed curriculum changes.


https://ncea-live-3-storagestack-53q-assetstorages3bucket-2o21xte0r81u.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/2021-11/PES%20Learning%20Matrix_1.pdf?VersionId=PZaapUE

This document appears to be the "Physics Earth and Space Science Learning Matrix, Curriculum Level 6", which is not "Science class" as most people are using the term here.

Most kids don't do science at that level in school.

 

[smartcooky]

Is this it? From the first page of the thread:



This document appears to be the "Physics Earth and Space Science Learning Matrix, Curriculum Level 6", which is not "Science class" as most people are using the term here.

Err what? You think "Physics Earth and Space Science" is not science? Really?

Most kids don't do science at that level in school.

Umm, you also have no idea.

Curriculum Level 6 is Year Eleven learning... the equivalent of 11th Grade or 5th Form in the UK. Its the THIRD year at high school.

Warning: PDF
https://nzcurriculum.tki.org.nz/content/download/1110/11995/file/charts1.pdf


These are 16/17 year olds. For the previous two years they have been learning science as a single, core subject.
In Year 11, science is split into three subjects - Chemistry, Biology and Physics.
These kids are into their third year of science learning when they hit CL6.

 

[arthwollipot]

IT IS BEING TAUGHT IN SCIENCE CLASSES.

Who says?

I quote from the actual curriculum that was posted to this thread three years ago, Post #55:

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).

Mātauranga Māori is a knowledge base in its own right. It is Māori knowledge, including values and culture. It is different from modern science. Mātauranga Māori belongs to iwi and should remain under Māori control. Mātauranga Maori is taonga (a treasure) and as such should be protected.

I think this should put the lie to rest, though I know for certain that I've posted this before and it obviously hasn't.

I post quote after quote from proponents saying that mātauranga Māori is not science, and people keep insisting that the proponents are saying that it is science.

Here's another one from fricking Wikipedia:

Mātauranga Māori has only recently gained recognition in the scientific community for including some knowledge consistent with the scientific method; it was previously perceived by scientific institutions and researchers as entirely mythological lore, entirely superseded by modern science...

...which is exactly what is happening here in this thread. Later that same page:

After the Māori Renaissance, Māori academics campaigned for the creation of independent Māori Studies departments. There was a general sentiment that Māori mātauranga should be studied by Māori people, particularly in the fields of anthropology and archeology.

I think I might be done here.

 

[Orphia Nay]

Err what? You think "Physics Earth and Space Science" is not science? Really?




Umm, you also have no idea.

Curriculum Level 6 is Year Eleven learning... the equivalent of 11th Grade or 5th Form in the UK. Its the THIRD year at high school.

Warning: PDF
https://nzcurriculum.tki.org.nz/content/download/1110/11995/file/charts1.pdf


These are 16/17 year olds. For the previous two years they have been learning science as a single, core subject.
In Year 11, science is split into three subjects - Chemistry, Biology and Physics.
These kids are into their third year of science learning when they hit CL6.

I think you're equivocating. This is a specific stream of science, not the full "Science" subject learned in lower levels. Not everybody does this subject.

So people freaking out that "it's being taught AS science" are wrong for the reasons Arthwollipot says, and they're wrong that it's being taught IN Science, when, Science is a lower grade everybody does AND where it's NOT being taught ABOUT.

 

[smartcooky]

I think you're equivocating. This is a specific stream of science, not the full "Science" subject learned in lower levels. Not everybody does this subject.

So people freaking out that "it's being taught AS science" are wrong for the reasons Arthwollipot says, and they're wrong that it's being taught IN Science, when, Science is a lower grade everybody does AND where it's NOT being taught ABOUT.

No. Learn to read what others post...

"These are 16/17 year olds. For the previous two years they have been learning science as a single, core subject.
In Year 11, science is split into three subjects - Chemistry, Biology and Physics. These kids are into their third year of science learning when they hit CL6. "

This is senior school, the last three years at high school. These kids are preparing for their tertiary education, looking to get bursaries scholarships. Curriculum Level 6 is very much being taught in Physics classes.


ETA: Also.... taught AS science v taught IN science is mere semantics, a distinction without a difference when you consider that 16 year olds in Physics classes are going to be examined and assessed on what they learn IN Physics class, which means they will be assessed on their knowledge of this religious claptrap. That will put them at a disadvantage because they will have lower scores than students in private schools where this creation myth bunkum is not part of the curriculum.

Ignore anything that Arth has been saying about this topic. He does not know what he is talking about - he's Australian, not a New Zealander and has never been a secondary school teacher here... but I have!


Answer this question: Do you think that Biblical Creation should be taught in Science classes at High School?

 

[Paul2]

Who says?

I quote from the actual curriculum that was posted to this thread three years ago, Post #55:

I think this should put the lie to rest, though I know for certain that I've posted this before and it obviously hasn't.

I post quote after quote from proponents saying that mātauranga Māori is not science, and people keep insisting that the proponents are saying that it is science.

Here's another one from fricking Wikipedia:

...which is exactly what is happening here in this thread. Later that same page:



I think I might be done here.

Arth, can you comment on the following?

From the level 6 "Physics Earth and Space Science" curriculum: "Explore how mauri is an essential part of the natural and human-constructed world and how it is essential to maintain or restore mauri."

From a Maori dictionary: "mauri 1. (noun) life principle, life force, vital essence, special nature, a material symbol of a life principle, source of emotions - the essential quality and vitality of a being or entity. Also used for a physical object, individual, ecosystem or social group in which this essence is located."

How is mauri, based on the above definition, going to work in a science curriculum? The best I can manage is the definition that starts with "Also," but even then that part of the definition references the "essence" of the object, which seems pretty unscientific.

 

[Ron Obvious]

I suspect this point has been made already, but isn't it funny that the same people who express their contempt for e.g. including the Bible in a science curriculum, nevertheless can not bring themselves to equally condemn this ludicrous situation of paying respect to the pre-scientific nonsense that's part & parcel of any worldview espoused by non-white people who are deemed to be "oppressed".

Then, it's handwaving, making excuses, advocating for a charitable interpretation of the same sort of idiotic views, because, hey, colonialism and non-whites!

It's not consistent and deeply hypocritical for anyone who consider themselves sceptics to engage in this sort of thing.

 

[smartcooky]

I suspect this point has been made already, but isn't it funny that the same people who express their contempt for e.g. including the Bible in a science curriculum, nevertheless can not bring themselves to equally condemn this ludicrous situation of paying respect to the pre-scientific nonsense that's part & parcel of any worldview espoused by non-white people who are deemed to be "oppressed".

Then, it's handwaving, making excuses, advocating for a charitable interpretation of the same sort of idiotic views, because, hey, colonialism and non-whites!

It's not consistent and deeply hypocritical for anyone who consider themselves sceptics to engage in this sort of thing.

Indeed.

The very same people who would criticize the inclusion in Science classes of the teaching of Biblical Creationism, seem to have no issues with the inclusion of Indigenous Creationism in those very same Science classes.

I would not have expected such a level of Cognitive Dissonance among people who call themselves skeptics!

 

[smartcooky]

Arth, can you comment on the following?

From the level 6 "Physics Earth and Space Science" curriculum: "Explore how mauri is an essential part of the natural and human-constructed world and how it is essential to maintain or restore mauri."

From a Maori dictionary: "mauri 1. (noun) life principle, life force, vital essence, special nature, a material symbol of a life principle, source of emotions - the essential quality and vitality of a being or entity. Also used for a physical object, individual, ecosystem or social group in which this essence is located."

How is mauri, based on the above definition, going to work in a science curriculum? The best I can manage is the definition that starts with "Also," but even then that part of the definition references the "essence" of the object, which seems pretty unscientific.

Indeed. From the same document...

• explore how energy transfers are involved in everyday interactions. Understand how the knowledge and significance of energy transfer has been passed down through pūrākau and tikanga practices. Learn how these same
science concepts are still being applied to a variety of te ao Māori activities today.

pūrākau: a Māori word that refers to storytelling, legends, and myths

tikanga: Māori term for Māori law, customary law, attitudes and principles, and also for the indigenous legal system which all iwi abided by prior to the colonisation of New Zealand.

te ao Māori: a Māori term that refers to Māori culture and tradition. It is an indigenous worldview that emphasizes the interconnectedness of all living and non-living things.

This doesn't look or sound at all scientific. I guess Arth won't be commenting - he's flounced because he's been confronted with facts, but I would at least like to hear from some other the other proponents of (or at least those who don't object to) including this stuff in Science classes, how "storytelling, legends, myths, customary law", and the "interconnectedness of all living and non-living things" have anything to do with Science.

 

[sackett]

Woohoo, how I'd love to be a smart aleck teenager in a class with that sort of curriculum! I made trouble enough in history and social studies (as we still called civics in auld lang syne), where I added the phrase, "well, actually" to the village dialect!

Although I have trouble seeing why anybody would want to add stone age fantasies to high school physics or chemistry.

 

[Orphia Nay]

I don't understand the pushback to the idea of teaching how to compare ecological worldviews of 17.8% of the population with the scientific worldview in an Earth Sciences class.

 

[Ron Obvious]

I don't understand the pushback to the idea of teaching how to compare ecological worldviews of 17.8% of the population with the scientific worldview in an Earth Sciences class.

I imagine that if those ecological worldviews belonged to white New Zealanders pushing creationism you would understand it.

 

[lionking]

I don't understand the pushback to the idea of teaching how to compare ecological worldviews of 17.8% of the population with the scientific worldview in an Earth Sciences class.

I presume 17.8% is indigenous people.

I can’t understand how people think ignorant superstition belongs in a science class.

I don’t think anyone’s objecting to Maori culture and legends being taught, it’s how it’s taught. Would you approve of the Rainbow Serpent legends being taught in Australian classes about the development of the earth? If this happened here those approving the curriculum would be sacked.

 

[theprestige]

I don't understand the pushback to the idea of teaching how to compare ecological worldviews of 17.8% of the population with the scientific worldview in an Earth Sciences class.

In an anthropology or philosophy of science class, maybe.

The whole point of science is that is distinct from other ways of knowing. Why on earth would you drag those other ways back into it?

 

[Roboramma]

No, theprestige's post had various people saying that Maori knowledge is in competition with science, that it is being taught as though it is science, or at least that promoters of mātauranga Māori are saying that it should be, when they are not and never have been.

Actually it said none of those things. I can see how you think that those things were implied. In which case it's reasonable to think that he was accusing those who promote "mātauranga Māori" as conflating it with science (and you think he's wrong in that accusation), but he certainly never conflated it with science, which is what you accused him of.

Nobody disagrees that mātauranga Māori is not science.

Then it shouldn't be taught in science classes, seems pretty simple to me.

 

[The Atheist]

Can we have a count of people in this thread who are parents of a child at high school in New Zealand, who are presently studying in that science curriculum, please.

I'll go 1.