Whydayafink teachers with a cultural bias are going to stick to a white colonialists curriculum?
This teacher didn't.
Last edited:
[Split Thread] Maori Creationism in Science lessons
- Thread starter Graham2001
- Start date
This teacher didn't.
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena, Pronouns: he/him
I think this section is somewhat more problematic, as I don't know which of these remedies have actually been tested scientifically, and medicating with plants and herbs lacks control over quality and quantity of active ingredients. I think effort is better spent examining why the remedies that work work and isolating and purifying the relevant active ingredients:
ETA: I see this is related to ynot's link just above.
ETA: I see this is related to ynot's link just above.
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena, Pronouns: he/him
I certainly don't agree with antivaxers teaching crap about the coronavirus, if that's what you're concerned about.
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 14,185
Ah. Of course. That's why prayer disappeared from all indigenous cultures ages ago and didn't reappear until modern science messed things up.
Not to mention the fact that what works for small populations isn't necessarily a good practice because when your population is small the planet can tolerate you really screwing up a small part of it. You're hot on repeating that you've read The Atheist's links. Did you read the one about early Maori land clearing practices?
This basically says "what I just said is true except when it's not".
But then you go on to cite them teaching religion for no good reason. They may not be teaching that passage you cite as science fact but then why does it belong in the science class? Are they saying "we're going to take a break from science for a few minutes" before they teach the religious stuff?
Right. I've seen that. I see some good acceptable stuff in there but what about stuff like "the Moon draws the water to the surface"? That's presented uncritically and it doesn't even take the opportunity to explain how that misunderstanding might have grown out of a misunderstanding of the tides. On top of the passage you just cited what is the point of keeping all that? We don't keep that kind of baggage around from alchemy and astrology, we teach astronomy and chemistry.
BTW can you cite any source that confirms that Maori traditional knowledge identified fungi as separate from plants? Or as eukaryotic? That curriculum doesn't seem to be doing a good job of identifying where the traditional knowledge ends and the contribution from modern science begins.
She's not just anti-vax, she's anti medical science in favour of "ancient knowledge" that would've become part of medical science if it was ever proven to actually work beyond placebo effect.
She wrote: “I showed them our Wai-Rakau (natural remedies) with ancient knowledge of how we can manage any symptom this virus can present."
Last edited:
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena, Pronouns: he/him
Prayer is a religious observance, which I have already addressed. Religious observances and mythologies are not, as far as I can tell, being taught as scientific fact.
Did I for a single moment even begin to suggest that all indigenous cultural practices were infallible? I did not.
Well, that's what happens when you say something that has an exception. You'll notice, again, that I addressed the exception.
Did you never learn about the history of science? About (for example) how Aristotle claimed that different masses fell at different rates, so Galileo rolled balls down ramps in order to test the hypothesis? We learn this stuff because sometimes the context of a fact, or an experiment, or a scientific revolution, can teach us something about the scientific method.
We do keep that kind of baggage around though. We teach it as part of the history of science. You wouldn't even know the link between alchemy and chemistry if it hadn't been taught. We teach it so that we understand where our modern scientific thinking came from. We teach it because it provides context for our modern understanding. I, personally, would have it as a completely separate History of Science curriculum, but like Physics and Chemistry I would put it in the science faculty rather than in the humanities.
Furthermore, do you see anything that suggests that "the moon draws the water to the surface" is being taught as a scientific fact, rather than provided as cultural context? I don't, but I might have missed it. I've been skimming some sections.
Why should I be able to cite such a source, since I am not claiming that Maori traditional knowledge identified fungi as separate from plants, or even knew what a eukaryote is.
What I am saying is that not all traditional knowledge should be dismissed as religious ********. Some of it should be taken seriously. If you want my opinion, I think the curriculum that The Atheist provided (thank you again for that, by the way) goes too far in some areas, but I think it is a genuine and honest attempt to integrate traditional knowledge with science as it is known and practiced by Europeans and their cultural dependents.
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena, Pronouns: he/him
Such behaviour would very much run counter to the curriculum that The Atheist provided. If you can show that this teacher was following an approved curriculum, rather than spouting off antivax ******** of her own accord, then I will concede that you have a point.
Oh dear! No, the point is she wasn't following the approved curriculum. You seem to have a naive view that everyone will and does follow the rules. She was spouting off antivax ******** of her own accord to suit her own cultural Wai-Rakau (natural remedies) with ancient knowledge agenda, despite the curriculum. The fault isn't with the curriculum, it's with the culturally biased beliefs of the teacher.
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena, Pronouns: he/him
Then it is off-topic for this thread, which is about the NZ science curriculum.
rockinkt
Master Poster
- Joined
- May 20, 2008
- Messages
- 2,342
I notice this hasn't been addressed by arthwollipot.
It is an incontrovertible fact that cannibalism was practiced by the Maori people until the mid 1800s.
Cannibalism lasted for several hundred years until the 1830s although there were a few isolated cases after that, said Professor Moon, a Pakeha history professor at Te Ara Poutama, the Maori Development Unit at the Auckland University of Technology.
He also said infanticide was also widely practised because tribes wanted men to be warriors and mothers often killed their female daughters by smothering them or pushing a finger through the soft tissue of the skull to kill them immediately.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/n...nibalism-widespread-but-ignored-academic-says
I wonder if they are going to be teaching the little ones that part of their lovely culture or are they just going to stick to the feel good nonsense that makes this just another deluded exercise by SJWs giving a sop to Cerebus in order to make themselves feel so special.
Last edited:
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena, Pronouns: he/him
Okay fair enough. I was under the impression that cannibalism wasn't a large part of Maori culture. Given evidence to the contrary I will gracefully accept having been wrong, and withdraw that claim.
However, I am at pains to point out that this has absolutely nothing to do with the NZ science curriculum.
However, I am at pains to point out that this has absolutely nothing to do with the NZ science curriculum.
Question - If the NZ science curriculum includes Maori culture, and Maori culture includes cannibalism, how can cannibalism have absolutely nothing to do with the NZ science curriculum?
Answer – By sanitising the Maori culture of cannibalism out of Maori culture.
It is worth remembering the Maori arrived in Aotearoa in the fourteenth century and Europeans arrived in New Zealand in the seventeenth century. So we are looking at ten generations difference. Their actual occupation of particular parts of the country will be shorter than that. The Maori imported crop plants (along with dogs and rats), so some of the expertise is not in exploiting the natural environment, but in imposing their pre-existing agricultural practices.
rockinkt
Master Poster
- Joined
- May 20, 2008
- Messages
- 2,342
Don't forget the widespread infanticide by their loving mothers to eliminate female children in favor of male offspring who would become warriors.
That should also be taught - especially to the young girls so they know just how lucky they are to be saved from that horrible practice of their relatively recent ancestors.
As Paul Moon states in his book - the Maori culture was "particularly nasty."
Perhaps that quote needs to be shouted from the rooftops to offset the deliberate and outrageous sanitizing.
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 36,189
I think you need to live here and see the Apartheid first hand to appreciate what it's actually like.
Nice.
While it's not part of science, it is part of the same washing of Maori culture that allows you to think that.
Along with the bastardisation of science, schools are not allowed to teach that Maori were cannibals, which they absolutely were. Anothre fact that is never taught at schools is that the vast majority of Maori killed in the NZ Land Wars were killed by Maori.
There were very few white troops in NZ and even with muskets they would have been impotent against Maori tribes, until a couple of the major tribes saw the opportunity to wipe out some old scores. They killed their enemies, mostly ate them, and were rewarded with things like Kingitanga.
It's kind of a pity the thread is about teaching science, because the entire curriculum has been censored and re-written to appeal to the Noble Savage fallacy that Maori want to be taught. What China's doing isn't new or unique.
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 14,185
You did actually suggest it. And I asked to clarify the suggestion and I don't recall you doing it at all well. You suggested that things might get better by adopting aboriginal fire management techniques. Please provide how anyone should have known that. Where was their science that went ignored? If they didn't have science then nobody should have felt compelled to adopt their techniques.
This is where you came up with the "they stop doing the stuff that doesn't work" claptrap.
This is quite ironic since I thought of asking you exactly this. Where is the Maori Galileo? Please cite where any of this traditional knowledge was tested in Maori legend. That would go along way towards keeping that part of the traditional knowledge in a science class.
And then address why there is still any non tested religious crap in the curriculum.
The astronomy section, but it's just one example. Other examples can be found in practically every other paragraph or every section. I don't recall ever getting "cultural context" in science class. All the historical wrong stuff I see in the text books I can find is used deliberately and directly to explain how the wrong was ruled out by the experimental method.
You're supporting a curriculum that gives that impression. It's the first thing under the fungi heading you mentioned.
This whole curriculum reads like the Creationist screeds that try to take vague passages and make them look like they predicted modern science. It goes way beyond simply recognizing the facts that this particular culture got right.
Last edited:
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 14,185
I'm tired of the "Colonial Europeans" are trampling on their culture aspect of this. Science belongs in the science class not non-science culture. Quite a few people, quite a few times, have trampled on Colonial European culture in the form of Christianity in the science class in the US.
If the Maori got certain natural facts correct, then fine, feel free to explain those facts scientifically in a science class. Use the Maori scientific explanation if they happen to have one. Don't falsely give the impression it's science if the traditional knowledge doesn't actually have an experimental explanation.
Simply having a few or even many accurate facts in your traditional knowledge doesn't make it make it science. We all know on this forum that humans tends to see patterns that aren't really there. That means natural humans not applying science will develop a mix of correct and incorrect knowledge that is merely sufficient for their needs even if they never scientifically test it.
If more Maori culture needs to be incorporated in to the curriculum do it in appropriate places.
If the Maori got certain natural facts correct, then fine, feel free to explain those facts scientifically in a science class. Use the Maori scientific explanation if they happen to have one. Don't falsely give the impression it's science if the traditional knowledge doesn't actually have an experimental explanation.
Simply having a few or even many accurate facts in your traditional knowledge doesn't make it make it science. We all know on this forum that humans tends to see patterns that aren't really there. That means natural humans not applying science will develop a mix of correct and incorrect knowledge that is merely sufficient for their needs even if they never scientifically test it.
If more Maori culture needs to be incorporated in to the curriculum do it in appropriate places.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
No. That's basic hunter-gatherer tier stuff that even animals can figure out. It's not biology, the method of scientific study and the knowledge gained thereby, that is taught in western schools.
This Noble Savage crap needs to piss right off.
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 36,189
Maori's place in education is enshrined in law, and all schools must adhere to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2020/0038/latest/LMS280244.html
If only there was some consensus as to what those principles are.
Te Treaty of Whiteangry.
I’m not a white supremacist, but I’m not going to accept being treated like a white inferiorist.
Last edited:
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 36,189
I was going to point that out, but it seems a bit redundant.
Te Tiriti says whatever Maori say it says.
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 14,185
OK. Want to summarize how that matters? Don't see anything at that page like "we must teach non science as science". I see completely non troublesome concepts like ensuring equal outcomes and teaching in the language of the students.
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 36,189
The science curriculum is a different thing and that curriculum has been posted. The link I gave is about education as an industry.
You obviously missed bits like this:
Te Pūkenga—New Zealand Institute of Skills and Technology must operate in a way that allows it to develop meaningful partnerships with Māori employers and communities
I'd expect them to think about all employers and communities, not just Maori.
And amusing things like this:
which provides that councils of institutions have a duty, in the performance of their functions and the exercise of their powers, to acknowledge the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi;
Here is the full document. Note the English version and the English translation of the Maori mean inconveniently different things, so there isn't any agreement on what it does say.
Accordingly, the implementation of it decided by Maori.
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena, Pronouns: he/him
(Actually correct) Answer: Because that's history, not science.
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena, Pronouns: he/him
Yes, you raise a good point. It's quite distinct from Australian Aboriginal cultural knowledge, which is tens of thousands of years old.
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 14,185
Of course, but you don't bother to point out that people must do the things that they are going to do and already doing. You tell them they must do the things that they aren't doing.
Do you really think it would useful to add "Hey, white colonial people, please don't forget about your fellow white colonial people while you rush to help the Maori".
Give me a break.
ETA: You posted that after quoting me saying that if Maori culture must be taught that it should be taught appropriately. That document doesn't seem to be much an obstacle to keeping mythology out of the science class room which is what I was addressing. And since some context might be lost now, I think there is every reason Maori culture should be taught anywhere Maori live.
Last edited:
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena, Pronouns: he/him
I'm not going to provide a detailed response to every single point raised here - there are just too many of them from too may people, and some of them I actually agree with. I'm going to single out specific points that I think particularly warrant responses.
I can see four astronomy sections in The Atheist's link. I've read through Revitalising Māori astronomy, The star compass – kāpehu whetū, Navigating with Sun, Moon and planets, and the Constellations in the night sky activity, and haven't seen that phrase at all. But at this stage I don't think it's particularly relevant. Maori astronomy is closely tied to navigation, and these days is about as useful as learning how to use a sextant - historically interesting, but not something that we really need to know how to do today.
No, that's not true. You also learned how Fleming's accident with mouldy bread led to the discovery of penicillin. You learned that Mendeleev had a dream that led to the development of the periodic table. You learned that Pythagoras wore trousers and didn't eat beans. That's the kind of context I'm referring to. You just don't recognise it because it's part of the European culture, which for those of us of mainly European descent is the default.
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena, Pronouns: he/him
If that's what you think I'm arguing, then I seriously need to rethink how I'm expressing myself, because you're way off base.
No-one's accusing you of that. You'll notice that I haven't once said anything about the inferiority of actual science to cultural knowledge. You and theprestige both have known me for long enough to know that I am as much a fan of actual science as you are. But I think it's important to recognise that indigenous cultures actually did know some stuff, and it's okay to say that they knew some stuff. There's clearly a balance that needs to be found, and I don't think The Atheist's example finds it, but it makes an effort and I think that's an improvement.
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena, Pronouns: he/him
All lives matter, right? I think it's okay to focus some attention on communities that have historically been neglected or marginalised. You're better placed than I am - as an inhabitant of the West Island - to judge how much is too much, though.
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 14,185
I don't see those as cultural. I also don't see those things in any texts I have on those subjects. I also don't see anything analogous to them in the lesson plans in the thread. And I wouldn't object to those kinds of "color" being in a science class anyway.
Where have I implied I'd object to a bit of biographical information about Maori scientists in lesson plans?
ETA: Had to look up the Pythagoras thing about beans. That appears to have once been cultural in ancient times but it's certainly not a cultural thing now.
Last edited:
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena, Pronouns: he/him
They were just three examples that came immediately to the top of my head. I could probably think of some better examples if I could be bothered, which I can't. I'm pretty sure I learned about Pythagoras' Trousers in a book of the same name and not in school anyway.
If you don't see these particular examples as cultural, maybe you can see them as contextual. My point is that we all learn stuff in science classes that is more than just bare facts and methods. We gain background knowledge as well.
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 14,185
But that's the entire point, they aren't cultural. And they aren't being presented as science. And I don't even see them as useful context. And I don't object to context. They are just engaging color to help make for an interesting story.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
The problem with arth's examples is that they include actual documented scientific efforts. Fleming observed a happenstance, did some science on it, and achieved a scientific result. The science and the result of the science are just as much a part of the story as the happenstance.
Mendeleev had a dream, then woke up and did some real science.
We are told there are Maori happenstances and Maori dreams. Where is the Maori science? Where is the record keeping? The experimental controls? The testing of hypotheses in an if-then-else framework?
The Greeks and the Romans devised an epistemology that was more than mere myth and folkways. So did the Chinese and the Arabs. The Egyptians had their Imhotep. Where is the Maori Imhotep? Why does carrying the Maori scientific tradition into the modern age look like nothing more than elevating Maori superstition to the status of science?
Mendeleev had a dream, then woke up and did some real science.
We are told there are Maori happenstances and Maori dreams. Where is the Maori science? Where is the record keeping? The experimental controls? The testing of hypotheses in an if-then-else framework?
The Greeks and the Romans devised an epistemology that was more than mere myth and folkways. So did the Chinese and the Arabs. The Egyptians had their Imhotep. Where is the Maori Imhotep? Why does carrying the Maori scientific tradition into the modern age look like nothing more than elevating Maori superstition to the status of science?
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
In fact I'll go even further:Fleming and Mendeleev only got results because they were already scientists doing science. Fleming didn't go bring folkways to bear on a happenstance and get a scientific result.
Mendeleev's head was already completely immersed in chemistry and particle physics. This is some heavy scientific stuff. He didn't come up with the periodic table by applying folkways to the elements. He did it by thinking about the science so much that he was thinking about it even in his sleep.
If there is anything like Fleming and Mendeleev in the Maori historical record, it should be taught not just Maori schoolchildren, but to everyone in the world.
Mendeleev's head was already completely immersed in chemistry and particle physics. This is some heavy scientific stuff. He didn't come up with the periodic table by applying folkways to the elements. He did it by thinking about the science so much that he was thinking about it even in his sleep.
If there is anything like Fleming and Mendeleev in the Maori historical record, it should be taught not just Maori schoolchildren, but to everyone in the world.
Last edited:
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena, Pronouns: he/him
I think it's a mistake to think of it as "Maori scientific tradition". It's knowledge, not science, as The Atheist's sample curriculum acknowledges, quote provided earlier. Both knowledge and method can be taught in science classes, particularly at the primary and secondary level. I was never taught in year 7 science class why passing an electric current through water split it into hydrogen and oxygen, I was just taught that it did. Why comes later.
I've been continuing to look through the site that The Atheist provided, and there is a huge amount of genuine science there - both in the form of knowledge, and in the form of activities to demonstrate the scientific method. The topic of Mātauranga Māori is only one among many. Even the topic on the History of Science presents almost exclusively European history. It would be a mistake to think that Maori cultural beliefs are overshadowing, or replacing, or being prioritised over, actual science. It's merely one topic among many.
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 14,185
But I haven't seen anyone object to the knowledge. Nor have I seen anyone object to "color" drawn from their culture. For example, I don't mind the section where they named the Pleiades by the Maori names and identifies the rising of the cluster as associated with the Maori new year.
But then it goes off in to Maori astrology:
https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/resources/2322-the-matariki-star-cluster
There is a freaking TON of Maori cultural relevance in the legitimate science on that page. There is absolute no need to include that bit of Maori astrology to gain cultural relevance. There is plenty without it.
But then it goes off in to Maori astrology:
No, they don't.
https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/resources/2322-the-matariki-star-cluster
There is a freaking TON of Maori cultural relevance in the legitimate science on that page. There is absolute no need to include that bit of Maori astrology to gain cultural relevance. There is plenty without it.
Last edited:
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Lamarck had knowledge. Punnet had science.
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena, Pronouns: he/him
I think that's interesting background information, but not more than that. And it's also not saying that the position or influence of these stars has direct affects on events or people here on Earth, as European-based astrology does, so I'll give it that.
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena, Pronouns: he/him
Science is the means by which knowledge is gained. But children can learn the knowledge without performing the science. In fact, most children don't go past that stage.
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 14,185
There is nothing in that article identifying that as background information. And it is identified as being something to be tested on. And what do you think the word dominion means?