OJBs Web Site: Blog Page

Note: You are currently viewing my old web site. There is a new version with most of this content at OJB.NZ.
The new site is being updated, uses modern techniques, has higher quality media, and has a mobile-friendly version.
This old site will stay on-line for a while, but maybe not indefinitely. Please update your bookmarks. Thanks.

Add a Comment (Go Up to OJB's Blog Page)

In Defence of Science

Entry 2143, on 2021-07-29 at 22:02:09 (Rating 4, Science)

From the US I have have heard stories of educational institutions, including universities, proposing courses and areas of study which might seem somewhat strange, and maybe even concerning. For example, is feminist science or African-American science really a thing? Are different approaches to science possible based on the gender or race of the person or group doing the science? What even is science?

This has become relevant here in New Zealand recently after a controversy involving promoting something referred to as "Maori science". A proposal for a new course included the following justification: "to ensure parity with the other bodies of knowledge credentialed by NCEA (particularly Western/Pakeha epistemologies)" and "It promotes discussion and analysis of the ways in which science has been used to support the dominance of Eurocentric views (among which, its use as a rationale for colonisation of Maori and the suppression of Maori knowledge); and the notion that science is a Western European invention and itself evidence of European dominance over Maori and other indigenous peoples".

In a fairly moderate and reasoned rebuttal to this concept, in a published letter titled "In Defence of Science", some academics pointed out that traditional knowledge is not science. That doesn't mean that it has no value (although it doesn't mean that it does has value either), it just means that the knowledge was acquired through other means rather than science.

And - this should be no surprise given current political trends - one of the academics who helped write the objection has been cancelled and forced to resign from an academic position he holds.

There are several issues here which should be discussed in relation to this, so let's get started...

The most obvious problem gets back to the old issue with definitions: what actually is science? Well, there are several definitions, some of which could be warped to include traditional knowledge, but the primary one is this: "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment" (OED).

In the modern context, and in actual practical use, this also involves gaining serious academic qualifications, publishing in recognised journals, and being open to formal peer review. Traditional Maori knowledge does not fullfil any of these requirements, so a very good case could be made to say that it is not science. After all, Maori did not even have a written language, making systematic accumulation of objective knowledge far more difficult.

But that is not even really the main point. The real issue is not whether traditional knowledge is science or not, it is whether it is OK to discuss the issue at all. Why was this person cancelled, just because he said something that appears to be technically true, even if it is not politically correct? Of course, other people who took the opposite view, and who stated that Maori science is real when it really isn't, were celebrated.

Have we really reached a point where the truth doesn't matter any more? Is it more important to say things that fit in with the current political fashions rather than exploring the validity of a claim? Apparently, yes.

So, here's what I see the essence of science as: a carefully controlled methodology for discovering (possibly interim) facts which are as close as possible to the objective truth. This involves proposing a hypothesis, finding a way to test the accuracy of that, asking for criticism of the techniques used, having other scientists also test the idea, modifying the original idea until it fits the established facts, or rejecting it completely and starting again.

By the way, contrary to some opinions, I think there is an objective truth. Anyone who doesn't think so is really living in a crazy world of constant deception, but that's a place some people actually prefer to inhabit.

During the scientific process, the researchers must fully document what they are doing, remain objective, remove any chance of bias as much as possible, describe their methodology precisely so it can be replicated, and encourage criticism of any errors or poor experimental technique.

I can't see any way that this departs from common sense and an optimal methodology to find the truth. I cannot see any way it is specific to males, or white people, or Western culture. If any group tried to create a system to establish objective truth, this is what they should arrive at.

So science is science. Feminist science, black science, and Maori science do not exist as separate entities. If they follow some other methodology it is likely to be inferior to conventional science. If it follows the same, optimal methodology, then why give it a different name?

And this silly, hysterical nonsense about science being used to justify colonisation is becoming tedious. Some people misused science to justify violence against other groups, but that violence would have occurred anyway, and it is highly debatable whether it was genuine science which was being used in that case. But mention colonisation somewhere and you have already won the case, according to standard PC practice. No real thought is necessary.

There have been several scientists speak out in support of the new science classification, and against those who criticised it. Not surprisingly, at least some of these were prominent "pop" scientists with very political perspectives. One is a particular favourite with the government and media.

Science shouldn't be politicised, but increasingly it is. Apparently if you want to win the accolades of the media and the politically powerful, you need to parrot whatever nonsense they are currently encouraging us to believe. Maybe that is yet another type of science. We have Western science, feminist science, black science, Maori science, and now politically correct science.

Well, sorry, but there's only one type of science that I, and ultimately I think everyone, should support: just plain old fashioned science!

Comment 3 (6812) by OJB on 2021-07-30 at 10:25:04: (view earlier comments)

I mean, let's just play the good ol' "reverse roles" game, shall we? What would happen if I demanded that when Maori schools were teaching a Maori concept, like "mana" they must include equal weighting for "Western mana" (whatever that is). There would be a massive protest about it being "racist" and I would be seen as forcing my views on others, right? So, what's the difference when the roles are reversed?

Comment 4 (6813) by Anonymous on 2021-07-30 at 10:54:00:

I don't believe it's either racist or controversial to suggest that the scientific process is primarily a construct of Western European cultures? Every culture has it's strengths and weaknesses and THAT's OK. By the way, this is not diminishing traditional māori cultural knowledge, but it is not knowledge derived from the application of the scientific method. Not a judgement, just a statement of fact.

Comment 5 (6814) by OJB on 2021-07-30 at 10:56:31:

Exactly. And that is what the academic was forced to resign his post over: a statement of facts. As I suggested above, reality is no longer valued if it contradicts political correctness. This is not the path we should be taking.

Comment 6 (6818) by Anonymous on 2021-08-04 at 16:05:41:

Can anybody give me an example of Maori science, and if it exists, how it has been recorded over the ages.

Comment 7 (6819) by OJB on 2021-08-04 at 18:25:33:

I think they mean Maori knowledge. Maori have gathered some information about New Zealand and the Pacific after living here for so long. A lot of what they believe is wrong, of course, but inevitably anyone must learn something, and that should be valued to some extent. But it isn't science - at least not in the usual sense of the word.

You can leave comments about this entry using this form.

To add a comment: enter a name and email (both optional), type the number shown above, enter a comment, then click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.