Professor Jerry Coyne: A Māori defends indigenous “ways of knowing” against my critique

The other day I put up a post about an indigenous “science initiative” in New Zealand with a wonky aim: to cure the country’s iconic kauri trees of a fungal blight by, yes, playing whale songs to sick trees and rubbing them with whale oil and pulverized whale bones. This endeavor, I asserted, had no empirical basis to justify its funding—by New Zealand taxpayers, of course.

Indeed, the project came from a Māori legend that whales once roamed the land and were BFFs with kauri trees, but then got separated. The project was based on the supposition that bringing tree and whale back together again could not only revive their erstwhile friendship but also save the sick trees. (I can guarantee you here that they’re not talking about evolution of the trees and whales from a common ancestor, nor about terrestrial ancestors of whales.)

A quote from the initiative:

Māori whakapapa [genealogy] describes how the kauri and tohorā (sperm whale) are brothers, but they were separated when the tohorā chose the ocean over the forest. In this research area we looked at how this connection could possibly help save the kauri from kauri dieback disease.

The team was led by Matua Tohe Ashby and investigated rongoā (traditional medicine) solutions for kauri dieback. This involved tohorā, karakia and mōteatea, and tied into the second Oranga research project: Te reo o te waonui a Tāne. The team also traind kauri communities in rongoā solutions to help save their rākau (trees).

Here’s the video linked to Ashby’s name:


Click to view

I called this project “mishegass”, a transliteration of the Yiddish word for “silliness” or “craziness”, and also used the English “nonsense”. How could I not mock such an endeavor, for doesn’t basing a funded project on a ludicrous myth fully deserve mockery? That is, unless you are a taxpaying New Zealander, in which case it should make you mad.

But my criticism also irritated a Māori journalist, who wrote me an email yesterday:

Hello Jerry

I am a journalist in New Zealand for the Southern Cross News I have recently read your article on Mātauranga Māori and would like to ask you a few questions

Have you ever been to New Zealand ?

Have you experienced Mātauranga Māori or was your research online?

Are you aware of the Pre-Polynesian Civilisation conspiracy theory and have you commented on this topic?

Do you have a bias towards Western Science and dismiss indigenous science?

Was colonisation an overwhelmingly positive event for Māori ?

Do you believe non-Māori should control the destiny of Mātauranga Māori

Joe Trinder | Editor

I hadn’t heard of the Southern Cross News (SCN), but it appears to be.a Māori-centric New Zealand website, and Joe Trinder is clearly of Māori ancestry, describing himself on “X” as “Woke Elite Maori of the highest order.”

As you can see, Trinder’s questions are loaded ones, and though I was tempted to respond, I saw no point, for there was already an article in the SCN, written by one Dr. Rawiri Waretini-Karena, criticizing my own critique and defending indigenous ways of knowing and the usefulness of whale songs, bones, and oil at curing kauri blight. Waretini-Karena himself is described at IGI Global as

. . . a current Post Doc Research Fellow Recipient lecturer and researcher at Te Whare Waananga o Awa nuiaarangi Indigenous University in Whakatane. His qualifications include a PhD Indigenous Philosophy, 2014 Te Whare Wananga o Awanuiarangi, a Master of Arts Commercial Music 2010 WINTEC, and a Bachelor of Applied Social Science- Maaori Counselling 2004 WINTEC. He has spent the last 20 years in the education field.

He also has a TedX talk which he notes not only that he was a convicted murderer, but that (according to the caption), he

. . . . graduated in 2014 with a PhD Doctorate of Philosophy in Indigenous Studies and was the recipient of three prestigious doctoral scholarship awards for his research into transforming Māori experiences of historical intergenerational trauma.

Waretini-Karena doesn’t appear to have any formal scientific training. I won’t dismiss his critique because of that, but it does give us some understanding of his failure to understand modern science and how it differs from indigenous “ways of knowing”.

I got the link to Waretini-Karena’s article in SC from a Kiwi colleague, but the bizarre thing is that the article kept appearing and disappearing on the SC website for reasons unknown. (It wasn’t my browser, for the vanishing post also vanished in New Zealand.) The second time this happened, my colleague made a pdf of the article so it couldn’t be permanently removed. Below a screenshot of the article, and if it appears again I’ll put up a working link to the piece.

UPDATE: The link is working again! Well, blow me down, hearties: I have no idea why it keeps being active and inactive but you can see it here, but capture a copy if you want to save it.

I checked this morning and the link is still dead and the critique is gone. But I’ve put the entire article below from the pdf saved by a colleague.



Here’s the short article; the text is indented and my comments are flush left. There was no link to my original piece nor even my name given as the author. From Waretini-Karina

Introduction:

The recent article critiquing the “Whale Song” project, a government-funded initiative aimed at revitalizing kauri trees using Māori knowledge, exemplifies a persistent problem in Western engagement with Mātauranga Māori: a fundamental misunderstanding of its core principles and its historical context.

The article is titled:

The author’s dismissal of the project as “ludicrous” and “nonsense” is not only disrespectful but also indicative of a narrow, reductionist view of knowledge. This dismissal stems from a Western perspective that prioritizes empirical evidence and scientific methodology as the sole measures of validity, failing to acknowledge the inherent limitations of such approaches in understanding and appreciating the complexities of Māori knowledge.

Mātauranga Māori [MM] is not simply a collection of “legends and anecdotes,” as the author suggests. It is a dynamic, evolving system of knowledge, practices, and beliefs that have been developed and refined over generations through observation, experimentation, and deep connection to the natural world. It operates on a holistic and interconnected understanding of the universe, where all things are intrinsically linked and interdependent.

This is of course a distortion of what I’ve written. I’ve noted that there is some empirical trial-and-error knowledge in MM (but also a passel of legend, myth, religion, and instruction about how to live), though I’m not aware of any explicit experimentation, at least not how modern science conceives of an “experiment”. The defense continues:

The article’s assertion that “there is no underlying ‘wisdom’ or scientific data suggesting that sounds played to ailing trees could cure them” reveals a lack of understanding of the potential benefits of sound therapy, a field of study that has shown promising results in various areas, including plant growth and stress reduction.

Yes, sound waves have been shown to affect plant growth in some studies, but this conclusion is controversial (see here).

I don’t doubt that some stressed humans can be soothed by music, but the issue at hand is not that: it’s whether reuniting infected kauri trees with the oil, bones, and songs of their ancient buddies can cure the blight. Beyond the author’s anecdotal claim, I argue that it’s not worth spending the money investigating this theory, which, in the end, is based on a palpably false legend: that whales once roamed the earth (as whales, not their ancestors), became friends with kauri trees, and then they lost touch. This experiment is designed fix the legend by playing whale songs to the trees and dousing them with whale oil and whale bones. Experimenting based on an unsubstantiated legend, and using taxpayer money to do so, is not something that seems propitious. In contrast to the author’s claim, this research is indeed based on a legend, and one that we know to be false.

Furthermore, the article’s focus on “double-blind control tests” as the sole measure of validity ignores the inherent limitations of Western scientific methodology in understanding and appreciating the complexities of Māori knowledge. Mātauranga Māori operates on a different epistemology, one that values lived experience, intergenerational knowledge transmission, and the interconnectedness of all things.

Here the author is blowing smoke. How do you establish that a treatment of any sort works unless you compare the effects of the treatment with a group not given it, and blinding the experimenters as far as possible (i.e., those who measure the effects wouldn’t know if the trees had had whale songs played to them or whether they were doused with whale oil and bones).

The “different epistemology” of MM appears to be based not on rigorous experimentation, but on wish-thinking. Don’t forget, too, that modern science is also based on “intergenerational knowledge transmission”. As for the “interconnectedness of all things,” I don’t see how that claim is of value in this study. My boss Dick Lewontin once countered an “interconnectedness” claim by saying something like “Yes, but this doesn’t mean that the emissions of a supernova has any effect on my gardening.” The defense continues:

The article’s dismissal of the project as “science-dissing” also reveals a lack of understanding of the historical context of Māori knowledge. The colonization of Aotearoa (New Zealand) has led to the suppression and marginalization of Māori knowledge systems. The “Whale Song” project represents a significant step towards reclaiming and revitalizing this knowledge, and should be viewed not as a rejection of science, but as acomplementary approach to addressing the challenges facing our environment.

The article’s reliance on anecdotal evidence to support its claims, such as the anonymous scientist’s “concerns,” further undermines its credibility. It is essential to approach discussions about Māori knowledge with respect, humility, and a willingness to engage in meaningful dialogue rather than resorting to prejudiced and discriminatory language.

The “Whale Song” project, while perhaps unconventional, represents a valuable opportunity to explore the potential of Māori knowledge in addressing environmental challenges. It is crucial to approach such initiatives with an open mind and a genuine desire to learn from different ways of knowing.

Science is based on dispute, attempts to falsify, and constant criticism. Here the author argues that indigenous knowledge should be immune to that type of criticism, as it’s is seen as “disrespectful.” (The implication is that it’s also bigoted.) The very motivation for this project—a claim that walking whales were friends with kauri trees—is so ludicrous that the project should be dismissed unless there are preliminary modern scientific tests showing there’s even a hope that it would work. Modern science is indeed at work on kauri blight, and has even identified the organism causing it. To me, that gives more hope of a cure than does this project.

Conclusion:

This article serves as a reminder that genuine engagement with Mātauranga Māori requires a willingness to move beyond Western-centric perspectives and embrace the richness and complexity of indigenous knowledge systems. Only through respectful dialogue and a commitment to understanding can we truly appreciate the value

Once again, the author tries to render indigenous science immune from criticism because it’s “rich and complex”. That alone is not sufficient to sacralize indigenous knowledge. If we’re to move forward with real knowledge about the world, projects like this one should be subject to exactly the same kind of criticism as is modern science.

Once again I quote former pastor Mike Aus. Bolding is mine.

When I was working as a pastor I would often gloss over the clash between the scientific world view and the perspective of religion. I would say that the insights of science were no threat to faith because science and religion are “different ways of knowing” and are not in conflict because they are trying to answer different questions. Science focuses on “how” the world came to be, and religion addresses the question of “why” we are here. I was dead wrong. There are not different ways of knowing. There is knowing and not knowing, and those are the only two options in this world.

If you want to know if whale songs and whale oil and bone cure kauri blight in nature, there is no option save the experimental tools of modern science.

I’ve wasted a lot of time on this post, for there are many initiatives like it that need criticism, and time is limited. But then again, the taxpayers of New Zealand need to know that they’re wasting their money on projects like this one.

And, I wonder, why did the site take down the post—twice? Was it too embarrassing to publish? Your guess is as good as mine.

Professor Jerry Coyne is an American biologist known for his work on speciation and his commentary on intelligent design, a prolific scientist and author. This article was first published HERE