David Lillis: Respectful Relations between Science and Traditional Knowledge

The following article was submitted to ACCESS: Contemporary Issues in Education (https://pesaagora.com/access-journal/) but was rejected. In declining to publish, the reviewers’ comments were very curious indeed! Readers of Breaking Views might be interested in reading it.  

Science and Traditional Knowledge 

A recent article makes a call for improved debate on science and Māori knowledge (Stewart et al., 2024). The authors suggest that respectful dialogue and greater understandings of the history and philosophy of both science and Māori education are necessary in order to prevent the invalid denigration of Māori knowledge. We agree with the stated need for respectful relations but, in addition, we believe that New Zealand needs a clear consensus on the relative positions of modern science and traditional knowledge within our wider innovation system. However, we will not reach such an agreement as long as traditional knowledge is being pushed politically within education and science.

Stewart and colleagues’ use the term “mana ōrite” for “respectful relations”. Originally, this term was defined by the Ministry of Education to mean “equal status” (Ministry of Education, 2024), or “equal value”. We have no issue with either definition but if the concept has no fixed meaning then we have reason to reject it, especially given its recent role in education policy and draft primary and secondary curricula.

Stewart et al. refer to the well-known Listener Letter (Clements et al., 2021). That letter has been discussed quite sufficiently and it is time for New Zealand to move on from the issues that surrounded it. Undoubtedly, some people denigrate traditional knowledge but, contrary to the implication of Stewart et al. (2024), the authors of the Listener Letter and those of a more recent letter (Ahdar et al., 2024) state explicitly that traditional knowledge has value. Here, as in other similar articles, the original letter of Clements et al. is subjected to substantial misinterpretation. Their letter says that:

Indigenous knowledge is critical for the preservation and perpetuation of culture and local practices, and plays key roles in management and policy. However, in the discovery of empirical, universal truths, it falls far short of what we can define as science itself.

Clements et al. gave their considered professional opinions relating to science, indigenous knowledge, or traditional knowledge, and the education of young New Zealanders in good faith and on the understanding that nobody is obliged to agree with their views. They expressed the opinion that indigenous knowledge may indeed advance scientific knowledge in some ways but that it is not science. In addition, Ahdar et al. state clearly that indigenous knowledge contains empirical and cultural knowledge of great value.

Surely, it is self-evident that modern world science has advanced far beyond indigenous or traditional knowledge in the discovery of empirical, universal truths, and it is unnecessary to take offence at that notion or even to dispute it beyond a modest exchange of views. All societies have developed through stages of knowledge that, for example, enabled them to provide food and shelter, to discover and utilize remedies for illness and to navigate by the sun and stars. Such technological and cultural development was also true of the first settlers of New Zealand.  

However, we must ask ourselves why only one form of traditional knowledge should be embraced by New Zealanders of all ethnicities. By all means we can respect traditional knowledge and introduce it, where appropriate, in education, but not mandate it within school or university programmes, particularly if such knowledge cannot be discussed openly or contested through scientific discourse.   

Science and Non-Science

Today most scientists accept that any assertion, knowledge or theory should be testable and possibly superseded by new knowledge or theory if it is to be accepted as science. It stands to be rejected completely if proved false. Naturally, tests of scientific truth are diverse, including verification, falsification, observation, experiment and comparison of conceptual or theoretical models. Theory becomes particularly powerful when it demonstrates both explanatory and predictive power (Lillis and Schwerdtfeger, 2021).

Knowledge acquired by indigenous peoples over tens of thousands of years was based on observation, trial and error and word of mouth, and was critical to their survival in the harsh environments in which they lived. It must be affirmed that the traditional knowledge of many peoples was and remains highly valuable, but it is not only indigenous people who have had to resolve how best to live and thrive, but European peoples and, indeed, all people on this planet (Lillis and Schwerdtfeger, 2021). The assertion that modern global science has advanced beyond traditional knowledge in the discovery of empirical and universal truth does not diminish or denigrate traditional knowledge in any way and should not give rise to offence, or indeed, hurt or dismay (see Dunlop, 2021). 

Stewart et al. argue that an understanding of philosophy and history of science would mean that scientists become aware of the always hypothetical, possibly transient, nature of scientific theory. Despite certain laws of science being established as immutable, their argument is valid, and indeed much of science is provisional and incomplete and stands to be improved at a later time. However, most professional scientists are very aware that their work may undergo further development or correction by others. 

Modern science is characterised by deep investigation and testing of ideas. Conversely, often traditional knowledge lacks that deep investigation and insight into how and why observed natural phenomena occur, and usually lacks a systematic process of verification; in other words, falsification. Accordingly, while valuing and preserving traditional knowledge and sometimes using myths and legends as motivation in classrooms, we must not present traditional knowledge as truth, nor mysticism nor myth as adjuncts to modern science. 

Indigenizing our Universities

The calls made by Stewart et al. for respectful relations and for greater understanding of the history and philosophy of both science and Māori education are entirely valid perspectives with which we agree in full. Further, there should be no place for uninformed denigration of traditional knowledge or, for that matter, the world views and religious beliefs of others. Some people do hold negative views on traditional knowledge but in our experience they are relatively few in number and those with whom we collaborate on writing about science and education do recognize the historic, cultural and religious value of traditional knowledge. However, they are genuine in wishing to protect the quality of both science and education in New Zealand.

Stewart et al. inform us that students at Auckland University of Technology (AUT) are caught in the crosshairs of this hotly-argued debate and are being impacted by the views of staff who oppose changes that are intended to improve cultural competence. They say that the views in question are being shared openly by some staff who are reacting against the steps that AUT has taken in updating its programmes to become more pro-active about Māori and Pasifika student success and obligations to Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

However, we ask why some staff dissent. Certainly, the recent statement (“Te Tiriti Ora”) of the School of Clinical Sciences at AUT involves discussion almost exclusively of a single ethnic and cultural group and its world view, rather than addressing the needs of all students and accommodating the diverse communities and world views that characterize New Zealand today. 

Unfortunately, the statement requiring that “all staff know who they are as a person of Te Tiriti, and as both teacher and learner”, represents a particular political ideology that is being forced on the university, possibly against the wishes of many staff and students. The statement notes disparities in health, but we see no mention of the ethnic group that suffers the greatest shortfalls in health and wellbeing and socioeconomically - Pacific People (Lillis, 2023). Perhaps it is objections such as these that motivate those who dissent. 

Indeed, most or all of New Zealand’s universities appear to be undergoing a process of indigenization. For example, the University of Auckland also is set to deliver courses that involve traditional knowledge (University of Auckland, 2024).  All undergraduate programmes there must include a course entitled “Waipapa Taumata Rau” that students must complete within their first year of study. Students are informed that they will learn about different knowledge systems that underpin their areas of study in order to provide a foundation for their future learning. However, we ask why all students must take such a course in order to progress into second year at a time when STEM courses are being cut (see Lillis, 2024a). 

New Narratives

Stewart et al. suggest that a new narrative is needed on science and traditional knowledge that is more open and inclusive to people and other knowledge systems. They assure us that it takes courage to admit that science and other disciplines historically excluded indigenous knowledge in order to consolidate themselves. However, we suggest that it takes professionalism and integrity rather than courage, and that the key question is not about grievance over events that occurred in previous centuries, but whether or not active exclusion persists today.

We agree that exclusion did take place. However, surely diminishment of the relevance of traditional knowledge across all countries of the world has occurred primarily because science has vastly superseded knowledge systems that were tied to particular communities of centuries ago and passed through successive generations by word of mouth rather than though books, journals or databases. The danger here is that the desire to include traditional knowledge has to do with furthering the aims of ideologies such as Critical Social Justice Theory, a philosophy that tends to view society in terms of oppressor and oppressed, rather than about the value of traditional knowledge to modern science and education, nor about its utility to society.  

For example, over the last few years we have heard discussion about navigation of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries and concomitant claims that the skills and knowledge of those times, including knowledge of ocean currents, constituted science. We accept that the knowledge of navigation and the behaviors of ocean currents acquired by the European, African, Asian and Polynesian peoples of several centuries ago involved rudimentary ideas that had some basis in science but, naturally, the science of physical oceanography today is greatly in advance of the knowledge of those times. 

Lewis Wolpert expressed the view that early navigation did not constitute science at all because it was not based on mechanistic principles, but rather on inductive reasoning; i.e. trial and error (Wolpert, 2014). 

“A remarkable example of how internal mental representations can be used for complex tasks comes from the study of the ways in which Polynesians navigate between distant islands. They use a method involving ‘dead reckoning’ in which they conceive of the boat as stationary, with the islands moving past it and the stars wheeling overhead. The process has been likened to walking blindfolded between two chairs and a large hall while pointing continually to a third chair off the main path. Such a method of navigation requires no understanding of why it works: it is quite different from one based on science and technology and emphasises the adaptiveness of human thinking to deal with innumerable problems. While learning is essential, understanding is not.” (Wolpert, 2014, page 25)

Many years ago I took a postgraduate course in dynamic oceanography and was required to read a standard text on the subject – Introductory Dynamical Oceanography (Pond and Pickard, 1978), a book that is already nearly fifty years old. In the references for this article I provide a link so that the interested reader can access this book and form a view as to whether or not twelfth or thirteenth century knowledge of ocean currents could possibly equate in any way with modern physical oceanographic science. 

Western Culture and Traditional Knowledge

Stewart et al. state that, as far as they know, no other culture except modern Western culture, influenced by science, separates facts from values. However, most nations, including faith-based nations and even third-world nations, have adopted global science and technology that, while adhering to established standards of ethics relating to the conduct and application of research, indeed tend to discriminate inherently between facts and values. 

They say that a call for equal mana is a call for the ending of the denigration of Māori knowledge in mainstream discourses and that knowledge of those discourses, as well as of the history and philosophy of science, makes it clear why we might want to talk about ending disrespect for Māori knowledge. Our response is that some people disrespect traditional knowledge, but the scientists and other professionals known to us do not. We express our views on the juxtaposition of traditional knowledge and science in order to:

1. Protect education from domination by any form of traditional knowledge and from false equality of status between traditional knowledge and world science

2. Protect science from intrusion of unscientific elements of traditional knowledge and possible reduction of funding to critical areas of science, technology and medicine

3. Ensure that the media provides the general public with a balanced picture of the relative positions of science and non-science on issues such as the choice between mainstream medicine and folk remedies, managing agriculture practice on the basis of traditional beliefs, and healing sick or dying forests through approaches for which we have no evidence. 

Stewart and colleagues remind us quite correctly that examples of bad science abound, where people have sold out to greed and profitmaking. Indeed, we have duty of care to countermand bad science wherever it occurs, whether from within universities or other research institutions or, indeed, from within traditional knowledge. 

The assertion of Stewart et al. that, as a result of the specialist nature of science, few if any scientists have even a basic working knowledge of either the philosophy of science or of Māori knowledge, may have some validity, but cannot be known unless scientists’ understanding of these domains is investigated. Equally, it is hard to judge the truth of the assertion that many scientists display intensely negative reactions to suggestions that traditional knowledge is of scientific value. Probably some do and probably many others do not. We have met scientists who not believe that traditional knowledge constitutes science but we have not yet encountered scientists who display intense negative reactions as a matter of principle. 

Conflation between Science and Traditional Knowledge

Conflation of science and traditional knowledge brings genuine risks. For example, in New Zealand we have heard calls for traditional medicine to exist outside of health legislation such as the Therapeutic Products Bill (e.g. Tyson, 2023), when overseas evidence shows that decolonization of medicine and pharmacology has led to numerous therapeutic accidents involving herbal products that were not validated following “colonial” standards (Parvez and Rishi, 2019). 

In tertiary education how will traditional knowledge support electrical, civil and mechanical engineering, experimental physics, pure mathematics, theoretical and applied statistics, organic and inorganic chemistry, evolutionary biology, cancer research, combatting malnutrition and infant and child mortality, clean energy technologies, efficient transportation, or many other fields of endeavor? 

Will students of forestry science at New Zealand universities be introduced to traditional medicine for restoration of kauri forests, as in Shortland (2016), which asserts the “need to tune into the vibrations of the forest” and recommends burial of mauri stones within the affected areas, along with appropriate rituals? Will students be taught that sperm whale oil embodies healing properties for kauri? Will they be encouraged to “send out a call to the world, asking communities to hold special ceremony on behalf of kauri” and “invite the world to Aotearoa to join us in prayer and ceremony in the initiation of our future Rongoā interventions.”?

Will students of agriculture learn that farmers should manage their farms on the basis of the phases of the moon (Our Land and Water, 2024) when in reality the lunar cycle has no effect whatsoever on plant growth or physiology (Mayoral et al, 2020)?

If the thinking behind such traditional knowledge is taken as an allegory for loving and caring for the natural world and its living environments, then something wonderful has indeed been gifted to us. However, if such beliefs are accorded the status of literal truth then we have the makings of a very serious problem in tertiary education.

Challenging Distortions of Policy

We believe that various distortions have emerged in policy within health, education and research, and that these distortions must be challenged. For example, the Ministry of Education’s Refreshed Curriculum (Ministry of Education, 2022) positioned one form of traditional knowledge as central to each and every learning area or subject and ascribed equality of status between one form of traditional knowledge and modern science. As another example, the Health Research Council Peer Review Manual 2025 for research applications to the Health Research Council of New Zealand (HRC) states:

As a Crown Agent, the HRC has a responsibility to ensure Te Tiriti o Waitangi is reflected in our investments. The HRC is committed to:

• supporting research that upholds Te Tiriti o Waitangi by reflecting Te Tiriti principles (Tino

Rangatiratanga, Equity, Active Protection, Options, and Partnership) in practice

• Supporting and encouraging research that advances Māori health

• Implementing processes to promote fairness and minimise bias. (HRC, 2024)

We are informed that the guidelines for reviewers now state explicitly that the HRC considers that all health research in New Zealand should advance Māori health and wellbeing by upholding and valuing Māori rights, world views and knowledge and addressing inequities.   

We support research into the health and wellbeing of Māori. However, the health and wellbeing of other communities should be accorded equal importance and so investments and related interventions should be disbursed on the basis of need rather than on ethnicity. Regrettably, it is highly questionable as to whether such funding policies promote fairness or act to minimize bias.

The ‘Mana Ōrite’ Principle 

In equating ‘mana ōrite’ with ‘respectful relations’, Stewart et al. are “strongly and purposefully disputing the views expressed in a recent letter published in the top-ranking journal Science” – that of Ahdar et al. (2024).

They assert that Ahdar et al. write off the ‘mana ōrite’ principle as meaningless “at the start of a long chain of argumentation that ends in wild claims about how the political climate in New Zealand has stifled open, facts-based debate, which is crucial to determining the merit of integrating these distinct forms of knowledge into curricula”. 

More precisely, Ahdar et al. state that it is equating such vastly different systems that is meaningless, and we continue to hold to that view. They remind us that science is open to all to pursue and critique and depends on every claim being open to challenge. Unfortunately, the political climate in New Zealand has indeed tended to suffocate open, facts-based debate, especially within our universities (e.g. Kierstead, 2024). Some academic staff have been relieved of various duties, while others have been pushed out of employment, quite possibly for challenging the proposed equality of traditional knowledge with science or for objecting to the indigenization of our tertiary institutions (see, for example, Lillis, 2024b). In relation to Ahdar et al.:

These authors claim that this one phrase - mana ōrite - demonstrates the intended/imminent destruction of the national knowledge system of Aotearoa New Zealand, despite the fact that national science research and funding systems are still operating well. (Stewart et al,. 2024)

Stewart and colleagues go on to assert, falsely, that Ahdar et al. present extreme and inflammatory claims with flimsy reasoning and no evidence, amounting to poor scholarship, and starting a moral panic. They say that Ahdar et al. demonstrate how the ‘self-proclaimed defenders of science’ continue to hide behind the wall of academic freedom in order to gain points and power.

In fact, Ahdar et al. made no such claim – that of intended or imminent destruction of the national knowledge system of New Zealand. Here, it is worth pointing out that letters to Science and other international journals are very limited in length, three hundred words in the case of Science, and are subject to substantive editing and re-writing by editors and journalists. Several letters of my own to New Zealand media on scientific matters have been rejected outright, simply because they conflicted with prevailing narratives that valorize traditional knowledge, even where such valorization is clearly ill-posed and stands to mislead the public. 

In fact, the so-called ‘self-proclaimed defenders of science’ do not choose to hide behind the wall of academic freedom in order to gain either points or power, and surely it was unnecessary of Stewart et al. to make that suggestion in public. Here, Stewart et al. have chosen to portray those who hold dissenting views from their own as uninformed and morally deficient. In other words, though they call for respectful relations, nevertheless they themselves have engaged in a regrettable ad hominem attack.

Engage in Good Faith

Those scientists with whom I have collaborated in preparing articles that defend science and education do so with positive intent. In other words, they are genuine about protecting the integrity of science and its funding base, and about protecting the good reputation of New Zealand’s education system internationally. Further, every one of them wishes to see true equality of opportunity and positive outcomes for every human being in this country. 

Indeed we need respectful relations, but respectful relations cut both ways. Respectful dialogue does not involve impugning the motivation of people who hold different views from our own, but rather involves an open and honest attempt to engage on the substance of the issues involved. 

Dr David Lillis trained in physics and mathematics at Victoria University and Curtin University in Perth, working as a teacher, researcher, statistician and lecturer for most of his career. He has published many articles and scientific papers, as well as a book on graphing and statistics. 

References

Ahdar, R., Boyd, B., Chaudhuri, A., Clements, K. D., Cooper, G., Elliffe, D., Gill, B., Gray, R. D., Hamilton-Hart, N., Lillis, D., Matthews, M., Raine, J., Rata, E., & Schwerdtfeger, P. (2024).

World science and Indigenous knowledge. Science, 385(6705), 151-152. https://doi.org/doi:10.1126/science.ado6679

Clements, Kendall; Cooper, Garth; Corballis, Michael; Elliffe, Doug; Nola, Robert; Rata, Elizabeth and  Werry, John. "In Defence of Science". New Zealand Listener, 31 July 2021. p.4. 

Dunlop, Mani (2021). University academics' claim mātauranga Māori 'not science' sparks controversy

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/te-manu-korihi/447898/university-academics-claim-matauranga-maori-not-science-sparks-controversy

HRC (2024). Health Research Council Peer Review Manual 2025 for research applications to the Health Research Council of New Zealand

https://gateway.hrc.govt.nz/funding/downloads/2025_Peer_Review_Manual.pdf

Kierstead, James (2024). The Future of Our Universities

https://www.nzinitiative.org.nz/reports-and-media/reports/the-future-of-our-universities/

Lillis, David (2023). Our Prioritised Health System and Pacific People

https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2023/01/david-lillis-our-prioritised-health.html

Lillis, David (2024a). Imagining Decolonisation

https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2024/08/david-lillis-imagining-decolonisation.html

Lillis, David (2024b). New Initiatives at Massey University

https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2024/06/david-lillis-new-initiatives-at-massey.html

Lillis, David and Schwerdtfeger, Peter (2021). The Mātauranga Māori - Science Debate

https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2021/12/david-lillis-and-peter-schwerdtfeger.html

Mayoral, Olga; Solbes, Jordi; Domenech, José and Pina, Tatiana (2023). What Has Been Thought and Taught on the Lunar Influence on Plants in Agriculture? Perspective from Physics and Biology. Agronomy. 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342648175_What_Has_Been_Thought_and_Taught_on_the_Lunar_Influence_on_Plants_in_Agriculture_Perspective_from_Physics_and_Biology

Ministry of Education (2022). Te Mātaiaho Draft for Feedback

https://curriculumrefresh-live-assetstorages3bucket-l5w0dsj7zmbm.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/2022-09/Te%20Mataiaho%20draft%20for%20feedback.pdf?VersionId=NcP2C6bv8ElasJlXbg7oZJLFRqlkef.E

Ministry of Education (2024). Mana ōrite mō te Mātauranga Māori - Equal status for mātauranga Māori in NCEA

https://ncea.education.govt.nz/mana-orite-mo-te-matauranga-maori-equal-status-matauranga-maori-ncea

Our Land and Water (2024). Can Māori Knowledge of Moon Phases Help Farm Resilience?

https://ourlandandwater.nz/news/can-maori-knowledge-of-moon-phases-help-farm-resilience/

Parvez. M. K. and Rishi, V. (2019). HerbDrug Interactions and Hepatotoxicity. Curr. Drug Metab. 20: 275–82.

https://www.eurekaselect.com/article/97525

Pond, Stephen and Pickard, George (1978). Introductory Dynamical Oceanography. Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd. 

https://vdoc.pub/download/introductory-dynamical-oceanography-1gonbpg6jkdo

Shortland, Tui (2016). Rongoā (Traditional Medicine Practices) Improving the health of kauri forests

https://www.kauriprotection.co.nz/research/research-database/rongoa-traditional-medicine-practices-improving-the-health-of-kauri-forests/

Stewart, Georgina Tuari; Perrott, John; Buckley, Hannah L;  Burli, Sarah; Keiha, Pare; Walker, Leilane;  Henare, Dion and Wilkie, Kowhai (2024). Respectful relations between science and Māori knowledge

ACCESS: CONTEMPORARY ISSUES IN EDUCATION 2024, VOL. 44, NO. 1

https://doi.org/10.46786/ac24.5235

Tyson, Jessica (2023). Therapeutic Products Bill: ‘Crown has no place in regulating rongoā’ says expert

New Zealand Herald. 9 May 2023

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/kahu/therapeutic-products-bill-crown-has-no-place-in-regulating-rongoa-says-expert/TLHZLLVL2ZBXHCCGOCTNW5MOFU/

University of Auckland (2024). Waipapa Taumata Rau course

https://www.auckland.ac.nz/en/study/study-options/undergraduate-study-options/waipapa-taumata-rau-course.html

Wolpert, Lewis (2014). The unnatural nature of science. Kindle Edition, Faber & Faber.

ISBN 9780674929814