Professor Jerry Coyne: The ideologically captured scientists of New Zealand

The Conversation, which seems a reputable and often interesting site, now has some dire results of a survey of non-Māori New Zealand scientists. The new survey shows that many (but thank goodness not all) of these have been captured by the drive to sacralize the indigenous Māori “ways of knowing, or Mātauranga Māori (MM).

MM does contain some empirical knowledge, mostly of the practical sort like how to catch fish or when to harvest berries, but also includes religion, morality, the supernatural (the ubiquitous vitalism called mauri), guides to behavior, legends and word of mouth, and other non-scientific concepts that many see as “ways of knowing.”

Have a gander at this article (click to read). Note the “gender divide” mentioned in the headline, and guess how it shakes out:





Some indented excerpts (the article summarizes a research paper you can read or download here; I have not read it but assume the authors’ summary is correct. I could find no indication that the paper has been published or even accepted (I may have overlooked that), but if it is only submitted for publication and not peer-reviewed and accepted, it’s not really kosher to discuss preliminary results in a place like The Conversation.

While the New Zealand government plans to review 28 pieces of legislation with a view to changing or repealing references to the Treaty of Waitangi, the science sector is embracing engagement with Māori and leading the way in linking science and Indigenous knowledge at a national scale.

We surveyed 316 researchers from research organisations across New Zealand on their engagement with Māori and their attitudes towards mātauranga Māori (Indigenous knowledge system). We found the majority agree engagement is important and mātauranga Māori is relevant to their research.

Our preliminary findings show most of the surveyed researchers engaged with Māori to some degree in the past and expect to keep doing so in the future. A majority agreed mātauranga Māori should be valued on par with Western science.

. . . We examined the responses of the 295 non-Māori scientists in our survey and found 56% agreed mātauranga Māori should be valued on par with Western science. Only 25% disagreed. Moreover, 83% agreed scientists had a duty to consult with Māori if the research had impacts on them.

What? Valued on par with Western science? That is the result of the researchers having been ideologically captured by the widespread drive to make MM coequal with modern science. (An alternative hypothesis, which should not be ignored, is that many of these non-Māori scientists are hiding their real feelings, knowing that they could get fired or exorcised if they don’t go along with the ideological program.)

That said, of course if a project has impacts on Māori, they should certainly be consulted. That is only fair. But consultation does not mean that researchers must do what the Māori say, especially if it involves nonscientific things like incorporating the supernatural, as with the story of the kauri trees and the whales (see below)

If you study MM and know anything about modern science— mistakenly called “Western science” by MM advocates—you’ll know that this belief in coequality is simply fatuous.

More:

. . .New Zealand has been at the forefront of developing a nationwide approach through the 2007 Vision Mātauranga policy. This science-mātauranga connection has given New Zealand a global lead in how to meaningfully and practically mobilise science and Indigenous knowledge at a national scale.

In contrast, the US only recently developed its national Indigenous science policy.

The merging of Indigenous and Western knowledge is particularly important in the high-tech innovation field. Here, New Zealand’s approach is starting to have real impacts, including supporting innovations and capabilities that would not have happened otherwise.

Through years of engagement with the research and innovation sector, Māori are increasingly expecting the sector to work differently. This means both engaging beyond the laboratory and being open to the possibility that science and mātauranga Māori together can create bold innovation. Examples include supporting Māori businesses to create research and development opportunities in high-value nutrition, or using mātauranga to halt the decline of green-lipped mussels in the Eastern Bay of Plenty.

If you look at the “bold innovation” link, you will find a dearth of examples in which MM has actually enhanced the acquisition of scientific knowledge; rather, it’s largely a program for incorporating Māori researchers into projects actually driven by modern science. But would you expect anything else given that the empirical aspects of MM are all practical, aimed at helping people survive off the land? Given that, the “merging” of the two “ways of knowing”, much less promulgating the idea they are coequal, is a foolish endeavor.

The green-lipped mussel project, involving an important source of food, comes up again and again in these studies, and involves the use of traditional fiber materials to facilitate the settling of mussel spats. And it did indeed increase the number of spats.

But I see this project mentioned over and over again as an example of the fruitful combining of MM and modern science. If their merging is so successful, why do we find the same example used repeatedly?

And why is there no mention of ludicrous examples of merging, such as the useless attempt to revive the dieback of kauri trees by smearing their trunks with whale oil and whale bones, and playing whale songs to the trees (see here and here). The MM basis for this “science” is a Māori legend that the kauri trees and whales were created as brothers, but the whale-trees went roaming into the ocean, and the kauri dieback, really caused by soil-borne oomycetes (thanks modern science for that), is said by MM to reflect the trees’ longing to be with their whale brothers. Such is the kind of research that is also taken seriously by advocates of merging MM and modern science.

One more thing: the gender difference. I guessed, based on the greater empathy of women as well as their greater religiosity, would involve female researchers being be more sympathetic to incorporating indigenous ways of knowing into science. I was right:

However, there was a significant gender difference: 75% of women compared to 44% of men agreed mātauranga Māori should be valued on par with science. Only 8% of women disagreed with that statement compared to 34% of men.

That is a substantial difference!

The study reached two conclusions. The second was the observed difference between male and female non-Māori researchers in their desire to value MM as coequal with science. The authors say this needs more work, but I think it can already be explained by the difference between the sexes in empathy, “people” orientation, and religiosity.

The first conclusion was this:

First, it seems that exposing researchers to engagement with Māori communities may create a more open attitude to mātauranga Māori. A key aspect of the past few years has been to broaden the science sector’s engagement with various communities, including Māori.

The Vision Mātauranga policy has been explicit about this in the innovation sector and research and development areas. It appears likely this approach has, at least for some non-Māori researchers, created an openness to consider mātauranga Māori as an equivalent, although different, knowledge framework.

Again, I am not dismissing MM as without any value. What I am seriously questioning is the idea that MM is “an equivalent, although different, knowledge framework.” I don’t even know what that means, since I don’t see MM as even coming close to the methods of modern science in acquiring knowledge, or “justified true belief.” MM lacks nearly all the tools of modern science, like hypothesis testing, pervasive doubt and questioning, replication, peer review, the use of statistics, and so on. How can it possibly be coequal with modern science?

But the burgeoning drive to sacralize indigenous “knowledge” shows that wokeness, of which this drive is one example, is not on the way out. By all means incorporate indigenous knowledge into science if it is shown to be empircally true. But to do that the indigenous knowledge has to be verified using modern science. Otherwise it remains in the hinterlands of Aunt Jobiska’s Theorem: “a fact that the whole world knows.”

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