The seven University of Auckland academics whose letter to the Listener in July 2021 provoked what a former newspaper editor called "the full, vindictive fury of the woke academic left", weren't just concerned that a government educational working group proposed making science and Maori knowledge of the natural world equivalent in the school science curriculum. They also worried generally about "disturbing misunderstandings of science emerging at all levels of education and in science funding".
Poor grasp of science isn't hard to find. There were media reports in May 2022 that AgResearch, a government science agency, had launched a Maori Research and Partnership Group to help Maori-led agribusinesses "conduct their research in a safe space, where their matauranga was protected". But all scientific findings must be open to scrutiny and criticism. Protecting ideas in "safe spaces" is more like religion or totalitarianism than science, but nobody was pointing that out.
It's the perfect time for science groups to promote science's history and philosophy, and make clear the power of the modern scientific method. The Royal Society of New Zealand (RSNZ) publicises individual science projects that it funds. But it and other science groups seem strangely silent on the benefits of science thinking generally.
The RSNZ, formerly our science academy, in 2010 amalgamated with the Humanities Council. It now focuses heavily on Maori and Pacific culture and identity, and promotes what it calls "multiple knowledge domains" with science rather off to one side. The RSNZ rejected the Listener letter-writers' "narrow and outmoded definition of science". That's the former science body responding under influence of the humanities, which often portrays science as merely one of many world views, all equally valid. It's a serious problem that New Zealand now lacks an academy devoted solely to science.
The New Zealand Association of Scientists (NZAS) claims to be "an independent body that stands for and advocates for science and scientists". Yet, after the letter of the "Listener Seven", the NZAS seemed to have a new ideological purpose. Instead of supporting science and the letter-writers, it stated in its press release that science "has an ongoing history of colonising when it speaks over Indigenous voices" and that matauranga Maori (traditional knowledge) has "equal importance and role in scientific work".
In the new school science curriculum the Ministry of Education has included "mauri" (a mystical force that some believe is present in animate and inanimate objects). Other cultures have a similar concept ("vitalism") but in Europe it was discredited as part of science in the early 1800s. Shamefully, the science organisations have been tight-lipped on this important issue in science philosophy, seemingly unwilling to defend science thinking in schools.
Perhaps they consider science too powerful to need promotion. Or they may feel that too strong an advocacy for the scientific method makes other world views look inadequate. They might just be falling in line with the current attitude of the liberal (some say "illiberal") left, that "Western" institutions deserve no praise.
With science agencies missing in action, allow me a moment to articulate some of the characteristics of science.
(1) Universality. Modern science has roots in Asia and the Middle East as well as in Europe so it isn't "Western". Science today is an international and universal endeavour. There is only one kind of science and it has no national, regional or cultural varieties. Talk of "Western science" or "Indigenous science", meaning particular kinds of science, betrays poor understanding. Concepts can be part of science only if they are known and understood around the world by scientists irrespective of cultural background.
(2) Evidence. Science holds the world to be intelligible, rejecting spiritual and supernatural explanations of natural phenomena. Science is guided by tangible evidence collected from activities like measurement, experimentation, double-blind trials and computer modelling. Current scientific findings are those best supported by the evidence.
(3) Endless scrutiny. Science needs a free exchange of ideas. All scientific findings are provisional. Results must be repeatable. Scientists test and try to falsify hypotheses. Constant challenge and revision strengthens science rather than weakening it.
(4) Objectivity. Scientists are people, with human frailties and biases, but the strict scientific method compels them to put feelings aside and, in their scientific work, at least strive for objectivity. Before publication, scientific results are checked by peers, often anonymously.
(5) Grand theories. Cultures may generate specific, local information about the natural world, but science goes beyond facts to deep understanding. This yields general and unifying explanations of nature (atomic structure, gravity, evolution by natural selection) with unprecedented power and utility.
(6) Openness and publication. Science and writing are interlinked. For several centuries scientists have made a permanent, detailed written record of their findings. Publication enables easy scrutiny of current and past results and allows findings to be transmitted accurately (via libraries and the internet) around the world and through time. Publication makes science open and available (though often with access fees in neoliberal economies). Once published, scientists can't control and limit access to their knowledge, and neither do they wish to.
(7) Neutrality. Science is a method. It is neutral and cannot be blamed for misapplications of its findings. Science does not "colonise", "marginalise" or "oppress". It cannot be racist or sexist. Only individuals can do or be those things.
All these characteristics describe a brilliant system with a unique and pre-eminent role in modern society, but our science bodies seem too coy to tell us. Perhaps the RSNZ should de-merge to release science from the stifling embrace of the humanities. Or the RSNZ could at least allow its "multiple knowledge domains" to speak separately even if at times they contradict each other. We may need a new organisation: "Advocates for Science". It would be for those prepared to put science thinking ahead of social justice activism.
This article by Brian Gill an Auckland zoologist. Was first published on BreakingViews July 27, 2023
It's the perfect time for science groups to promote science's history and philosophy, and make clear the power of the modern scientific method. The Royal Society of New Zealand (RSNZ) publicises individual science projects that it funds. But it and other science groups seem strangely silent on the benefits of science thinking generally.
The RSNZ, formerly our science academy, in 2010 amalgamated with the Humanities Council. It now focuses heavily on Maori and Pacific culture and identity, and promotes what it calls "multiple knowledge domains" with science rather off to one side. The RSNZ rejected the Listener letter-writers' "narrow and outmoded definition of science". That's the former science body responding under influence of the humanities, which often portrays science as merely one of many world views, all equally valid. It's a serious problem that New Zealand now lacks an academy devoted solely to science.
The New Zealand Association of Scientists (NZAS) claims to be "an independent body that stands for and advocates for science and scientists". Yet, after the letter of the "Listener Seven", the NZAS seemed to have a new ideological purpose. Instead of supporting science and the letter-writers, it stated in its press release that science "has an ongoing history of colonising when it speaks over Indigenous voices" and that matauranga Maori (traditional knowledge) has "equal importance and role in scientific work".
In the new school science curriculum the Ministry of Education has included "mauri" (a mystical force that some believe is present in animate and inanimate objects). Other cultures have a similar concept ("vitalism") but in Europe it was discredited as part of science in the early 1800s. Shamefully, the science organisations have been tight-lipped on this important issue in science philosophy, seemingly unwilling to defend science thinking in schools.
Perhaps they consider science too powerful to need promotion. Or they may feel that too strong an advocacy for the scientific method makes other world views look inadequate. They might just be falling in line with the current attitude of the liberal (some say "illiberal") left, that "Western" institutions deserve no praise.
With science agencies missing in action, allow me a moment to articulate some of the characteristics of science.
(1) Universality. Modern science has roots in Asia and the Middle East as well as in Europe so it isn't "Western". Science today is an international and universal endeavour. There is only one kind of science and it has no national, regional or cultural varieties. Talk of "Western science" or "Indigenous science", meaning particular kinds of science, betrays poor understanding. Concepts can be part of science only if they are known and understood around the world by scientists irrespective of cultural background.
(2) Evidence. Science holds the world to be intelligible, rejecting spiritual and supernatural explanations of natural phenomena. Science is guided by tangible evidence collected from activities like measurement, experimentation, double-blind trials and computer modelling. Current scientific findings are those best supported by the evidence.
(3) Endless scrutiny. Science needs a free exchange of ideas. All scientific findings are provisional. Results must be repeatable. Scientists test and try to falsify hypotheses. Constant challenge and revision strengthens science rather than weakening it.
(4) Objectivity. Scientists are people, with human frailties and biases, but the strict scientific method compels them to put feelings aside and, in their scientific work, at least strive for objectivity. Before publication, scientific results are checked by peers, often anonymously.
(5) Grand theories. Cultures may generate specific, local information about the natural world, but science goes beyond facts to deep understanding. This yields general and unifying explanations of nature (atomic structure, gravity, evolution by natural selection) with unprecedented power and utility.
(6) Openness and publication. Science and writing are interlinked. For several centuries scientists have made a permanent, detailed written record of their findings. Publication enables easy scrutiny of current and past results and allows findings to be transmitted accurately (via libraries and the internet) around the world and through time. Publication makes science open and available (though often with access fees in neoliberal economies). Once published, scientists can't control and limit access to their knowledge, and neither do they wish to.
(7) Neutrality. Science is a method. It is neutral and cannot be blamed for misapplications of its findings. Science does not "colonise", "marginalise" or "oppress". It cannot be racist or sexist. Only individuals can do or be those things.
All these characteristics describe a brilliant system with a unique and pre-eminent role in modern society, but our science bodies seem too coy to tell us. Perhaps the RSNZ should de-merge to release science from the stifling embrace of the humanities. Or the RSNZ could at least allow its "multiple knowledge domains" to speak separately even if at times they contradict each other. We may need a new organisation: "Advocates for Science". It would be for those prepared to put science thinking ahead of social justice activism.
This article by Brian Gill an Auckland zoologist. Was first published on BreakingViews July 27, 2023
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.