When new evidence emerges, scientists update their theories, sometimes radically. Good scientists actively seek evidence that could disconfirm their theories.
Scientific uncertainty owes a lot to cross-cultural encounters. For example, when Jesuit missionaries visited China in the 16th and 17th centuries, they were fascinated by Chinese astronomical records.
According to conventional Christian scholarship at the time, all human civilisations postdated Noah’s flood, thought to have occurred around 2350 BCE. But Chinese claims of continuous historical records and civilization challenged Biblical chronology.
Even though those claims may have been overstated, the Jesuits were able to verify Chinese records of planetary motions mathematically, which, over time, led them to doubt the biblical account. Through reason and evidence, Chinese astronomers and European scholars had cast doubt on religious doctrines.
All this goes to show that Dame Anne Salmond was quite right when, in a recent article, she pointed out that the Enlightenment was sparked by cross cultural encounters. She also correctly observed that those encounters shook up European certainties.
Dame Anne’s argument falters, though, in her assertion that all knowledge systems are equally valid and cannot meaningfully be compared. That view is rooted in an intellectual tradition very different to science.
For over three decades, much academic work in the humanities and social sciences, none more than Dame Anne’s discipline of anthropology, has been influenced by the postmodernist view that reality is relative to culture.
This is inimical to science. Scientific knowledge-seeking is based on the idea that objective reality exists. Through reason and evidence, science brings human understanding into closer alignment with reality.
Ironically, the postmodern turn has led universities away from scientific doubt, towards a culture of (paradoxical) certainty – the certainty that knowledge is relative. Under this view, the commitment of science to gradually revealing reality is at best, a fool’s errand. At worst, it is an exercise in ‘colonising’ other knowledge systems, especially indigenous ones.
To relativists, a belief that reason transcends culture is a sign of blinkered arrogance, closing off the possibility of ‘other ways of knowing.’ The prevalence of this doctrine has led to a campus climate in which any criticism of ‘non-western’ knowledge systems is an anathema. It has led to some academics being actively shut down, and many feeling too intimidated to speak their minds.
To Dame Anne and others, though, in drawing attention to this situation, organisations like the Free Speech Union (FSU) and the New Zealand Initiative have manufactured a free speech crisis. They accuse these organisations of imposing their views on universities through the academic freedom provisions in the recently passed Education and Training Amendment Act.
The Act requires universities as institutions to be neutral on matters of academic debate, and to develop Freedom of Expression policies. Far from imposing on universities, these provisions help safeguard them as venues for open debate.
The impetus for these protections came from academics themselves, not from external organisations. The FSU’s submission on the bill was developed by the Inter-University Committee on Academic Freedom, an advisory group affiliated to, but independent of, the FSU. Its membership comprises academics from most of New Zealand’s eight universities. We are both members and helped draft the submission.
The submission was informed by two sources: input from academic colleagues and university leaders, and empirical evidence from surveys and testimonials.
One source was the biennial Kōrero Mai staff survey from the University of Auckland, which has a response rate of well over 60%. In both 2023 and 2025, less than half of respondents agreed with the statement, “I feel able to respectfully voice my views to others at the University without fear of negative consequences.” Other surveys have shown similar results.
The institutional neutrality provision in the legislation recognises that the university itself should not have views. Instead, it should be a venue in which competing views are discussed and debated. Universities taking sides risks politicising debates and putting a thumb on the scale. It can also have an intimidatory effect on academics who disagree with their institutions.
But fear of repercussions from university management is not the only reason academics might fear consequences for expressing their views. Potential ostracism by peers is another.
Yale University psychologist Paul Bloom argued that academics’ reluctance to express minority views is largely a result of self-censorship driven by peer pressure. The requirement for universities to adopt Freedom of Expression policies will not change this censorious culture on its own, but there is evidence that it has already influenced university policy in a positive direction.
In September 2024 the University of Auckland (UoA) Senate voted nearly 3:1 to reject a weak Freedom of Expression policy proposed by the university’s leadership. Following the announcement of the legislation, UoA leadership proposed a revised, more robust Freedom of Expression statement that included a commitment to institutional neutrality.
The UoA Senate overwhelmingly endorsed this revised statement. Sir Peter Hunter, Chair of the University Freedom of Expression Senate Working Group, told us after the vote, “I’m quite sure we would not be where we are without the new legislation.”
Attacks on supporters of legislation by some of its critics reflect political tribalism, not reasoned argument based on evidence. Contrary to what Dame Anne and her allies would have us believe, depoliticisation is not the same as politicisation in the opposite direction.
This article was originally published by ThePlatform.kiwi and is published here with kind permission.
15 comments:
Part 1
A very thoughtful article from Professor Clements and Dr. Johnston and, unfortunately, it advances the kind of thinking that our media for the most part will not publish.
I do not agree with Dame Anne Salmond that across the country the interests of any group are being marginalised and their voices silenced. We must remember that our total population is about 25% non-Māori/non-European, and roughly the same applies to our school population. We must consider the rights and obligations of every citizen equally and we need education of a kind that enables every child to succeed to the best of his or her abilities.
It is not very helpful to classify those who hold dissenting opinions from our own as displaying narrow-minded arrogance or that they are the people who know the least. Surely, all of us could say the same about anyone else with whom we disagree. However, I do agree with Dame Anne that cutting funding to the Social Sciences is regrettable, and perhaps Government will think again about this decision.
However, recognizing genuine cultural, historic and religious interest even today, and recognizing certain ideas that can be verified through the methods of modern science, traditional knowledge has diminished in importance because modern global science has advanced far beyond it in the explanation of natural phenomena, including phenomena relating to human beings – our biology and how we think and socialise.
Part 2
Science involves error correction and induction; that is, processes of reasoning whereby general conclusions are drawn from evidence and recorded in peer-reviewed journals, libraries and databases. Conversely, most traditional knowledge is limited to observations of nature and trial and error; practices that say little about the causes of observed phenomena, and is passed down through word of mouth rather than through databases, libraries and journals.
Traditional knowledge does not provide epistemological resources such as hypothesis-testing, randomized sampling, experimental design, statistics or blind testing. Rather, it is knowledge that for the most part has been acquired independently of modern global science. Therefore, apart from aspects of traditional knowledge that can be verified through the methods of science, it promises far too much if we declare that any traditional knowledge of centuries into the past can offer what modern global science and medicine give to modern man.
Various authors have proposed criteria that impart structure to science (e.g. Merton, 1942). The Mertonian norms are as follows: communality (the findings of science are owned by the community), universalism (truth-claims are subjected to impersonal criteria), disinterestedness (science is to be uncorrupted by self-interest) and organized skepticism (detached scrutiny of beliefs in terms of empirical and logical criteria). Such norms are not clearly evident within traditional knowledge.
Kuhn (1962) saw scientific paradigms as universally-recognized scientific achievements that provide model problems and solutions for researchers. For Kuhn, a paradigm describes what is observed and scrutinized, and he suggests five criteria for good theory. These criteria are accuracy, consistency, scope, simplicity and fruitfulness.
Traditional knowledge embodies many positive attributes in relation to values, ethics and morals, and sometimes in relation to how humans should respect each other (e.g. Manaakitanga) and how we should live harmoniously within our natural environments (e.g. Kaitiakitanga). However, in the understanding and verification of universal truths, traditional knowledge offers neither the accuracy, consistency, scope nor fruitfulness of modern global science.
Many definitions of science have been proposed. For example, the International Science Council defines science as the systematic organization of knowledge that can be rationally explained and reliably applied (International Science Council, 2021).
Most definitions involve the creation of knowledge about natural and social phenomena, but on the basis of systematic methods that are grounded in evidence. Regardless of definitions, modern global science embodies two fundamental principles. First, that scientific knowledge is not protected, but instead is shared and open to criticism. Second, that science recognizes no particular authority, so that every person is free to engage in science on the basis of evidence and reason.
Different cultures do indeed have different ways of knowing that should be treasured and preserved. Indeed, humanity can learn from them even today, but they are not science.
References
International Science Council (2021): Science as a global public good. ISC Position Paper.
https://council.science/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/ScienceAsAPublicGood-FINAL.pdf
Kuhn, T. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. The University of Chicago.
https://www.lri.fr/~mbl/Stanford/CS477/papers/Kuhn-SSR-2ndEd.pdf
Merton, R. (1942). The Normative Structure of Science.
https://www.panarchy.org/merton/science.html
Excellent article, thanks. Dame Anne's article seems to me rambling and incoherent. In one breath she decries talk of "universal reason", and in the next breath says this, which seems like an excellent statement of the case for it: "One of the first principles of scientific investigation is that knowledge claims should be based on rigorous research, and tested against evidence by those with relevant expertise before they’re judged to be reliable."
This sort of relativistic guff has been popular for well over three decades - I can recall when Peter Winch's "Understanding a Primitive Society" was in vogue in the 1960s, drawing on some of Wittgenstein's more contentious remarks. Winch took exception to Evans-Pritchard's view that "We know that Zande beliefs in the influence of witchcraft, the efficacy of magic medicines, the role of oracles in revealing what is going on and what is going to happen, are mistaken, illusory." Of course you wouldn't get away with the term "primitive" these days.
But here's the thing if you're a leftie academic, or in my case, a retired leftie academic. You're not necessarily going to trust entities like ACT or the FSU. Recall ACT's meme campaign against academic critics of the Regulatory Standards Bill? The most famous target was Dame Anne Salmond, but the first was a Maori health specialist of mixed English and Maori descent, A/P George Laking , also at Auckland Uni. How did I know that? Because that meme was shared on X by both Stephen Franks, Chair of the FSU, and Board member Ani O'Brien. They weren't doing it in their FSU capacities, but their view was clear, and the FSU page later affirmed the view that academics should accept criticism - ignoring the deterrent effect posed to younger academics by the prospect of being ridiculed by the Deputy PM. While I agree that non-left academics and those who pushed back against aspects of Treaty politics and Matauranga Maori were treated badly in the recent past, I can't see that things will necessarily change for the better. It'll just be the other side that's targeted. And ACT doesn't live up to its free speech claims, anyway, as I've been blocked from the Facebook page of its Tertiary Education spokesperson Dr Parmar. For me, it's all just politics.
The example of the Chinese and the Jesuits ,
unfortunately is not the best since if the Jesuits had taken more care to listen to ancient Chinese
accounts they would heard of the 'Great Flood' and Emperor Yu, who established the first dynasty and was famous for controlling the flood. Sort of similar to Noah's flood ?
Yu's control of the chaotic flood waters brought order to to the lands , legend says and developed a civilized first dynasty. It is central
to Chinese identity and known by everyone there.
In 2016 geological evidence evidence uncovered geological evidence of China's Great flood , of 1920BC which a Chinese professor said would reaffirm the core values of being Chinese.
I do not support Anne Salmond's viewpoint of relativism because there are absolute truths. Occasionally some traditional knowledge has some truths.
A period of catastrophic flooding circa 1920 BCE appears to have marked the transition of China from the Neolithic into the Bronze Age. It seems to have been brought about by the failure of massive earth dams. I am not sure what 'absolute truths' are invoked by the observation that there was massive flooding in China coinciding very roughly (hundreds of years leeway) with episodic flooding in the Mesopotamian region and myths that arose from both these events (Chinese and Babylonian). Perhaps both events proved to be instrumental in the technological breakthroughs that led to the invention of gumboots and eventually the charismatic figure of Fred Dagg, thereby forecasting the evolution of Homo sapiens kiwienses.
In a previous comment I objected to a well-known New Zealand academic classifying those who hold dissenting opinions from her own as displaying narrow-minded arrogance and that they are the people who know the least.
Perhaps we can classify two groups that oppose each other ideologically; one left-leaning and the other right-leaning. It is a great pity that some of them descend to vitriolic social media attacks on private people, not only on public figures.
Thus, one person, who works in education, has been called variously a liar, a scumbag, a fraud, corrupt, dishonest, thief, gaslighter, a cockroach and other names, when in fact there was no wrongdoing at any time and therefore no justification for such invective. That person is fearful of reputational damage and consequential reputational damage. Others are similarly fearful.
Unfortunately, today we are witnessing a serious problem in the enormous power of social and online media to influence. In this context the blogs and podcasts appear to come from a left-leaning perspective but, to be fair, right-leaning media can be extremely negative too. It’s all there on both sides.
Unfortunately we all have biases and the example of the Chinese and the Jesuits and the 'Great Flood' was not the best one to choose .
This is because if the Jesuits had delved deeper into Chinese stories and history they would have been told of, founding Emperor Yu famous for controlling the 'Great Flood' ,which is central to Chinese identity and known by everyone there.
I'm not sure how a person the earliest written records of whom occur a good thousand years after his death and who is regarded by most scholars as a King Arthur-type figure - myth and legend that may well have originated in the form of a real man - can be "central to Chinese identity". As for his 'controlling' the floods (plural), these occurred (according to legend) over the course of two generations. It wasn't the kind of stunt that a little Dutch boy pulled by sticking his finger in a hole in the dyke - Emperor Yu was possibly/probably an engineer and initiated large-scale public works to avert repeats of the flood disaster.
There are parallels between the Chinese and Mesopotamian floods (and no doubt with others) but I still can't see what 'absolute truths' these impart. Perhaps the use of the term was inappropriate.
David Lillis (I'm also Anonymous 8.22am), yes, I think online abuse is a serious problem, and because people's behaviour doesn't line up positively or negatively with their political views, then the abuse is pretty much spread across the political spectrum. I wish I knew how it could be abated, in ways that don't encourage weaponising of the system: this is what obviously happened when the HDCA was used against Ms Z in the McSkimming furore. Very hard to know where to draw the line to capture the toxic stuff and allow for free speech. Not that free speech activists are much use, as in practice they just want people to 'suck it up' and not 'behave like a snowflake / wimp'. Perhaps rules could address volume and frequency of abuse? I know there are report mechanisms, but the abuse just goes on, and overseas-owned social media platforms are hard to control.
Ah , Barend , geological evidence in 2016, confirmed there was indeed a 'Great Flood' in 1920 BC . That is a truth . The description in the Chinese legend , according to the writer had
had similarities to Noah's flood. The author and researcher of the academic article is Professor Wu Qinglong . The on-line article is entitled ' First Geological Evidence for China's 'Great Flood'.by Meagan Phelan .
But that David , was standard treatment for people who had alternative views , in the reading wars debacle. . Academics had obscenities written on their office door, lost funding , cancelled from putting articles in journals, called agents of the devil , labelled white , stale , male and even worse apparently Christian. My mother teaching intensive phonics was considered 'mad' and that was what overseas journalists were told by the Ministry.
My country (Netherlands) suffered a catastrophic flood in 1953 when the dams burst. No doubt there were numerous 'similarities' to large-scale floods in China, Mesopotamia, and elsewhere over the centuries/millennia. I remain flabbergasted as to what 'absolute truths' these various events and accounts present us with other than that human beings are not aquatic creatures and prefer to keep large masses of water at bay. It would appear to be the case that the writer is using the term inappropriately, seemingly unaware of what it means,
Clearly you hadn't read the article I mentioned since unless Holland had a river like the Yellow River there is nothing comparable with what happened in China
Using engineering measurement techniques the impact on the Yellow River was thought to be due to a massive rainfall event which researches estimated was among the largest known floods on Earth during the past 10,000 years. The radio carbon dating coincides with the traditional timeline for establishment of the Xia dynasty of 2200 BC. The 1920 BC date coincides with the beginning of the Bronze Age in China and a major transistion occurring.
Holland has the North Sea instead.
As usual, you are evading the central issue of what is meant by 'absolute truth'.
You've ben sprung as usual, Gaynor.
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.