3 ms·

I believe the author explicitly did the opposite of what you accuse him of doing. He even criticized the original letter from the seven because of its sweeping

I believe the author explicitly did the opposite of what you accuse him of doing. He even criticized the original letter from the seven because of its sweeping dismissal of Maori knowledge, and the likelihood that some of it is scientific in nature. His point is that science is a process, and one shouldn’t confuse traditional myth with this process. I think he’s right, even if in some cases the process, and its flawed instantiation, leads to incorrect conclusions in cases where the traditional story is correct.

robonerd 5y ago
He only seems to defend Maori knowledge insofar as that knowledge was derived from informal scientific experiments. > I do take issue with one sentence in original letter by the seven scientists: “Indigenous knowledge may indeed help advance scientific knowledge in some ways, but it is not science.” As a blanket statement this is not strictly correct. Some indigenous knowledge is scientific in nature. Surely indigenous people’s survival depended on empirical examination and trial and error testing associated with a variety of natural phenomena, including: which plants were beneficial or harmful to eat, which might provide useful medicines; how the detailed migratory behavior of animals that might serve as prey would impact on hunting success, tidal variations and annual weather cycles, to name just a few.