> But when you group all traditional knowledge as one body and claim everything under it to be scientific It might be useful to keep the topic on Mātauranga Mā

> But when you group all traditional knowledge as one body and claim everything under it to be scientific It might be useful to keep the topic on Mātauranga Māori, and not widen it to "all traditional knowledge." As I wrote, I am not qualified to understand the actual debate here. I have tried to read some of the issues, like https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/resources/2545-matauranga-maori-and-science https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/resources/2545-matauranga-ma... , and the best I can tell is that it's not being treated as "science" but contributes to how to do science, and what the goals of science are. Take modern medical research. It has a long history of being guided by the interests of white males, under a paternalistic system where the researcher had little constraints on "the pursuit of science." Over the last decades this has changed, and medical research is more bound by ethical constraints which aren't "science", but which are ways to decide which science to do, or to avoid. I think MM is supposed to be like that - to let Māori knowledge, culture, and "ways of knowing" influence how science is done. And I think people get hung up by the phrase "ways of knowing", as if there were a way of knowing which wasn't science. While I can't help wonder if that means things like "prioritize the well-being of local Māori tribes" over "get another publication out" or "follow the track towards tenure". But really, don't trust my interpretation.