7 ms·

New Zealander here, not that it really matters.* It appears that "...a proposal by a government working group that schools should give the same weight to Maori

by spats1990 5y ago

New Zealander here, not that it really matters.* It appears that "...a proposal by a government working group that schools should give the same weight to Maori mythology as they do to science in the classroom" is a misrepresentation. The author of this article has taken up this issue because it appears to fit a political hobby horse of his. One might read this article and conclude that The Woke Have Done It Again, they have Defied Science and Suggested that Mythology is Just As Important As Darwin. However, one of the authors of the government working group material has also commented publicly about this and her take casts things in a slightly different light: "The sentence quoted in the Listener letter as proof of the need to ‘defend’ science was from a section I largely wrote about the strand of the Pūtaiao curriculum that did not have a direct equivalent in the NZC Science learning area, on the history and philosophy of science. The sentence quoted was part of a description of the possible scope of studies of socioscientific issues, from a Māori perspective, by senior secondary students of Pūtaiao. To respond as fearfully as these seven professors, from the top science university in the country, to a single sentence that suggests taking a critical look at the involvement of science in colonisation of Māori, does the public face of science no favours at all. This failure in terms of academic standards explains the strong criticism of the letter that was expressed by the Royal Society as well as many leading scientists and academics (May, 2021)."[1] Are those crazy (left-wing, out of touch, 'woke') government working groups really Denying Science? Or did some scientists take something out of context and misunderstand it, then scream that they were being cancelled when other academics expressed disagreement with their ideas? [1]https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00131857.2021.1966415 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00131857.2021.1... * (Edit: actually, I thought about it, and I decided that it does matter: I'm not really comfortable with our politics, which are quite different from UK/US politics, being used for grist in northern culture-war mills.)

somedangedname 5y ago
A statement from Jackie Talbot, an advisor to New Zealand's ministry of education, speaking about changes to qualifications attainable by NZ secondary school students: "'It traces back to 2019 when the Government agreed to strengthen NCEA, with a commitment to explicitly reflect and promote mana ōrite mō tē mātauranga Māori, or parity for Māori knowledge, within the main secondary school qualification. ... She said it means "making sure teachers are supported to design courses that include both what has become known as mātauranga pūtaiao and the scientific knowledge, skills and understandings that have traditionally been taught in New Zealand schools - which we have referred to at times using the phrase 'Western science'." https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2021/07/national-mp-paul-goldsmith-questions-bid-to-put-m-ori-knowledge-on-par-with-western-science-in-schools.html https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2021/07/national-mp-...
Traster 5y ago
Yeah, it seems step 1 is scream "I'm under attack" step 2 is people point out you aren't, and step 3 is to use step 2 to prove that you're under attack.
MadeThisToReply 5y ago
That's really interesting and tells me that I need to do more research into this case before forming an opinion. (Don't I always?) Thanks for sharing.
ryan93 5y ago
That link you provide does not give any examples of how maori knowledge contributes anything valuable for science students.
- pstuart 5y ago
  > The sentence quoted in the Listener letter as proof of the need to ‘defend’ science was from a section I largely wrote about the strand of the Pūtaiao curriculum that did not have a direct equivalent in the NZC Science learning area, on the history and philosophy of science. The sentence quoted was part of a description of the possible scope of studies of socioscientific issues, from a Māori perspective, by senior secondary students of Pūtaiao.
- orwin 5y ago
  It does not, it's about history. If you want to link it to science, its ethic and epistemology, or philosophy? Not STEM at least. That's why the comment is interesting, it is the same stuff than "woke people against classic letters at Princeton!!!1!". I seem to fall for it each time, then research (or in this case, read comments!) about context, and then i'm disappointed in myself, two years ago this would've tingled my bullshit senses, nowaday i fall almost every time. I should stop working for a bank
throwawayay02 5y ago
I'm sorry but I cannot take seriously anything "social scientists" say on a range of make believe topics, as harsh as it sounds. Nowadays there are many such make believe topics, and Mātauranga Māori appears to be one of them. I've seen it countless times in departments of folk religions, fat studies, intersectionality of everything imaginable, etc. In New Zeland "Maori studies" seem to be the soup du jour but I doubt anyone sane respects that and expects them to sit on the big boys table of exact sciences, outside of Twitter perhaps. On the other hand having common sense seems increasingly a dangerous trait.
benchaney 5y ago
>Or did some scientists take something out of context and misunderstand it, then scream that they were being cancelled when other academics expressed disagreement with their ideas? This is an outrageously dishonest way to frame the issue given that the scientist is facing disciplinary action. Unrelated to that, I find it somewhat frustrating how difficult it is to find the text of the original working group proposal. That seems quite important since the substantive disagreement seems to be about what it says.
_vertigo 5y ago
Let's say the guy did take her out of context and use the issue because it fits his hobby horse. Why is the appropriate response to someone taking you out of context opening an official inquiry into his behavior? Miscommunication happens all of the time, why are they forming an investigative panel? >Or did some scientists take something out of context and misunderstand it, then scream that they were being cancelled when other academics expressed disagreement with their ideas? Well, wouldn't the existence of the panel lend some weight to their claims they are being cancelled? I mean really, what did the guy that was so bad that the university decided it needed to take disciplinary action? He published a letter, and it was a pretty respectful letter at that. Is he being investigated for taking someone out of context?
- spats1990 5y ago
  > and use the issue because it fits his hobby horse. I was talking about the columnist from the Spectator, not the scientist. > I mean really, what did the guy that was so bad that the university decided it needed to take disciplinary action? The university didn't take action (apart from the email from the VC, the full content of which we don't have to hand). It was the Royal Society of New Zealand that set up the panel. Totally different. I think your question here is answered by the text I quoted in my earlier post: "To respond as fearfully as these seven professors, from the top science university in the country, to a single sentence that suggests taking a critical look at the involvement of science in colonisation of Māori, does the public face of science no favours at all. This failure in terms of academic standards explains the strong criticism of the letter that was expressed by the Royal Society as well as many leading scientists and academics." edit: >Is he being investigated for taking someone out of context? I see what you are getting at, but I think the issue is more that the letter publicly misrepresented something in a way that was in itself not scientific. I'll have to think about it, but I'm leaning toward thinking the Spectator columnist, at least, is badly misrepresenting what has happened. Beyond that I actually don't really have strong feelings about this yet because it's honestly the first I've heard of it, even though I live in NZ.
  - _vertigo 5y ago
    not sure what the difference is, royal society vs not. According to news reports they face expulsion from the royal society. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newsroom.co.nz/royal-society-investigation-into-matauranga-maori-letter-sparks-academic-debate%3famp=1 https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newsroom.co.nz/royal-societ... How is that not being cancelled?
ZephyrBlu 5y ago
I'm also a New Zealander, and our politics seem very similar to UK/US politics to me.

somedangedname 5y ago

A statement from Jackie Talbot, an advisor to New Zealand's ministry of education, speaking about changes to qualifications attainable by NZ secondary school students: "'It traces back to 2019 when the Government agreed to strengthen NCEA, with a commitment to explicitly reflect and promote mana ōrite mō tē mātauranga Māori, or parity for Māori knowledge, within the main secondary school qualification. ... She said it means "making sure teachers are supported to design courses that include both what has become known as mātauranga pūtaiao and the scientific knowledge, skills and understandings that have traditionally been taught in New Zealand schools - which we have referred to at times using the phrase 'Western science'." https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2021/07/national-mp-paul-goldsmith-questions-bid-to-put-m-ori-knowledge-on-par-with-western-science-in-schools.html https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2021/07/national-mp-...

Traster 5y ago

Yeah, it seems step 1 is scream "I'm under attack" step 2 is people point out you aren't, and step 3 is to use step 2 to prove that you're under attack.

MadeThisToReply 5y ago

That's really interesting and tells me that I need to do more research into this case before forming an opinion. (Don't I always?) Thanks for sharing.

ryan93 5y ago

That link you provide does not give any examples of how maori knowledge contributes anything valuable for science students.

pstuart 5y ago
> The sentence quoted in the Listener letter as proof of the need to ‘defend’ science was from a section I largely wrote about the strand of the Pūtaiao curriculum that did not have a direct equivalent in the NZC Science learning area, on the history and philosophy of science. The sentence quoted was part of a description of the possible scope of studies of socioscientific issues, from a Māori perspective, by senior secondary students of Pūtaiao.
orwin 5y ago
It does not, it's about history. If you want to link it to science, its ethic and epistemology, or philosophy? Not STEM at least. That's why the comment is interesting, it is the same stuff than "woke people against classic letters at Princeton!!!1!". I seem to fall for it each time, then research (or in this case, read comments!) about context, and then i'm disappointed in myself, two years ago this would've tingled my bullshit senses, nowaday i fall almost every time. I should stop working for a bank

throwawayay02 5y ago

I'm sorry but I cannot take seriously anything "social scientists" say on a range of make believe topics, as harsh as it sounds. Nowadays there are many such make believe topics, and Mātauranga Māori appears to be one of them. I've seen it countless times in departments of folk religions, fat studies, intersectionality of everything imaginable, etc. In New Zeland "Maori studies" seem to be the soup du jour but I doubt anyone sane respects that and expects them to sit on the big boys table of exact sciences, outside of Twitter perhaps. On the other hand having common sense seems increasingly a dangerous trait.

benchaney 5y ago

>Or did some scientists take something out of context and misunderstand it, then scream that they were being cancelled when other academics expressed disagreement with their ideas? This is an outrageously dishonest way to frame the issue given that the scientist is facing disciplinary action. Unrelated to that, I find it somewhat frustrating how difficult it is to find the text of the original working group proposal. That seems quite important since the substantive disagreement seems to be about what it says.

_vertigo 5y ago

Let's say the guy did take her out of context and use the issue because it fits his hobby horse. Why is the appropriate response to someone taking you out of context opening an official inquiry into his behavior? Miscommunication happens all of the time, why are they forming an investigative panel? >Or did some scientists take something out of context and misunderstand it, then scream that they were being cancelled when other academics expressed disagreement with their ideas? Well, wouldn't the existence of the panel lend some weight to their claims they are being cancelled? I mean really, what did the guy that was so bad that the university decided it needed to take disciplinary action? He published a letter, and it was a pretty respectful letter at that. Is he being investigated for taking someone out of context?

spats1990 5y ago
> and use the issue because it fits his hobby horse. I was talking about the columnist from the Spectator, not the scientist. > I mean really, what did the guy that was so bad that the university decided it needed to take disciplinary action? The university didn't take action (apart from the email from the VC, the full content of which we don't have to hand). It was the Royal Society of New Zealand that set up the panel. Totally different. I think your question here is answered by the text I quoted in my earlier post: "To respond as fearfully as these seven professors, from the top science university in the country, to a single sentence that suggests taking a critical look at the involvement of science in colonisation of Māori, does the public face of science no favours at all. This failure in terms of academic standards explains the strong criticism of the letter that was expressed by the Royal Society as well as many leading scientists and academics." edit: >Is he being investigated for taking someone out of context? I see what you are getting at, but I think the issue is more that the letter publicly misrepresented something in a way that was in itself not scientific. I'll have to think about it, but I'm leaning toward thinking the Spectator columnist, at least, is badly misrepresenting what has happened. Beyond that I actually don't really have strong feelings about this yet because it's honestly the first I've heard of it, even though I live in NZ.
- _vertigo 5y ago
  not sure what the difference is, royal society vs not. According to news reports they face expulsion from the royal society. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newsroom.co.nz/royal-society-investigation-into-matauranga-maori-letter-sparks-academic-debate%3famp=1 https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newsroom.co.nz/royal-societ... How is that not being cancelled?

ZephyrBlu 5y ago

I'm also a New Zealander, and our politics seem very similar to UK/US politics to me.