Category: science education

Indigenous “ways of knowing” invade Canadian science classes

March 27, 2026 • 11:00 am

I’ve spent a lot of time pushed many electrons going after the fallacy in New Zealand that indigenous “ways of knowing”—in this case from the Māori—are just as valid as so-called “Western ways of knowing,” which is what Kiwi progressives call “science”. You can see my pieces here, but there are many.

This sacralization of the oppressed, whereby the beliefs of minorities are given extra credibility, has now spread to Canada, a pretty woke place.  Lawrence Krauss, who now lives in British Columbia, was astonished and depressed to find indigenous (Native American) superstitions treated as science in the secondary-school curriculum.

You can read his lament by clicking the screenshot below, or find the article archived here.

Quotes from Krauss’s piece are indented, and my comments are flush left. This battle apparently needs to be fought in every country where science, which is not “Western” but worldwide, has been diluted via the efforts of “progressives” who think they’re doing a good thing. They’re not: they are impeding the education of kids by conflating superstitions and established science.

Check out the links in the first paragraph:

I now live in British Columbia (B.C.). A colleague recently forwarded me the current B.C. high school science curriculum for grades nine and twelve. It includes an embarrassing amalgam of religious gobbledygook and anti-science rhetoric. It is an insult to school children in B.C. and does a disservice to the students of the province at a time when understanding the nature and process of science is becoming increasingly important to their competitive prospects in a world dominated by technology.

You may wonder how religious fundamentalism could so effectively creep into the curriculum in a progressive place like British Columbia. The answer is simple. The religious nonsense being inserted into the curriculum has nothing to do with Christian fundamentalism; rather, it is Indigenous religious nonsense. And in the current climate, Indigenous “knowledge” is held to a different standard from scientific knowledge—or, rather, to no standard at all.

. . . In the B.C. science curriculum for grade nine, this agenda is explicit. Students are expected to: “Apply First Peoples’ perspectives and knowledge, other ways of knowing, and local knowledge as sources of information.” “Ways of knowing” are defined as “the various beliefs about the nature of knowledge that people have; they can include, but are not limited to, Aboriginal, gender-related, subject/discipline specific, cultural, embodied and intuitive beliefs about knowledge.”

Here’s one example of how indigenous knowledge dilutes superstition. Like me and many others, Krauss has no problem in teaching this stuff as “social science or history”, but bridles at equating it with science:

For example, lesson three of the “BC Grade 9 Student Notes and Problems Workbook,” contains a section entitled “The Universe: Aboriginal Perspectives.” Over the course of two pages, the creation myths of various aboriginal peoples are described in detail, as “beautifully descriptive legends depicting the relationship between Earth and various celestial bodies.” Such subjects as the creation of the universe by a raven; the presence of water everywhere on Earth except on Vancouver Island; the eternal efforts of the Moon to get some of that water to drink; how and why a divine son and daughter team set out to make the Sun traverse the sky, while ensuring that it seems to stop in the middle of the day; how one of the jealous siblings turned into the Moon; how lunar eclipses occur when the spirit of Ling Cod tries to swallow the Moon; how one constellation of stars is the remnants of a giant bird that flew up from Earth; and how the celestial raven eventually released the Moon, stars, and Sun from boxes, in that order. These are quaint myths, and one can imagine how a reasonable science book might describe how we overcame these prehistoric notions to arrive at our modern understanding via the process of science. Instead, the conclusion at the end of this chapter reads, “These stories parallel the Big Bang Theory.”

The only answer to that is, “No they don’t.”  Krauss continues:

As if the insults to the process of science reflected in these curricular statements weren’t bad enough, when the workbook actually discusses science, it gets it all wrong. For example, the book states that, “Indications are that all galaxies are moving away from a central core area. Thus, the universe is said to be expanding.” In fact, the central premise of the Big Bang picture of our expanding universe is that there is simply no centre to the universe. The Universe is uniformly expanding but not from a single central point, but from everywhere. Elsewhere, the process that describes the power generation in stars is listed three times as nuclear fission. This is the opposite of the actual process, nuclear fusion, which explains how light nuclei combine to form heavier nuclei.

This is not surprising, for the people who tout indigenous knowledge as coequal with modern science often are not conversant with modern science. This is also true in New Zealand: advocates for native people simply look for parallels that can be used to say, “Look—indigenous people had a parallel but equally correct way of understanding the universe.” And the answer to that, too, is “No they didn’t.

The damage done to children’s education, and to science itself, are obvious, but summed up by Krauss at the end:

The understanding of the modern world is based on science and that understanding was built up, often at great cost, by overcoming myth and superstition. It is a giant leap backwards to cater to such superstitions in a misguided attempt to somehow pay back Indigenous peoples for historical wrongs. Students today had nothing to do with the sins of the past, and we owe it to them to teach them the best possible science we can. That means separating religious myths from science, and in the process actually trying to get the science straight. The B.C. science curriculum is a disgrace on both counts.

Amen.  I suspect the only reason this tactic hasn’t spread to Europe is that they have—with the exception of the Sámi of Scandinavia—almost no indigenous people to sacralize. But India has plenty, and already science is being diluted there by Hindu “ways of knowing”, including the government’s establishment of institutes tasked with revealing the scientific wonders of cows and their urine, dung, and milk. When I visited India on a lecture tour, I spent a long time listening to credible scientists beef about (sorry for the pun) the stupidity of the government’s dilution of science. Their complaint? “Where’s the beef?”, for despite a big government expenditure, there was little to show. That’s what happens when “scientists” are more or less ordered to come up with results wanted by others.

A call to expunge humanities from universities

August 10, 2025 • 11:45 am

The author of the article below kindly sent me a copy of his piece calling for separation of humanities instruction from that of science.  Such a tactic would even produce universities that taught one or the other but not both. The end result would be the death of universities offering a liberal education, and probably of humanities instruction as well.

This is a short but provocative read at The Dispatch, so click on the title below to read it. The author is Evan D. Morris, a Professor of Radiology Biomedical Imaging at Yale.

I’ve heard similar arguments from colleagues in the science, but I’m not sure I fully agree. The reason is that I had a fantastic liberal-arts education at The College of William & Mary in Virginia, an education that sparked a lifelong love of learning in the humanities, including literature, art, and philosophy (I am deficient in my knowledge of classical music). I am by no means a polymath or public intellectual, but I read tons of literature, go to art museums, and read a lot of philosophy for a scientist. I wouldn’t be doing that if I hadn’t studied these things in college.

Click below:

Morris’s main argument for separating science from the humanities is that the Trump administration is punishing science for the sins of people in the humanities, even if a few scientists do submit DEI-related grants.  Ergo, we should preserve science, with all its virtues, by keeping it away from humanities scholars. I put below some quotes, all indented (Morris was at the Heterodox Academy Conference in NYC a month ago):

The best argument I heard at the HxA conference in defense of the humanities in today’s university was: “We cannot afford to lose all of that important cancer research.” Come again? Translation: The humanities are going down and taking the rest of us—grant-funded scientists who focus on medical research or the physical sciences—with them. This begs the question: Do we scientists need them? Or, more to the point, must the fate of the sciences be tied to that of the humanities?

Since January of this year, the sciences have been hit with delays of some federal grants and cancellations of others; proposed reductions in indirect rate costs; and draconian budget cuts for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) going forward. Keep in mind, it is the humanities that have sinned: Why else would the Trump administration’s settlement with Columbia call for an internal review of Middle East programs or for adding new Jewish Studies faculty slots? But if the humanities have sinned, why has the government targeted the sciences for funding cuts? As Willie Sutton purportedly remarked when asked why he robbed banks: “Because that’s where the money is.” Most universities have divisions or departments of the humanities, social sciences, law, business, medicine, and hard sciences. But it is the latter two that bring in the bulk of federal dollars, in the form of NIH and National Science Foundation (NSF) grants.

. . . . Some will claim that scientists’ hands are not clean, that we endorse rampant DEI, that we misuse science funding for bizarre investigations. But such instances are a few fleas on the fur of a noble hound. We in the hard sciences do work that is largely apolitical, and we are more oriented toward much-needed objective evaluation of data and merit than many of our brethren in the humanities. Yet, the scientists, and all their life-giving and technology-producing work, are being punished for the sins of others because we all live under one roof. I cannot see a compelling reason for our continued cohabitation.

I can!  Well, I can so long as humanities are taught in a way to stimulate thinking rather than propagandize students. We all know that much of the humanities is morphing into ideological “studies” programs, but I still have confidence that somewhere in this great land English literature, music, and art are being taught in a way to stimulate students rather than propagandize them. Further, there is cross-pollination of the disciplines. Philosophy, for example (a “humanities” field) can help us straighten out our thinking about science (Dan Dennett is one example), while science can instill an attitude of doubt into studies of humanities, training students to meet assertions by saying, “How do you know that?”

I do, however, agree with Morris, as I did when I spoke at the conference, that the ends of science studies differ from those of much of the humanities:

 In the university, we also see a clash of cultures. Scientists at research universities run labs that are funded by government grants. To secure those grants, the scientist proposes a circumscribed set of experiments with verifiable (or more correctly, rejectable) hypotheses. Objective truth as it applies to such narrow lines of inquiry is attainable. But objective truth cannot be achieved in the humanities—nor is it the point. Professors in the humanities are trained in a completely different paradigm and culture. Writing about art or history or religion seems to elude any possibility of objectivity that is central to the scientific process. If you are a Calvinist, there may be only one proper way to read the Bible. But that is not the same as there being one objective meaning of the Bible for all of us.

There’s a lot more to be said about this, and I hope to say it in a longer written explication elsewhere.  I do agree that in most of the humanities (not all, for they include sociology and economics), the aim is not finding truths about the world, but to stimulate reflection and the realization of subjective “truths” (well, ways of thinking) that are specific to the reader, viewer, or listener. But those subjective truths are also important: imagine a world without novels, paintings, or music!  How can we teach liberal arts without such subjects?  Even Morris agrees with me here, but would reorganize universities to have the humanities taught by instructors:

Does this mean that scientists should strive to be illiterate or ahistorical? Of course not. We need to be able to read and write and absorb lessons from history and politics and ethics. But we don’t need to be part of a larger university to do so. For those topics that students need to learn but for which no scientist professor is prepared to teach, our Institute of Technology and Medicine can hire qualified instructors. But they need not be the world’s expert on Shakespeare or Poe to teach writing or English literature to undergrads. And for those polymathic students who want to learn their physics from a famous physicist and their Hobbes from a leading Hobbesian, there can still be such a thing as cross-registering at the nearby Institute of Humanities.

I disagree here.  First of all, as scientists we should strive not to unyoke ourselves from humanities, but to improve the teaching of humanities so that they become places of inspiration, stimulation, and arguments, even if there is no objective truth to be found (I have to add that we can learn how to view paintings, read novels, and listen to music from experts so that we get more out of them. Even if humanities can’t give us “objective truths”, they can show us what we’re missing.

This unyoking is really a recipe for the death of the humanities, for students, as my friend Luana is constantly reminding me, now go to college to get jobs, not to learn, and you can’t get good jobs if you’re a humanities major.  She doesn’t like this trend, but has always told me that this presages the death of liberal-arts colleges: one conclusion from Morris’s article. He ends this way:

We are at an inflection point in the public’s valuation of the academy. For good or ill, we  academics must each make our own best case for our continued existence and for whatever resources we seek from the public. There is an efficiency and a clarity that can come from unyoking the sciences from the humanities. Let the market of public opinion assess each discipline on its own merits and let the practitioners of each discipline be allowed to make their own case for their continued value. That seems only fair. I am confident I can make my most persuasive case for a university of science, engineering, and medicine, if the humanities are not housed under my roof.

Perhaps we shouldn’t be buying so blithely into “the market of public opinion”, but making the case for a liberal education.

Now I have considered that my opposition to this unyoking may derive from my own history: the fantastic education I got at the liberal-arts, teaching-specialized College of William & Mary. But I haven’t given up hope that this kind of education could still be proffered to students now.

However, maybe I’m naive and unrealistic.

The NSF goes full DEI

October 11, 2024 • 9:15 am

Well, I guess I was premature in announcing the death of DEI in academia. Although some DEI programs are being dismantled or reduced in universities, the ideology they espouse is just now filtering into federal science-granting agencies. The report below from the Free Press shows that the National Science Foundation (NSF) is using a lot of taxpayers’ money funding DEI-related projects infused not only with ideology, but with postmodernism and verbal contortion. They don’t seem to be projects designed to find out something about the real world, but to impose progressive ideology on the real world.

Click below to see the article, or find it archived here:

Some excerpts from the article, though a description of funded grants (also given) tells the tale:

If you thought the august National Science Foundation focused only on string theory or the origins of life, you haven’t spent much time in a university lab lately. Thanks to a major shift endorsed by the Biden administration, recent grants have gone to researchers seeking to identify “hegemonic narratives” and their effect on “non-normative forms of gender and sexuality,” plus “systematic racism” in the education of math teachers and “sex/gender narratives in undergraduate biology and their impacts on transgender, nonbinary, and gender nonconforming students.”

A new report from Republican members of the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation made available to The Free Press says that DEI considerations now profoundly shape NSF grant decisions.

. . . The report, titled “DEI: Division. Extremism. Ideology,” analyzed all National Science Foundation grants from 2021 through April 2024. More than 10 percent of those grants, totaling over $2 billion, prioritized attributes of the grant proposals other than their scientific quality, according to the report.

What’s more, that’s a feature—not a bug—of the new grant-making process. Biden’s 2021 Scientific Integrity Task Force released a report in January 2022, stating that “activities counter to [DEIA] values are disruptive to the conduct of science.”

“DEIA” expands the concept of diversity, equity, and inclusion to include “accessibility.”

Yes, it’s Republicans, but you’re not going to find “progressive” Democrats combing through the list of NSF awards to find “studies” proposals. (The search was done using “terms associated with social justice, gender, race, and individuals belonging to underrepresented groups”.) And yes, the report has a political agenda, but have a look at the grants that were funded as well as the amount of money devoted to that funding. These things can be checked.

So, here are some projects funded by American taxpayers to the tune of $2 billion. The report also notes that while these Social Justice grants constituted less than 1% of NSF grants in 2021, ballooned to constitute 27% of all grants between January and April of this year. The first grant is for more than a million bucks!

  • Shirin Vossoughi, an associate professor of learning sciences at Northwestern University, is co-principal investigator for a $1,034,751 2023 NSF grant for a project entitled “Reimagining Educator Learning Pathways Through Storywork for Racial Equity in STEM.” The project’s abstract says that current teaching practices reproduce “inequitable” structures in the teaching of STEM subjects and “perpetuate racial inequalities” within STEM contexts. Her public writing, such as in a co-authored 2020 op-ed, argues that all American institutions, including STEM education, are “permeated” by the “ideology of white supremacy.” Vossoughi could not immediately be reached for comment.
  • A 2023 NSF grant for $323,684 to Stephen Secules, assistant professor in the College of Education & Computing at Florida International University, intends to “transform engineering classrooms towards racial equity.” Secules has also been critical of the fact that “engineering professors are not engaging as active change agents for racial equity.” Secules could not be reached for comment.
  • The NSF provided a total of $569,851 split among Florida International University, Colorado State University, and University of Minnesota for a project to examine “sex/gender narratives in undergraduate biology and their impacts on transgender, nonbinary, and gender nonconforming students.”
  • And the University of Georgia received $644,642 to “identify systemic racism in mathematics teacher education.”

Asked for comment, the NSF said this:

An NSF spokesperson did not specifically address the committee’s report when I reached out. But they said the “NSF’s merit review process has two criteria—intellectual merit and broader impacts—and is the global gold standard for evaluating scientific proposals.” Their statement continued, “NSF will continue to emphasize the importance of the broader impacts criterion in the merit review process.”

And indeed, those “broader impacts,” which used to explain how one’s project would improve public understanding of science, have now been broadened to include “diversity” and “STEM engagement.”  What has happened in all four grants above is that these two “broader impacts” have merged to become the main subject of the grant. What we have above is sociology mixed with ideology to advance (not simply to “investigate”) Social Justice. For example, the last project, apparently aimed at identifying “systemic racism in mathematics teacher education” will no doubt SNIFF OUT that systemic racism. It just wouldn’t do it, as is likely, if the results (and the PI’s report) said “we looked for systemic racism in this area and didn’t find much.”

Clearly, the NSF has expanded its mission from fostering public understanding and adoption of science to fostering Social Justice.

Let us remember that the Dispenser of Grants is called the National Science Foundation. What we have above could be construed as science education, but it’s education of a peculiar sort: designed to ensure that science education is forced into the Procrustean Be of “progressive” ideology.  And that, I suspect, is two billion dollars that could have been used to do real science, or even to improve science education in a non-ideological way. But instead the money seems to have gone into the dumpster. Is it any surprise that three of the five awardees, when contacted by the Free Press, “could not be reached for comment”?

An ideologically-based and misleading critique of how modern genetics is taught

October 10, 2024 • 9:30 am

Over at sapiens.org, an anthropology magazine, author Elaine Guevara (a lecturer in evolutionary anthropology at Duke) takes modern genetics education to task.  Making a number of assertions about what students from high school to college learn in their genetics courses, Guevara claims that this type of education imparts “zombie ideas”: outdated but perpetually revived notions that prop up biological racism.  Her main topic is race, and she does offer some insights that modern genetics has given us about differences between geographic populations (I prefer to use “populations” rather than “races”), but these insights have been known for a long time. By failing to tell us that the errors earlier biologists have made about race have been refined and, to a large degree, dispelled, Guevara is herself deficient in describing the state of modern genetics.

Click the screenshot to read:

Guevara makes several accusations that, I think, are misleading. I’ll group her misleading conclusions under bold headings (the wording of those is mine). Quotes from her paper, or my paper with Luana Maroja, are indented and identified

1.) Human populations are not as different as we think, and the concept of “race” is incorrect: classical “races” are not genetically distinguishable. Guevara first cites a famous 1972 paper by my Ph.D. advisor, Richard Lewontin, “The Apportionment of Human Diversity“. The paper looked at genetic variation of 17 proteins detected by gel electrophoresis, apportioning the worldwide variation of proteins among individuals within a population, among populations within a classical “race”, and then between seven “races”. He found that of the total genetic variation seen worldwide, 85% occurred among individuals within one geographic population, 8% among populations within a race, and only 6% was found among races.

Thus races were not as genetically different as some people assumed. Lewontin concluded this (bolding is mine):

It is clear that our perception of relatively large differences between human races and subgroups [JAC: note that Lewontin’s “subgroups” correspond to what I would call “populations’], as compared to the variation within these groups, is indeed a biased perception and that, based on randonly chosen genetic differences, human races and populations are remarkably similar to each other, with the largest part by far of human variation being accounted for by the differences between individuals.

Human racial classification is of no social value and is positively destructive of social and human relations. Since such racial classification is now seen to be of virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance either, no justification can be offered for its continuance.

The first paragraph is correct. Later studies using better methods (DNA) have shown that yes, the apportionment of human diversity shows most of it within populations and only a fraction among populations or among “races”.  The classical view that races like “Caucasion”, “Asian” or “Black” showed large and diagnostic genetic differences at single genes was wrong

But the second paragraph is wrong, too, because Lewontin did not raise the possibility (as I’m sure he realized) that small differences among populations (or the groups of populations that constitute classical “races”) can, taken across many, many genes, add up to significant statistical and biological differences. The failure to recognize the power of using genetic data from many genes (we have three billion DNA nucleotides in our genome) is called “Lewontin’s fallacy.” This fallacy was pointed out in 2003 by A.W.F. Edwards and has its own Wikipedia page.

The power of using many genes instead of just an unweighted average of data from individual genes is shown by several things, as Luana Maroja and I pointed out in our paper published in Skeptical Inquirer last year. For one thing, if there were no meaningful genetic differences between populations, you couldn’t use genetic differences to diagnose someone’s ancestry. Yet you can, and with remarkable accuracy, as anyone knows who is aware of their family history and has taken a genetic test like those offered by 23andMe.  My test showed that I have complete Eastern European ancestry, with 98% of it from Ashkenazi Jews, which comports with what I know of my family history. (I also have a small percentage of genes from Neanderthals.)

Now this tells you the area of the world—the population—from which your ancestors probably came.  It doesn’t deal with “races” as classically defined. Yet a multiple-gene analysis using four races that Americans themselves use in self-identification (African-American, white, east Asian, or Hispanic) can indeed be diagnosed with remarkable accuracy. As Luana and I said in our paper (I’ve bolded the money quote):

Even the old and outmoded view of race is not devoid of biological meaning. A group of researchers compared a broad sample of genes in over 3,600 individuals who self-identified as either African American, white, East Asian, or Hispanic. DNA analysis showed that these groups fell into genetic clusters, and there was a 99.84 percent match between which cluster someone fell into and their self-designated racial classification. This surely shows that even the old concept of race is not “without biological meaning.” But that’s not surprising because, given restricted movement in the past, human populations evolved largely in geographic isolation from one another—apart from “Hispanic,” a recently admixed population never considered a race. As any evolutionary biologist knows, geographically isolated populations become genetically differentiated over time, and this is why we can use genes to make good guesses about where populations come from.

And this:

More recent work, taking advantage of our ability to easily sequence whole genomes, confirms a high concordance between self-identified race and genetic groupings. One study of twenty-three ethnic groups found that they fell into seven broad “race/ethnicity” clusters, each associated with a different area of the world. On a finer scale, genetic analysis of Europeans show that, remarkably, a map of their genetic constitutions coincides almost perfectly with the map of Europe itself. In fact, the DNA of most Europeans can narrow down their birthplace to within roughly 500 miles. [See below for the European data.]

You can also identify the “classical” races used in self-identification using some morphological traits. As we wrote:

But you don’t even need DNA sequences to predict ethnicities quite accurately. Physical traits can sometimes do the job: AI programs can, for instance, predict self-reported race quite accurately from just X-ray scans of the chest.

Population differences summed across genes can tell us more, too:

On a broader scale, genetic analysis of worldwide populations has allowed us to not only trace the history of human expansions out of Africa (there were several), but to assign dates to when H. sapiens colonized different areas of the world. This has been made easier with recent techniques for sequencing human “fossil DNA.” On top of that, we have fossil DNA from groups such as Denisovans and Neanderthals, which, in conjunction with modern data, tells us these now-extinct groups bred in the past with the ancestors of “modern” Homo sapiens, producing at least some fertile offspring (most of us have some Neanderthal DNA in our genomes). Although archaeology and carbon dating have helped reconstruct the history of our species, these have largely been supplanted by sequencing the DNA of living and ancient humans.

Finally, there are nearly diagnostic differences between populations in genes that evolved in an adaptive way, like known genes for resistance to low oxygen, short stature or skin pigmentation. Here’s a figure from a 2015 Science paper by Sarah Tishkoff:

None of this would be possible if there were not significant genetic and biological differences between populations.  We did not maintain that there are always diagnostic differences between populations at single genes that can group them into races, but that there are statistical differences in frequencies of variable genes among populations that are biologically meaningful.  Nor did we claim that the classically-defined races are absolutely geographically distinct with little intermixing, or have nearly fixed differences in frequencies of variable genes. That’s not true, and all geneticists realize this now. (But note that even the classically defined “races” generally differ in gene frequencies and in some biological traits to an extent that they can be diagnosed.)

The reality is that we should be dealing with populations, and populations—roughly defined as geographically different groups of people that largely breed among themselves—show diagnostic genetic and morphological differences.

Yet Guevara misleads the reader by relying solely on Lewontin’s paper and neglecting all the work done since that showing that yes, there is diagnostic geographic variation among populations (note that Lewontin implied that the concept of “population” is about as meaningless as “race”). Here are cxcerpts from Guevara’s paper:

Lewontin published his calculations in a short paper in 1972 that ended with this definitive conclusion: “Since … racial classification is now seen to be of virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance either, no justification can be offered for its continuance.” His results have been replicated time and again over the last 50 years, as datasets have ballooned from a handful of proteins to hundreds of thousands of human genomes.

But despite huge strides in genetics research—leaving no doubt about the validity of Lewontin’s conclusions—genetics curricula taught in U.S. secondary and post-secondary schools still largely reflect a pre-1970s view.

This lag in curricula is more than a worry for those in the ivory tower. Increasingly, genomics plays a leading role in health care, criminal justice, and our sense of identity and connection to others. At the same time, scientific racism is on the rise, reaching more people than ever thanks to social media. Outdated education fails to dispel this disinformation.

Leaving “no doubt about the validity of Lewontin’s conclusions”?  Nope.  The apportionment of variation is without doubt, but not his conclusion that populations or races are without biological meaning.

None of the critiques of Lewontin’s paper, including Edwards’s famous clarification, are even mentioned by Guevara. And, in fact, I don’t know of any biologists in post-secondary genetics education who still teach the view that “Race and ethnicity are social constructs, without scientific or biological meaning.” (This is a quote from JAMA reproduced in the Coyne and Maroja paper. And perhaps some people teach this erroneous view, but no biologist that I know of.) That JAMA statement is completely misleading, as I hope I’ve shown above. The delineation and definition of classical races was itself misleading and often tied to racism in the past, but, as we see, even self-identified classical races can be diagnosed through genes or morphology, and generally do fall into clusters using analysis of multiple genes.

The last paragraph of Guevara’s quote above shows the ideological motivation behind her paper: we must dismiss the existence of biological races and genetic differences between populations because it emphasizes differences between humans, and thus could lead to ranking of human populations, and thence to racism.  But, as Ernst Mayr recognized, accepting differences does not mean you have to view groups as being morally or legally unequal. We give a quote by evolutionist Ernst May quote in our Skeptical Inquirer paper:

Equality in spite of evident non-identity is a somewhat sophisticated concept and requires a moral stature of which many individuals seem to be incapable. They rather deny human variability and equate equality with identity. Or they claim that the human species is exceptional in the organic world in that only morphological characters are controlled by genes and all other traits of the mind or character are due to “conditioning” or other non-genetic factors. … An ideology based on such obviously wrong premises can only lead to disaster. Its championship of human equality is based on a claim of identity. As soon as it is proved that the latter does not exist, the support of equality is likewise lost. (Mayr 1963)

Thus, the second conclusion of Guevara is wrong:

2.) “High genetic variation exists within geographic regions, and little variation distinguishes geographic regions.”

Well, that’s sort-of true, but, as we said, that “little variation among geographic regions” can, when added up, diagnose populations sufficiently to not only tell you your geographic ancestry, but also to reconstruct the evolutionary and migratory history of human populations. Guevara dismisses these ancestry tests, though she doesn’t tell us why they are wrong:

Helping the zombie persist, direct-to-consumer genetic tests, like those offered by 23andMe and AncestryDNA, can reinforce misconceptions about human variation. These services have become many people’s primary reference point for human genetics information. To be marketable, the companies must communicate their results in simple, familiar ways that also appear meaningful and reliable. This usually entails simplifying genetic ancestry to bright, high-contrast colors, pinned definitively to geographic regions.

And yet, at the same time, Guevara admires the same kind of data—genetic differences between living populations (as well as “ancient fossil DNA”)—as being of value:

In addition to genomes from living humans, DNA extracted from ancient humans over the past two decades has revealed incredible insights. Across time, past humans frequently migrated, mated with, or displaced people they encountered in other regions—resulting in a tangled tree of human ancestry. The ancient DNA results refute any notion of deep, separate roots for humans in different geographic regions.

Well, there are deep roots for some groups (the Neanderthal lineage, for example, separated form the lineage leading to modern humans about 400,000 years ago), and this comes from both fossil and DNA evidence.  The “tangled tree” may be correct in some ways (we did hybridize with Neanderthals, and other populations exchanged genes to different degrees), but it’s not tangled enough to completely efface the evolutionary history of human populations.

All this leads to a third misleading conclusion:

3) Races are social constructs. Any differences between races are largely caused by racism rather than genes. As Guevara says:

As laid out by a major professional association for biological anthropologists, race is a social reality that affects our biology. For the last several hundred years in the U.S. and other colonized lands, racism has influenced people’s access to nutritious food, education, economic opportunities, health care, safety, and more. As a consequence, and precisely because of the environmental influence on most traits, the social construction of race is a risk factor for many health conditions and outcomes, including maternal and infant mortality, asthma, and COVID-19 severity.

This again shows both an ideological motivation and a misleading conclusion. Even the classical biological races (and even more so worldwide populations) are NOT social constructs, but are associated with genetic, morphological, and adaptive differences.  If races are purely socially constructed, how could you tell them apart in the first place? You need some kind of genetic marker. In the case of racism in America, the differences between African-Americans and whites were “constructed” based on skin pigmentation, hair texture, and other traits—traits based on genetic differences. Those differences served to mark out which people were considered different, and then “inferior”, though, as I said, genetic differences among people say nothing about moral or legal equality. THAT is the lesson that needs to be imparted, not the falsity that there are no genetic differences among groups.

Now Guevara may be correct that the “social construct” view is the one taught, erroneously, in high school and college.  But she’s wrong in thinking that Lewontin’s paper supports that “social construct” view.  In fact, the social construct view is largely wrong, with some exceptions centered on the outmoded view of “classical races”, but it appears to dominate anthropology and the social sciences. Anybody holding that view for either populations or groups of geographically contiguous populations needs to read the Coyne and Maroja paper.

4). Humans aren’t peas.  According to Guevara, Mendel’s work on peas, as taught in school, buttresses scientific racism, too:

I, along with others, am concerned that this focus instills and reinforces a false pre-Lewontin view that humans, like Mendel’s peas, come in discrete types. In reality, early studies of peas and other inbred, domesticated species have little relevance for human genetics.

Indeed, it is of little relevance to human genetics, but I’m not aware of any teacher who describes Mendel’s work—which served to show how genes sort themselves out during reproduction—and uses it to conclude, “See, human races are as distinct as round and wrinkled peas.”

In the end, both races and populations of humans show genetic and evolved morphological differences—less than we thought, say, a hundred years ago—but differences that are still significant in useful ways. To say that races or populations are purely social constructs is simply wrong, and to use Lewontin’s paper to reinforce that conclusion is doubly wrong.

Now reader Lou Jost has argued that Lewontin couldn’t really mathematically partition genetic variation the way he did because Lewontin used the wrong method. Regardless, it’s clear that there is more genetic variation at a given locus within a population than between populations or the groups of populations once deemed “races”.  But in the end there is a tremendous amount of information of biological and evolutionary significance to be gained by adding up the small genetic differences we see between human populations.

To end, here’s a map of genetic variation among populations in Europe, showing how the genetic variation (grouped by principal components analysis) lines up nicely with the geographic variation in populations. That’s because genetic differences evolved between semi-isolated groups of people, and that is why we can tell with considerable accuracy where our ancestors came from

Paper: Gilbert et al. 2022

Geography (populations sampled are in black)

Genetics (grouping of individuals using two axes of a principal components analysis. Look how well the geography (identified by color above) matches the genetics!

 

NZ science fair project aims to prove the truth of an indigenous legend

July 8, 2024 • 9:25 am

This is one small example, but an important one, of how science in New Zealand is being corrupted by trying to comport it with the indigenous “way of knowing”, Mātauranga Māori (MM).

The article below, from the July 4 New Zealand Herald (the biggest newspaper in the country) describes a science fair in the town of Rotorua, highlighting one student project that “tests” whether they could “prove” that a legend might be true.  (There are other projects highlighting MM and indigenous knowledge.)

This was sent to me anonymously, for of course criticizing stuff like this in New Zealand could cost you your job and/or your reputation.  The indigenous people, their myths, and their “ways of knowing” are regarded as sacred and untouchable.

The story is that of the love story of Tūtānekai and Hinemoa, recounted in Grey’s ‘Polynesian Mythology’, first published in 1855. The legend involves a Māori man who wanted to run away with a woman, and lured her to an island in a lake by playing his flute:

Every night Tūtānekai sat on a high hill and played his flute, the wind carrying his music across the lake to Hinemoa’s home. But Hinemoa did not come. Her people had suspected her intention, and they had pulled all the canoes high up on the shore.

Every night Hinemoa heard the sound of her lover’s flute and wept because she could not go to him. Eventually she wondered if it be possible to swim across to Tūtānekai.

Hinemoa took six hollow gourds and fastened them to her body to buoy her up. The night was dark and the great lake cold. Her heart was beating with terror, but the flute played on. She stood on a rock by the shore and there she left her garments, entered the water and began to swim.

In the darkness she could see no land, having only Tūtānekai’s flute to guide her, and led by that sweet sound she arrived at last to the island.

At the place where she landed, she found a hot pool and went in to warm herself, for she was trembling with cold.

And all went well after that. I find it bizarre that a group of students wanted to test whether this was true, when what they were really testing whether it was possible. 

Click below to read:

Bolding is mine, and the excerpts from the article are indented:

A group of Rotorua children have used science to prove whether the basis of the legendary love story of Hinemoa and Tūtānekai is true.

They concluded it very well could be.

Te Arawa Lakes Trust’s Te Tūkohu Ngāwhā Mātauranga Māori Science and Design Fair is in its third year.

It aimed to celebrate the intersection of Mātauranga Māori (Māori knowledge) and science, and give students a platform to showcase innovative projects and designs.

There were 35 exhibits in its first year. Last year grew to about 40, and this year more than 100.

Topics covered five categories and ranged from projects focusing on water quality and rongoā (traditional Māori medicines) to investigating a legendary love story.

The latter involved a group from Te Rangihakahaka Centre for Science and Technology looking at the legend of star-crossed lovers Hinemoa and Tūtānekai.

[Rongoā involves not only herbal medicines, but prayer and massage.]

Note that the intent was to prove whether a legend was true, though this language could have been from the reporter and not the students. But the aim of the project was surely to find whether a Māori legend might actually be based on fact:

 

The story, told in the song Pokarekare Ana, is about how beautiful chief’s daughter, Hinemoa, fell in love with lower-ranked suitor, Tūtānekai, and swam across Lake Rotorua to be with him on Mokoia Island when she heard his flute calling to her.

The students decided to test whether she would have been able to hear the sound of his flute from across the water.

The group looked at how various conditions impacted on how loud the flute would have been and how it would have gotten louder as Hinemoa swam across Lake Rotorua.

With transmission loss expected between 30-40 decibels, it would have been soft at first: “a sound like wind in the trees”.

Conditions needed to be calm. No wind; glassy water; cold; overcast and no ripples.

Conclusion: “it would be audible”.

This, of course, depends on how loudly Tūtānekai was playing and whether conditions were right (which of course we cannot know), but I suppose if he was playing to attract his lady love, it would have been loud. (I saw the famous island when I was in Rotorua.)

But the problem with this is that it melds legend with science and, by so doing, mistakes the question “is the story not ruled out by analysis of sound?” with the question that science would ask: “what is the evidence that the story is true?”  And since the story is based solely on a legend transmitted orally and then written down by a European in a book on Polynesian mythology, it has low credibility from the outset.  There are of course dozens of such stories that could be analyzed to see if  bits of them are ruled out by what we know of physical reality, but saying that “they’re not” is not the same as “proving” them. In other words, the Bayesian priors for the truth of this myth were low at the outset, and the probability that this really happened is not substantially increased by analysis of flute sounds.

Further, there are dozens of Māori legends that could not have been true, like the claim that their Polynesian ancestors discovered Antarctica in the seventh century, and in a canoe made of human bones. (This claim is still being advanced by a group of Māori academics.) Maybe there should be a science-fair project seeing if a canoe made of human bones could even float!

There’s a bit more:

Te Arawa Lakes Trust environment officer Keeley Grantham said categories were broad, which meant there was an “amazing array” of projects.

. . .“We’re not just looking at Western science, we’re looking at mitigating environmental issues through a whole heap of different lenses, especially through our te ao Māori lens.

“And enabling kids to broaden their scope of knowledge and just really build upon what they already know and just continue networking and sharing their kaupapa with other tamariki and other people that work in this field.”

About 16 kura (schools) were involved and “at least” 250 children. Groups and individuals could take part.

We have the usual mischaracterization of science as “Western” (science is now worldwide), as opposed to another way of knowing:  “looking at things through our “te ao Māori lens.”  A translation of “te ao Māori“:

Te Ao Māori encompasses the holistic worldview of the Māori people, reflecting an interconnected relationship between the natural world, people, and spirituality. The values embedded within Te Ao Māori offer a framework that aligns seamlessly with collectivist ideals, fostering a sense of unity and shared purpose.

 Whoops, there’s some spirituality in there, as well as values. That is one problem with regarding MM as a “way of knowing”, as the empirical knowledge in it is inextricably bound up with legend, religion, ideology, ethics, and superstition. And this mixture of legend and empirical observation is precisely why the student project is misguided. For surely it was designed to give credibility to Māori legends and to MM.  Were I the teacher, I would have guided students away from projects like this, which simply misleads them about the nature of scientific investigation.

With this kind of stuff encouraged by teachers, is it any wonder that science in New Zealand is circling the drain? Trying to comport it with indigenous legend is simply going to confuse people and, perhaps, drive them out of going into what the article calls “Western” science.

**********

Translation of the other terms above, taken from the Māori dictionary (note that they’re presented in an English-language newspaper without explanation, and I’m guessing very few readers understand them):

kaupapa:  topic, policy, matter for discussion, plan, purpose, scheme, proposal, agenda, subject, programme, theme, issue, initiative.

tamariki:  children – normally used only in the plural.

 

A critique of Scientific American

May 8, 2024 • 10:00 am

If you’ve read this site for a while, you’ll know that I’ve documented the decline and fall of the magazine Scientific American (see all my posts here). Under the editorship of Laura Helmuth, the magazine has become increasingly woke. And by “woke”, I mean “neglecting science in favor of pushing a progressive ideology.”  One of the classic examples of this decline is a hit job that the magazine published on E. O. Wilson, accusing him of racism—along with other scientists like Charles Darwin and yes—wait for it—Gregor Mendel. A quote:

Wilson was hardly alone in his problematic beliefs. His predecessors—mathematician Karl Pearson, anthropologist Francis Galton, Charles Darwin, Gregor Mendel and others—also published works and spoke of theories fraught with racist ideas about distributions of health and illness in populations without any attention to the context in which these distributions occur.

Darwin, of course was an abolitionist, though he did share the view of his time that white people were in general superior. But the article doesn’t mention that, for it violates the dprogressive tendency to indict people of the past for not conforming to today’s beliefs. And if Gregor Mendel ever wrote a racist word, I don’t know about it!

The author, Monica McLemore, also took it upon herself to “problematize” the normal distribution of statistics. Check out the first two sentences, which are totally bogus:

First, the so-called normal distribution of statistics assumes that there are default humans who serve as the standard that the rest of us can be accurately measured against. The fact that we don’t adequately take into account differences between experimental and reference group determinants of risk and resilience, particularly in the health sciences, has been a hallmark of inadequate scientific methods based on theoretical underpinnings of a superior subject and an inferior one.

Oy! Several of us, all scientists, sent a defense of Wilson to the magazine as a response to McLemore’s piece, but our defense was summarily rejected.  There’s no “search for truth” in this magazine if your views contravene progressive “presentism”.

And here’s a list of ten articles pushing progressive ideology published within the single year of 2021 (if the links to the stories aren’t visible in the posts, click on the icon anyway). The first one is a gem:

1.) Bizarre acronym pecksniffery in Scientific American.Title: “Why the term ‘JEDI’ is problematic for describing programs that promote justice, diversity, equity, and Inclusion.”

2.) More bias in Scientific American, this time in a “news” article. Title: “New math research group reflects a schism in the field.”

3.) Scientific American again posting non-scientific political editorials.Title: “The anti-critical race theory movement will profoundly effect public education.“

4.) Scientific American (and math) go full woke.  Title: “Modern mathematics confronts its white, patriarchal past.”

5.) Scientific American: Denying evolution is white supremacy. Title: “Denial of evolution is a form of white supremacy.”

6.) Scientific American publishes misleading and distorted op-ed lauding Palestine and demonizing Israel, accompanied by a pro-Palestinian petition. Title: “Health care workers call for support of Palestinians.” (The title is still up but see #7 below)

7.) Scientific American withdraws anti-Semitic op-ed. Title of original article is above, but now a withdrawal appears (they vanished the text): “Editor’s Note: This article fell outside the scope of Scientific American and has been removed.”   Now, apparently, nothing falls outside the scope of the magazine!

8.) Scientific American: Religious or “spiritual” treatment of mental illness produces better outcomes. Title: “Psychiatry needs to get right with God.”

9.)  Scientific American: Transgender girls belong on girl’s sports teams. Title:  “Trans girls belong on girls’ sports teams.”

and one more for an even ten, as I’m not going to spend another minute doing this:

10.) Former Scientific American editor, writing in the magazine, suggests that science may find evidence for God using telescopes and other instruments. Title: “Can science rule out God?“

But I digress. The topic here is a long article published in the City Journal by James Meigs, documenting the downfall of the magazine as one example of a general degeneration of science journalism. Click to read:

Meigs begins with how Michael Shermer wrote a monthly “Skeptic” column in Sci Am for seventeen years, but they gave him his pink slip after he started criticizing the claim that abused children tend to grow up to become abusers themselves. Shermer then argued, unforgivably, that there’s been progress in racial relations, and in eliminating pollution and poverty, reprising the theme of several recent books by Steven Pinker. Apparently progressives frown on the idea that there’s been progress in anything.

Shermer tells his story in a Skeptic column called “Scientific American goes woke.” As he said,

My revised December column, titled “Kids These Days,” focused on the growing concern over Gen Z kids having significantly higher rates of depression and anxiety, which Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt attribute to “coddling” by helicopter parenting and the larger culture of safetyism.

Shortly after the December 2018 column I was given my walking papers, but was allowed one more farewell column in January, 2019. In it I noted that in accordance with (Herb) Stein’s Law—“Things that can’t go on forever won’t”—closed out my streak at 214 consecutive essays, my dream deferred to another day, which has now come in accordance to Davies’ Corollary to Stein’s Law—“Things that can’t go on forever can go on much longer than you think.”

Back to Meigs, who notes the decline of science journalism and its infusion with au courant ideology:

American journalism has never been very good at covering science. In fact, the mainstream press is generally a cheap date when it comes to stories about alternative medicine, UFO sightings, pop psychology, or various forms of junk science. For many years, that was one factor that made Scientific American’s rigorous reporting so vital. The New York Times, National Geographic, Smithsonian, and a few other mainstream publications also produced top-notch science coverage. Peer-reviewed academic journals aimed at specialists met a higher standard still. But over the past decade or so, the quality of science journalism—even at the top publications—has declined in a new and alarming way. Today’s journalistic failings don’t owe simply to lazy reporting or a weakness for sensationalism but to a sweeping and increasingly pervasive worldview.

This dogma sees Western values, and the United States in particular, as uniquely pernicious forces in world history. And, as exemplified by the anticapitalist tirades of climate activist Greta Thunberg, the movement features a deep eco-pessimism buoyed only by the distant hope of a collectivist green utopia.

Meigs indicts intersectionality, Critical Race Theory, queer studies, and postmodern notions of truth as factors in this decline.  Here are a few areas where Meigs argues that Scientific American failed after Laura Helmuth, who had sterling credentials, became editor of Sci Am in April, 2020.

Covid

 . . .  those difficult times represented a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for an ambitious science editor. Rarely in the magazine’s history had so many Americans urgently needed timely, sensible science reporting: Where did Covid come from? How is it transmitted? Was shutting down schools and businesses scientifically justified? What do we know about vaccines?

Scientific American did examine Covid from various angles, including an informative July 2020 cover story diagramming how the SARS-CoV-2 virus “sneaks inside human cells.” But the publication didn’t break much new ground in covering the pandemic. When it came to assessing growing evidence that Covid might have escaped from a laboratory, for example, SciAm got scooped by New York and Vanity Fair, publications known more for their coverage of politics and entertainment than of science.

The magazine apparently had no patience with the “lab leak” theory for the origin of the virus:

During the first two years of the pandemic, most mainstream media outlets barely mentioned the lab-leak debate. And when they did, they generally savaged both the idea and anyone who took it seriously. In March 2021, long after credible evidence emerged hinting at a laboratory origin for the virus, Scientific American published an article, “Lab-Leak Hypothesis Made It Harder for Scientists to Seek the Truth.” The piece compared the theory to the KGB’s disinformation campaign about the origin of HIV/AIDS and blamed lab-leak advocates for creating a poisonous climate around the issue: “The proliferation of xenophobic rhetoric has been linked to a striking increase in anti-Asian hate crimes. It has also led to a vilification of the [Wuhan Institute of Virology] and some of its Western collaborators, as well as partisan attempts to defund certain types of research (such as ‘gain of function’ research).”

The author faults Fauci for repressing information supporting this theory, but my pay grade isn’t high enough to judge whether that’s true.

Social Justice (the “JEDI” article is a gem, and note my self-aggrandizement)

At the same time, SciAm dramatically ramped up its social-justice coverage. The magazine would soon publish a flurry of articles with titles such as “Modern Mathematics Confronts Its White, Patriarchal Past” and “The Racist Roots of Fighting Obesity.” The death of the twentieth century’s most acclaimed biologist was the hook for “The Complicated Legacy of E. O. Wilson,” an opinion piece arguing that Wilson’s work was “based on racist ideas,” without quoting a single line from his large published canon. At least those pieces had some connection to scientific topics, though. In 2021, SciAm published an opinion essay, “Why the Term ‘JEDI’ Is Problematic for Describing Programs That Promote Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion.” The article’s five authors took issue with the effort by some social-justice advocates to create a cute new label while expanding the DEI acronym to include “Justice.” The Jedi knights of the Star Wars movies are “inappropriate mascots for social justice,” the authors argued, because they are “prone to (white) saviorism and toxically masculine approaches to conflict resolution (violent duels with phallic light sabers, gaslighting by means of ‘Jedi mind tricks,’ etc.).” What all this had to do with science was anyone’s guess.

Several prominent scientists took note of SciAm’s shift. “Scientific American is changing from a popular-science magazine into a social-justice-in-science magazine,” Jerry Coyne, a University of Chicago emeritus professor of ecology and evolution, wrote on his popular blog, “Why Evolution Is True.” He asked why the magazine had “changed its mission from publishing decent science pieces to flawed bits of ideology.”

“The old Scientific American that I subscribed to in college was all about the science,” University of New Mexico evolutionary psychologist Geoffrey Miller told me. “It was factual reporting on new ideas and findings from physics to psychology, with a clear writing style, excellent illustrations, and no obvious political agenda.” Miller says that he noticed a gradual change about 15 years ago, and then a “woke political bias that got more flagrant and irrational” over recent years. The leading U.S. science journals, Nature and Science, and the U.K.-based New Scientist made a similar pivot, he says. By the time Trump was elected in 2016, he says, “the Scientific American editors seem to have decided that fighting conservatives was more important than reporting on science.”

The magazine also broke with tradition and endorsed Joe Biden for President in 2020 (Nature, Science, and New Scientist did the same). Unless you can make a solid argument that one candidate will damage science more than another, this kind of advocacy violates the kind of “institutional neutrality” that should pervade science journals.

Gender issues  Meigs criticizes the magazine for being gung-ho for “affirmative therapy”:

In such an overheated environment, it would be helpful to have a journalistic outlet advocating a sober, evidence-based approach. In an earlier era, Scientific American might have been that voice. Unfortunately, SciAm today downplays messy debates about gender therapies, while offering sunny platitudes about the “safety and efficacy” of hormone treatments for prepubescent patients. For example, in a 2023 article, “What Are Puberty Blockers, and How Do They Work?,” the magazine repeats the unsubstantiated claim that such treatments are crucial to preventing suicide among gender-dysphoric children. “These medications are well studied and have been used safely since the late 1980s to pause puberty in adolescents with gender dysphoria,” SciAm states.

The independent journalist Jesse Singal, a longtime critic of slipshod science reporting, demolishes these misleading claims in a Substack post. In fact, the use of puberty blockers to treat gender dysphoria is a new and barely researched phenomenon, he notes: “[W]e have close to zero studies that have tracked gender dysphoric kids who went on blockers over significant lengths of time to see how they have fared.” Singal finds it especially alarming to see a leading science magazine obscure the uncertainty surrounding these treatments. “I believe that this will go down as a major journalistic blunder that will be looked back upon with embarrassment and regret,” he writes.

The truth will out, but not due to Scientific American!

It’s not just popular magazines about science that have been ideologically colonized, either. Technical cience and medical journals are going the same route; these include Science, Nature, Lancet, JAMA, New Scientist, and PNAS. The same is happening with scientific societies, which increasingly are becoming enclaves of progressive ideology, with keynote speeches, once devoted to science, now devoted to ideology.  This is what Luana Maroja and I meant when we concluded our Skeptical Inquirer paper on the ideological subversion of biology with these words:

Progressive ideology is growing stronger and intruding further into all areas of science. And because it’s “progressive,” and because most scientists are liberals, few of us dare oppose these restrictions on our freedom. Unless there is a change in the Zeitgeist, and unless scientists finally find the courage to speak up against the toxic effects of ideology on their field, in a few decades science will be very different from what it is now. Indeed, it’s doubtful that we’d recognize it as science at all.

When I wrote that last sentence, I thought it might be a wee bit hyperbolic, but now I’m not so sure. When scientists are forced to see nature through the lenses of progressive ideology, indicting Mendel for racism and renaming every animal whose popular name came from a person’s name, it doesn’t fool the public. They know that politics are warping science. The results are that the public loses trust in science—a trust based on the increasingly false assumption that scientists are objective researchers whose job is simply to figure out how nature works, not ideologues bent on twisting science to fit a progressive ideology. As Meigs notes:

 When scientists claim to represent a consensus about ideas that remain in dispute—or avoid certain topics entirely—those decisions filter down through the journalistic food chain. Findings that support the social-justice worldview get amplified in the media, while disapproved topics are excoriated as disinformation. Not only do scientists lose the opportunity to form a clearer picture of the world; the public does, too. At the same time, the public notices when claims made by health officials and other experts prove to be based more on politics than on science. A new Pew Research poll finds that the percentage of Americans who say that they have a “great deal” of trust in scientists has fallen from 39 percent in 2020 to 23 percent today.

That’s a drop in trust of over 40% in just four years.  The way to regain that trust, if it’s even possible now, is to stick to the truth, leaving out your politics.  Unfortunately, Scientific American and many other journals and magazines can’t refrain from injecting ideology into science.

h/t: Simon

A debate: should Mātauranga Māori (indigenous “ways of knowing”) be taught as science in New Zealand schools?

February 27, 2024 • 11:00 am

UPDATE:  Notice that one of the debate participants, David Lillis, has left a comment below.

********************

The NewsHub article below, reproduced on MSN, contains a short (10-minute debate) about whether and how Mātauranga Māori (Māori “ways of knowing) should be taught in public schools. The participants are Sir Ian Taylor (a half-Māori businessman and a proponent of teaching MM as science), and David Lillis. a statistician and physicist who’s been an opponent of teaching MM as equivalent to science, though he thinks it has a place in classes like sociology or history. I’ve written frequently about this debate, and you can see my many post here.

I’m in general on Lillis’s side, as Taylor seems to think that MM, which is really a mélange of practical (observational) knowledge, myth, morality, tradition, and superstition, is in effect “science”, with all the other supernatural or moral bits really being science in disguise.  You’ll see how he uses slippery language when implying that early Polynesians, who found their way across the Pacific via trial and error (eventually using guidelines), were really quite accomplished physicists. (How many voyagers died when they didn’t reach land?) Taylor:

“It was that indigenous knowledge that brought our Polynesian voyages, starting 3500 years out of Asia across the greatest expanse of open water on the planet. Now you do not cross the greatest stead of ocean water on the planet without science, technology, engineering and math.”

No, Sir Ian, you’re wrong.  The Polynesians were not scientists, engineers, or mathematicians: they were observant people and built good boats. But how much purchase do you get in math or physics class by pointing this out? True, it was a great accomplishment, but it wasn’t achieved via the toolkit we call “modern science.”  Taylor sees MM as “indigenous knowledge,” which isn’t exactly like modern science, but fits in alongside it. And a lot of MM isn’t knowledge at all.

Lillis advocates a modern “first rate” curriculum for NZ, and that includes a bit of MM; but notes that MM shouldn’t “saturate the curriculum,” which many Kiwis really think should happen.  He says that MM can be part of classes in “languages social studies, and history”, but not science.  The biased moderator (or maybe she’s just ignorant) interrupts Lillis twice, asking why indigenous knowledge isn’t science, and Lillis points out that indigenous knowledge is largely “observation, careful observation, and trial and error, and passing down of knowledge by word of mouth, which is necessarily limited, but I hear that there are scientific elements in traditional knowledge, including Mātauranga Māori.”

Again, Sir Ian claims that MM is science, although he denied that earlier. His goal of teaching MM as science is to excite (mostly Māori) students about STEM. He then lapses into what I see as virtue-flaunting gibberish.

Sir Ian avers that what he learned about science in school was “really boring.” But seems to me that the best way to overcome that is to teach modern science, including perhaps a bit of traditional knowledge, but also jazz up the science teaching in general.  The fact is, however, that some people will never be turned on by science, so you the goal of inspiring everyone is largely futile.

Finally, Lillis notes that mythology and religion should not be taught as science. He uses the example of the Māori myth of “snaring the sun,” which would confuse students if taught as science. But Sir Ian, slippery as ever, manages to claim that “snaring the sun” is really part of physics and that Māori mythology can be turned into the “Big Bang” found by modern physics. But why not just teach the Big Bang and the evidence for it rather than extract it from Māori myth?

Click either the headline below or the screenshot to go to the short debate. The moderator clearly seems to be on the side of Taylor, as she more or less must be in woke New Zealand.

Or click here to watch:

Here’s a transcript of part of the debate that shows how Taylor a rhetorical alchemist, miraculously transmutes MM into modern science:

Advocate for mātauranga Māori, Sir Ian Taylor joined AM on Tuesday morning and told the show he believes there are certainly lessons that can be learned.

“It was that indigenous knowledge that brought our Polynesian voyages, starting 3500 years out of Asia across the greatest expanse of open water on the planet. Now you do not cross the greatest stead of ocean water on the planet without science, technology, engineering and math,” Sir Ian told AM co-host Melissa Chan-Green.

Sir Ian said mātauranga falls into the category of science and pointed to a couple of examples. [JAC: I find these funny although bogus.]

“One of the examples we give is the apple always fell from the tree, that’s mātauranga, that’s indigenous knowledge. It became gravity when it landed on Isaac Newton’s head,” he said.

“The other example I’d give for the way kids are learning physics and maths from these stories, [is] the waka holder of the Tahitian sailors who went out and met Captain Cook as he arrived, kept going back because they thought his boat was broken because it was so slow.

“Well, actually it was Archimedes principle. The boat was slow because it had a big area in the water. It’s the displacement of water.”

We have a new and more moderate government in NZ now, in contrast to the Leftist one—mainly under Ardern and Hipkens—that inserted MM into all the schools. It remains to be seen whether the new Luxon government can stop the colonization of science by MM, and restore New Zealand’s slipping reputation for quality education.

h/t: Michael