https://lawrencekrauss.substack.com/p/there-is-only-one-way-of-knowing

Link

I like Lawrence’s science but I find his cultural views a bit much. He bangs on about wokeism and virtual signalling a lot lately.

remember when the specialist mathematics slash mathematics extension 2 syllabuses were still full of references to indigenous perspectives and everyone was like yeah they did complex numbers and integral calculus all the time back before invasion

It’s the vibe, it’s the mabo.

It’s a good article.

Next he’ll be saying there is an objective reality.

I wonders what that absolutist proposition means for development of Theory of Mind, how does a toddler initiate an interest and appreciation of self and others’ inner world, the home in the head, if formal science was the only way of knowing, such a view was ideologically imposed

transition said:

I wonders what that absolutist proposition means for development of Theory of Mind, how does a toddler initiate an interest and appreciation of self and others’ inner world, the home in the head, if formal science was the only way of knowing, such a view was ideologically imposed

Well it does specifically say that science is the only way of knowing about the natural world, which I think we could reasonably interpret as meaning the physical aspects of the natural world.

Broadly concur with the author but his statements are a little absolute. I would note that there certainly is the possibility that the sex or race of the scientists can influence the findings. Historically there was quite a bit of this in medicine/biology, social sciences, anthropology, psychology. Hopefully a bit less now.

SCIENCE said:

remember when the specialist mathematics slash mathematics extension 2 syllabuses were still full of references to indigenous perspectives and everyone was like yeah they did complex numbers and integral calculus all the time back before invasion

Everybody did some sort of maths. Every culture has something to contribute that can illustrate a mathematical point.

Kothos said:

SCIENCE said:

remember when the specialist mathematics slash mathematics extension 2 syllabuses were still full of references to indigenous perspectives and everyone was like yeah they did complex numbers and integral calculus all the time back before invasion

Everybody did some sort of maths. Every culture has something to contribute that can illustrate a mathematical point.

so explain the place of the indigenous contribution to complex analysis

SCIENCE said:

Kothos said:

SCIENCE said:

remember when the specialist mathematics slash mathematics extension 2 syllabuses were still full of references to indigenous perspectives and everyone was like yeah they did complex numbers and integral calculus all the time back before invasion

Everybody did some sort of maths. Every culture has something to contribute that can illustrate a mathematical point.

so explain the place of the indigenous contribution to complex analysis

I said maths, not complex analysis. If you want to move goal posts because you can’t sustain an argument go argue with imbeciles.

Science is and likely always will be trying to catch up with nature. Science and understanding nature is all about observation.

Kothos said:

SCIENCE said:

Kothos said:

Everybody did some sort of maths. Every culture has something to contribute that can illustrate a mathematical point.

so explain the place of the indigenous contribution to complex analysis

I said maths, not complex analysis. If you want to move goal posts because you can’t sustain an argument go argue with imbeciles.

these goalposts you mean or what

remember when the specialist mathematics slash mathematics extension 2 syllabuses were still full of references to indigenous perspectives and everyone was like yeah they did complex numbers and integral calculus all the time back before invasion

the fuck

SCIENCE said:

Kothos said:

SCIENCE said:

so explain the place of the indigenous contribution to complex analysis

I said maths, not complex analysis. If you want to move goal posts because you can’t sustain an argument go argue with imbeciles.

these goalposts you mean or what

remember when the specialist mathematics slash mathematics extension 2 syllabuses were still full of references to indigenous perspectives and everyone was like yeah they did complex numbers and integral calculus all the time back before invasion

the fuck

I have no idea what you’re on about but you seem to have a racist agenda.

Kothos said:

SCIENCE said:

remember when the specialist mathematics slash mathematics extension 2 syllabuses were still full of references to indigenous perspectives and everyone was like yeah they did complex numbers and integral calculus all the time back before invasion

Everybody did some sort of maths. Every culture has something to contribute that can illustrate a mathematical point.

Indeed. After the Meso-American concept of a tangible zero – nothing as something- was introduced to Europeans only decades later Newton and Leibniz invented calculus.

SCIENCE said:

Kothos said:

SCIENCE said:

remember when the specialist mathematics slash mathematics extension 2 syllabuses were still full of references to indigenous perspectives and everyone was like yeah they did complex numbers and integral calculus all the time back before invasion

Everybody did some sort of maths. Every culture has something to contribute that can illustrate a mathematical point.

so explain the place of the indigenous contribution to complex analysis

There are many great resources to understand the many ways that explore the ways in which Indigenous contributions engage, explore and innovate in the arena of complex analysis.

One PhD is written by Dr Tyson Yunkaporta, and you can can download it for free here. Yunkaporta, Tyson (2009) Aboriginal pedagogies at the cultural interface. Professional Doctorate (Research) thesis, James Cook University.

His book Sandtalk is also worth a read.

Another is written by Dr Martin Nakata and it is called ‘Disciplining the Savages, Savaging the Disciplines’. Highly recommended!

Trauma Trails : Recreating Song Lines Recreating Song Lines by Dr Judy Atkinson. There’s a group of Australian mental health professionals that attend every conference presentation that she does as her complex analysis really does take some time to wrap your head around.

If you get a chance to yarn with Miriam-Rose Ungunmerr. She’s an understated person who will help you form new neural pathways whilst learning a great deal of complexity.

There’s so many Indigneous contributions of complex analysis across so many disciplines.

And non-Indigenous folks who have documented how that complexity looked.
Bill Gammage’s The Biggest Estate on Earth How Aborigines Made Australia is really worth a read to see how that complexity of analysis looked like historically.

Witty Rejoinder said:

Kothos said:

SCIENCE said:

remember when the specialist mathematics slash mathematics extension 2 syllabuses were still full of references to indigenous perspectives and everyone was like yeah they did complex numbers and integral calculus all the time back before invasion

Everybody did some sort of maths. Every culture has something to contribute that can illustrate a mathematical point.

Indeed. After the Meso-American concept of a tangible zero – nothing as something- was introduced to Europeans only decades later Newton and Leibniz invented calculus.

The internet tells me that the concept of zero came from India around 458 AD.

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

I wonders what that absolutist proposition means for development of Theory of Mind, how does a toddler initiate an interest and appreciation of self and others’ inner world, the home in the head, if formal science was the only way of knowing, such a view was ideologically imposed

Well it does specifically say that science is the only way of knowing about the natural world, which I think we could reasonably interpret as meaning the physical aspects of the natural world.

yeah guess it all comes down to what you attribute knowing to be, how it happens

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

I wonders what that absolutist proposition means for development of Theory of Mind, how does a toddler initiate an interest and appreciation of self and others’ inner world, the home in the head, if formal science was the only way of knowing, such a view was ideologically imposed

Well it does specifically say that science is the only way of knowing about the natural world, which I think we could reasonably interpret as meaning the physical aspects of the natural world.

yeah guess it all comes down to what you attribute knowing to be, how it happens

I don’t know.

But I do think it is reasonable that science lessons should focus on science.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Kothos said:

Everybody did some sort of maths. Every culture has something to contribute that can illustrate a mathematical point.

Indeed. After the Meso-American concept of a tangible zero – nothing as something- was introduced to Europeans only decades later Newton and Leibniz invented calculus.

The internet tells me that the concept of zero came from India around 458 AD.

That was with regards place value IIRC.

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Well it does specifically say that science is the only way of knowing about the natural world, which I think we could reasonably interpret as meaning the physical aspects of the natural world.

yeah guess it all comes down to what you attribute knowing to be, how it happens

I don’t know.

But I do think it is reasonable that science lessons should focus on science.

hardly a philosophy lesson is it, using the word science that way

Pretending that indigenous people were all over Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics does nobody any good.
They weren’t and drawing really long bows and making stuff up doesn’t help anybody.

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

yeah guess it all comes down to what you attribute knowing to be, how it happens

I don’t know.

But I do think it is reasonable that science lessons should focus on science.

hardly a philosophy lesson is it, using the word science that way

Did anyone suggest it was?

Witty Rejoinder said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Indeed. After the Meso-American concept of a tangible zero – nothing as something- was introduced to Europeans only decades later Newton and Leibniz invented calculus.

The internet tells me that the concept of zero came from India around 458 AD.

That was with regards place value IIRC.

On that I have no idea; don’t even know what that means.

I don’t see the significance of zero to calculus either.

Peak Warming Man said:

Pretending that indigenous people were all over Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics does nobody any good.
They weren’t and drawing really long bows and making stuff up doesn’t help anybody.

Indeed, I might even have said that that sort of stuff is actually pretty condescending, if it hadn’t involved agreeing with PWM.

Peak Warming Man said:

Pretending that indigenous people were all over Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics does nobody any good.
They weren’t and drawing really long bows and making stuff up doesn’t help anybody.

Indeed, I might even have said that that sort of stuff is actually pretty condescending, if it hadn’t involved agreeing with PWM.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Pretending that indigenous people were all over Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics does nobody any good.
They weren’t and drawing really long bows and making stuff up doesn’t help anybody.

Indeed, I might even have said that that sort of stuff is actually pretty condescending, if it hadn’t involved agreeing with PWM.

Damn, now I’ve gone and agreed with him twice.

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I don’t know.

But I do think it is reasonable that science lessons should focus on science.

hardly a philosophy lesson is it, using the word science that way

Did anyone suggest it was?

science should focus on science, sort of a word repeat plus focus, bit like 1+1 = 1

The Rev Dodgson said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Kothos said:

Everybody did some sort of maths. Every culture has something to contribute that can illustrate a mathematical point.

Indeed. After the Meso-American concept of a tangible zero – nothing as something- was introduced to Europeans only decades later Newton and Leibniz invented calculus.

The internet tells me that the concept of zero came from India around 458 AD.

Possibly China. It’s hard to tell.

Peak Warming Man said:

Pretending that indigenous people were all over Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics does nobody any good.
They weren’t and drawing really long bows and making stuff up doesn’t help anybody.

There is no pretence. And nobody was ever all over it. We’re not all over it now. Insisting on these strawman absolutes indicates you are probably supporting an agenda because what you really want is to be racist.

Every culture did some sort of maths. Recognising that is useful, especially when teaching kids from those cultures. That is all.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Kothos said:

Everybody did some sort of maths. Every culture has something to contribute that can illustrate a mathematical point.

Indeed. After the Meso-American concept of a tangible zero – nothing as something- was introduced to Europeans only decades later Newton and Leibniz invented calculus.

The internet tells me that the concept of zero came from India around 458 AD.

Just as a beside, Indigenous people, especially hunter/gatherers had little need of mathematics or even quantities of 5 or more. Such expressions as many, few or one usually conveyed all the information they needed. However, when it came to the things that were important to them like food, they knew not just the animals and plants, but everything about them as to where they lived, when most plentiful, how to catch or harvest and how to prepare them for dinner. Whereas science listed the size and type of the physical body and the general distribution, so they could describe and then scientifically list them, not for their survival, but for adding to a list of known items.

Therefore, the intention of one group was to list in the name of science, whilst with the other group, the knowledge was a means of survival and knowing country. The knowledge of both groups were important for our greater understanding, yet we have historically placed far more importance on the “science” than knowledge of the living animal in context to its environment, although in recent years they have grown closer together yet still the indigenous understanding is usually under recognised.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

The internet tells me that the concept of zero came from India around 458 AD.

That was with regards place value IIRC.

On that I have no idea; don’t even know what that means.

I don’t see the significance of zero to calculus either.

I think it’s easier to do any kind of maths on a base-n number system. Many fields might not have been discovered if we weren’t counting on decimal.

Peak Warming Man said:

Pretending that indigenous people were all over Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics does nobody any good.
They weren’t and drawing really long bows and making stuff up doesn’t help anybody.

+1

Kothos said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Pretending that indigenous people were all over Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics does nobody any good.
They weren’t and drawing really long bows and making stuff up doesn’t help anybody.

There is no pretence. And nobody was ever all over it. We’re not all over it now. Insisting on these strawman absolutes indicates you are probably supporting an agenda because what you really want is to be racist.

Every culture did some sort of maths. Recognising that is useful, especially when teaching kids from those cultures. That is all.

I knew someone would probably call me a racist for that post.

Peak Warming Man said:

Pretending that indigenous people were all over Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics does nobody any good.
They weren’t and drawing really long bows and making stuff up doesn’t help anybody.

Even drawing a long bow involves all of the above.

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

hardly a philosophy lesson is it, using the word science that way

Did anyone suggest it was?

science should focus on science, sort of a word repeat plus focus, bit like 1+1 = 1

Not really.

PermeateFree said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Indeed. After the Meso-American concept of a tangible zero – nothing as something- was introduced to Europeans only decades later Newton and Leibniz invented calculus.

The internet tells me that the concept of zero came from India around 458 AD.

Just as a beside, Indigenous people, especially hunter/gatherers had little need of mathematics or even quantities of 5 or more. Such expressions as many, few or one usually conveyed all the information they needed. However, when it came to the things that were important to them like food, they knew not just the animals and plants, but everything about them as to where they lived, when most plentiful, how to catch or harvest and how to prepare them for dinner. Whereas science listed the size and type of the physical body and the general distribution, so they could describe and then scientifically list them, not for their survival, but for adding to a list of known items.

Therefore, the intention of one group was to list in the name of science, whilst with the other group, the knowledge was a means of survival and knowing country. The knowledge of both groups were important for our greater understanding, yet we have historically placed far more importance on the “science” than knowledge of the living animal in context to its environment, although in recent years they have grown closer together yet still the indigenous understanding is usually under recognised.

What you’re calling science and what you’re calling survival knowledge are pretty much the same thing and developed for the same purpose. They both said human survival.

And maths isn’t just counting things. It’s also measuring things, creating things such as structures or tools, and knowing relationships between things.

Peak Warming Man said:

Kothos said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Pretending that indigenous people were all over Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics does nobody any good.
They weren’t and drawing really long bows and making stuff up doesn’t help anybody.

There is no pretence. And nobody was ever all over it. We’re not all over it now. Insisting on these strawman absolutes indicates you are probably supporting an agenda because what you really want is to be racist.

Every culture did some sort of maths. Recognising that is useful, especially when teaching kids from those cultures. That is all.

I knew someone would probably call me a racist for that post.

I suppose congratulations are in order. Since you’ve outed yourself as a wilful racist rather than an accidental one.

Kothos said:

PermeateFree said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

The internet tells me that the concept of zero came from India around 458 AD.

Just as a beside, Indigenous people, especially hunter/gatherers had little need of mathematics or even quantities of 5 or more. Such expressions as many, few or one usually conveyed all the information they needed. However, when it came to the things that were important to them like food, they knew not just the animals and plants, but everything about them as to where they lived, when most plentiful, how to catch or harvest and how to prepare them for dinner. Whereas science listed the size and type of the physical body and the general distribution, so they could describe and then scientifically list them, not for their survival, but for adding to a list of known items.

Therefore, the intention of one group was to list in the name of science, whilst with the other group, the knowledge was a means of survival and knowing country. The knowledge of both groups were important for our greater understanding, yet we have historically placed far more importance on the “science” than knowledge of the living animal in context to its environment, although in recent years they have grown closer together yet still the indigenous understanding is usually under recognised.

What you’re calling science and what you’re calling survival knowledge are pretty much the same thing and developed for the same purpose. They both said human survival.

And maths isn’t just counting things. It’s also measuring things, creating things such as structures or tools, and knowing relationships between things.

Yes our science and hunter/gatherer science are very much the same thing, but both groups have different interests in the knowledge and to judge one against the other serves no purpose as you are judging apples with oranges. Historically, people (usually men) considered their science to be far superior, and Aboriginal knowledge was largely disregarded. This is the educated arrogance of the civilised who consider whatever they think or do is the best and uncivilised Aborigines would know nothing, an attitude that is slow to die and still persists to this very day.

Kothos said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Kothos said:

There is no pretence. And nobody was ever all over it. We’re not all over it now. Insisting on these strawman absolutes indicates you are probably supporting an agenda because what you really want is to be racist.

Every culture did some sort of maths. Recognising that is useful, especially when teaching kids from those cultures. That is all.

I knew someone would probably call me a racist for that post.

I suppose congratulations are in order. Since you’ve outed yourself as a wilful racist rather than an accidental one.

Actually you are coming across as more racist than PWM this evening.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Kothos said:

Peak Warming Man said:

I knew someone would probably call me a racist for that post.

I suppose congratulations are in order. Since you’ve outed yourself as a wilful racist rather than an accidental one.

Actually you are coming across as more racist than PWM this evening.

somehow I wouldn’t trust your judgement of kothos after yesterday’s postings. you’re not too good at it.

ChrispenEvan said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Kothos said:

I suppose congratulations are in order. Since you’ve outed yourself as a wilful racist rather than an accidental one.

Actually you are coming across as more racist than PWM this evening.

somehow I wouldn’t trust your judgement of kothos after yesterday’s postings. you’re not too good at it.

I wasn’t making a judgement of kothos; I said how he was coming across.

I doubt it was his intention to come across that way.

The Rev Dodgson said:

The internet tells me that the concept of zero came from India around 458 AD.

Oh, sweet, sweet nothin’
She ain’t got, she ain’t got
She ain’t got nothin’ at all
Sweet, sweet, sweet, sweet nothin’

Ian said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

The internet tells me that the concept of zero came from India around 458 AD.

Oh, sweet, sweet nothin’
She ain’t got, she ain’t got
She ain’t got nothin’ at all
Sweet, sweet, sweet, sweet nothin’

Nothing ain’t worth nothing bus it’s free.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Ian said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

The internet tells me that the concept of zero came from India around 458 AD.

Oh, sweet, sweet nothin’
She ain’t got, she ain’t got
She ain’t got nothin’ at all
Sweet, sweet, sweet, sweet nothin’

Nothing ain’t worth nothing bus it’s free.

Nothin’ from nothin’ leaves nothin’

PermeateFree said:

Kothos said:

PermeateFree said:

Just as a beside, Indigenous people, especially hunter/gatherers had little need of mathematics or even quantities of 5 or more. Such expressions as many, few or one usually conveyed all the information they needed. However, when it came to the things that were important to them like food, they knew not just the animals and plants, but everything about them as to where they lived, when most plentiful, how to catch or harvest and how to prepare them for dinner. Whereas science listed the size and type of the physical body and the general distribution, so they could describe and then scientifically list them, not for their survival, but for adding to a list of known items.

Therefore, the intention of one group was to list in the name of science, whilst with the other group, the knowledge was a means of survival and knowing country. The knowledge of both groups were important for our greater understanding, yet we have historically placed far more importance on the “science” than knowledge of the living animal in context to its environment, although in recent years they have grown closer together yet still the indigenous understanding is usually under recognised.

What you’re calling science and what you’re calling survival knowledge are pretty much the same thing and developed for the same purpose. They both said human survival.

And maths isn’t just counting things. It’s also measuring things, creating things such as structures or tools, and knowing relationships between things.

Yes our science and hunter/gatherer science are very much the same thing, but both groups have different interests in the knowledge and to judge one against the other serves no purpose as you are judging apples with oranges. Historically, people (usually men) considered their science to be far superior, and Aboriginal knowledge was largely disregarded. This is the educated arrogance of the civilised who consider whatever they think or do is the best and uncivilised Aborigines would know nothing, an attitude that is slow to die and still persists to this very day.

All that is true. But we still need to draw what we can from indigenous science when teaching Western science. It works better. Thinking of it as seperate and only teaching Western science reinforces the illusion that indigenous people were stupid.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Kothos said:

Peak Warming Man said:

I knew someone would probably call me a racist for that post.

I suppose congratulations are in order. Since you’ve outed yourself as a wilful racist rather than an accidental one.

Actually you are coming across as more racist than PWM this evening.

Without an explanation why that comment means nothing.

Kothos said:

PermeateFree said:

Kothos said:

What you’re calling science and what you’re calling survival knowledge are pretty much the same thing and developed for the same purpose. They both said human survival.

And maths isn’t just counting things. It’s also measuring things, creating things such as structures or tools, and knowing relationships between things.

Yes our science and hunter/gatherer science are very much the same thing, but both groups have different interests in the knowledge and to judge one against the other serves no purpose as you are judging apples with oranges. Historically, people (usually men) considered their science to be far superior, and Aboriginal knowledge was largely disregarded. This is the educated arrogance of the civilised who consider whatever they think or do is the best and uncivilised Aborigines would know nothing, an attitude that is slow to die and still persists to this very day.

All that is true. But we still need to draw what we can from indigenous science when teaching Western science. It works better. Thinking of it as seperate and only teaching Western science reinforces the illusion that indigenous people were stupid.

Of course it should be taught together. The facts are they lived here very successfully for around 65,000 years and we come here and largely stuffed up the place in less than 250 years, which indicates to me that they knew a great deal about the science of this country and how to use it.

I agree with the writer of the article. There’s no such thing as “indigenous science” or “Western science” etc.

Science is science. Some of the teaching being incorporated in these courses is clearly not science.

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Well it does specifically say that science is the only way of knowing about the natural world, which I think we could reasonably interpret as meaning the physical aspects of the natural world.

yeah guess it all comes down to what you attribute knowing to be, how it happens

I don’t know.

But I do think it is reasonable that science lessons should focus on science.

Some Indigenous Australian nations have equivalents to Katarchean-Archean, early Proterozoic, Late Proterozoic, Paleozoic, and Mesozoic-Cenozoic. They use different words but the same concepts are there.

Peak Warming Man said:

Pretending that indigenous people were all over Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics does nobody any good.
They weren’t and drawing really long bows and making stuff up doesn’t help anybody.

PWM you might be really interested in “The Biggest Estate on Earth How Aborigines Made Australia” by Bill Gammage? He’s also an engaging speaker.

PermeateFree said:

Kothos said:

PermeateFree said:

Yes our science and hunter/gatherer science are very much the same thing, but both groups have different interests in the knowledge and to judge one against the other serves no purpose as you are judging apples with oranges. Historically, people (usually men) considered their science to be far superior, and Aboriginal knowledge was largely disregarded. This is the educated arrogance of the civilised who consider whatever they think or do is the best and uncivilised Aborigines would know nothing, an attitude that is slow to die and still persists to this very day.

All that is true. But we still need to draw what we can from indigenous science when teaching Western science. It works better. Thinking of it as seperate and only teaching Western science reinforces the illusion that indigenous people were stupid.

Of course it should be taught together. The facts are they lived here very successfully for around 65,000 years and we come here and largely stuffed up the place in less than 250 years, which indicates to me that they knew a great deal about the science of this country and how to use it.

I can’t see anywhere where we disagree. But I’m standing by my calling out PWM as potentially racist.

Kothos said:

PermeateFree said:

Kothos said:

All that is true. But we still need to draw what we can from indigenous science when teaching Western science. It works better. Thinking of it as seperate and only teaching Western science reinforces the illusion that indigenous people were stupid.

Of course it should be taught together. The facts are they lived here very successfully for around 65,000 years and we come here and largely stuffed up the place in less than 250 years, which indicates to me that they knew a great deal about the science of this country and how to use it.

I can’t see anywhere where we disagree. But I’m standing by my calling out PWM as potentially racist.

I don’t think we disagree by much either.

Kothos said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Pretending that indigenous people were all over Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics does nobody any good.
They weren’t and drawing really long bows and making stuff up doesn’t help anybody.

There is no pretence. And nobody was ever all over it. We’re not all over it now. Insisting on these strawman absolutes indicates you are probably supporting an agenda because what you really want is to be racist.

Every culture did some sort of maths. Recognising that is useful, especially when teaching kids from those cultures. That is all.

It does assist a lot of other children as well. If an Indigenous kid comes up with a way of dancings his/hers/their times tables and shares that knowledge that also assists other students who are not engaging with Maths. So there are many benefits from sharing this knowledge.

PermeateFree said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Indeed. After the Meso-American concept of a tangible zero – nothing as something- was introduced to Europeans only decades later Newton and Leibniz invented calculus.

The internet tells me that the concept of zero came from India around 458 AD.

Just as a beside, Indigenous people, especially hunter/gatherers had little need of mathematics or even quantities of 5 or more. Such expressions as many, few or one usually conveyed all the information they needed. However, when it came to the things that were important to them like food, they knew not just the animals and plants, but everything about them as to where they lived, when most plentiful, how to catch or harvest and how to prepare them for dinner. Whereas science listed the size and type of the physical body and the general distribution, so they could describe and then scientifically list them, not for their survival, but for adding to a list of known items.

Therefore, the intention of one group was to list in the name of science, whilst with the other group, the knowledge was a means of survival and knowing country. The knowledge of both groups were important for our greater understanding, yet we have historically placed far more importance on the “science” than knowledge of the living animal in context to its environment, although in recent years they have grown closer together yet still the indigenous understanding is usually under recognised.

They would know where every stick and stone was and the ways they did the burnoffs meant they would keep habitat for animals that they ate but also create spaces where they could kill these animals but were able not to kill females with young due to the way they had shaped the landscape.

ms spock said:

Kothos said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Pretending that indigenous people were all over Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics does nobody any good.
They weren’t and drawing really long bows and making stuff up doesn’t help anybody.

There is no pretence. And nobody was ever all over it. We’re not all over it now. Insisting on these strawman absolutes indicates you are probably supporting an agenda because what you really want is to be racist.

Every culture did some sort of maths. Recognising that is useful, especially when teaching kids from those cultures. That is all.

It does assist a lot of other children as well. If an Indigenous kid comes up with a way of dancings his/hers/their times tables and shares that knowledge that also assists other students who are not engaging with Maths. So there are many benefits from sharing this knowledge.

You’re right – diverse learning helps all.

Kothos said:

PermeateFree said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

The internet tells me that the concept of zero came from India around 458 AD.

Just as a beside, Indigenous people, especially hunter/gatherers had little need of mathematics or even quantities of 5 or more. Such expressions as many, few or one usually conveyed all the information they needed. However, when it came to the things that were important to them like food, they knew not just the animals and plants, but everything about them as to where they lived, when most plentiful, how to catch or harvest and how to prepare them for dinner. Whereas science listed the size and type of the physical body and the general distribution, so they could describe and then scientifically list them, not for their survival, but for adding to a list of known items.

Therefore, the intention of one group was to list in the name of science, whilst with the other group, the knowledge was a means of survival and knowing country. The knowledge of both groups were important for our greater understanding, yet we have historically placed far more importance on the “science” than knowledge of the living animal in context to its environment, although in recent years they have grown closer together yet still the indigenous understanding is usually under recognised.

What you’re calling science and what you’re calling survival knowledge are pretty much the same thing and developed for the same purpose. They both said human survival.

And maths isn’t just counting things. It’s also measuring things, creating things such as structures or tools, and knowing relationships between things.

Approaching Maths from that viewpoint really increases student participation to a much higher level. I know a teacher that teachers all her Maths through games, and when they students misbehaves she threatens to bring out the Maths textbooks. Her students do really well on not on the tests but also applying the information in subsequent years of study.

ms spock said:

a teacher that teachers all her Maths through games, and when they students misbehaves she threatens to bring out the Maths textbooks

we mean fair enough it’s like how it’s quite acceptable to threaten children with police and gaol and torture if they aren’t doing what we tell them to

So I just read the actual article (sorry) and it makes its point poorly.

Indigenous-discovered science should be taught with western science and it’s roots acknowledged (QED from mine and others’ points above).

When we’re in a transition from entirely colonialist thinking to inclusivity, is it possible for progressives to go overboard and teach myth as reality? You bet. That’s a function of transition.

But calling cultural myths nonsense is also going overboard. They are generally half-truths and can tell us something concrete about the world.

Take the case of the Vanuatan island that the ni-Vanuatu refused to live on because it harboured evil spirits. So during colonialism westerners set up a whaling colony there and were promptly wiped out a generation later by a major storm that flattens the place approximately once every century.

Myths can tell us valuable things about the real world by identifying physical patterns that may or may not have also been identified by science.

SCIENCE said:

we mean fair enough

anyway drygrass hominid responses aside our invitation for {any of yous geniuses to explain the place in the specialist mathematics slash mathematics extension 2 syllabuses where indigenous perspectives on complex numbers and integral calculus belong} remains open

SCIENCE said:

ms spock said:

a teacher that teachers all her Maths through games, and when they students misbehaves she threatens to bring out the Maths textbooks

we mean fair enough it’s like how it’s quite acceptable to threaten children with police and gaol and torture if they aren’t doing what we tell them to

In Australia we have the highest rate of incarceration of Indigeous people in the world. There’s a very detailed 4Corners on what happens to incarcerated Indigenous children. Worth a look.

You are an intriguing poster/forumite at times. I don’t understand what you are talking about here. However you are reading the Asian science on Covid or you have some very up to date resources.

SCIENCE said:

SCIENCE said:

we mean fair enough

anyway drygrass hominid responses aside our invitation for {any of yous geniuses to explain the place in the specialist mathematics slash mathematics extension 2 syllabuses where indigenous perspectives on complex numbers and integral calculus belong} remains open

Do you have an example where this is actually happening or are you setting up a strawman because you’re racist?

There is not one example of indigenous science in this thread because basically it doesn’t exist.
It’s just handwaving feel good kumbaya nonsense.

Peak Warming Man said:

There is not one example of indigenous science in this thread because basically it doesn’t exist.
It’s just handwaving feel good kumbaya nonsense.

The accumulated knowledge of country and its inhabitants is scientific in one form or another. Science is knowledge, the only difference is one is recorded in writing, the other handed down or lived.

PermeateFree said:

Peak Warming Man said:

There is not one example of indigenous science in this thread because basically it doesn’t exist.
It’s just handwaving feel good kumbaya nonsense.

The accumulated knowledge of country and its inhabitants is scientific in one form or another. Science is knowledge, the only difference is one is recorded in writing, the other handed down or lived.

Knowledge is knoweldge.

Whatever its origin, then provided it can be demonstrated to be effective in a manner which is comprehensible and subject to falsification (no magic spells will be considered), then it may well count as, and perhaps be included, as science.

captain_spalding said:

PermeateFree said:

Peak Warming Man said:

There is not one example of indigenous science in this thread because basically it doesn’t exist.
It’s just handwaving feel good kumbaya nonsense.

The accumulated knowledge of country and its inhabitants is scientific in one form or another. Science is knowledge, the only difference is one is recorded in writing, the other handed down or lived.

Knowledge is knoweldge.

Whatever its origin, then provided it can be demonstrated to be effective in a manner which is comprehensible and subject to falsification (no magic spells will be considered), then it may well count as, and perhaps be included, as science.

Science is accumulated factual knowledge which if you are living off the land had better be factual, or you die.

“Science is a systematic endeavor that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.

The earliest written records of identifiable predecessors to modern science come from Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia from around 3000 to 1200 BCE. Their contributions to mathematics, astronomy, and medicine entered and shaped the Greek natural philosophy of classical antiquity, whereby formal attempts were made to provide explanations of events in the physical world based on natural causes.: 12  After the fall of the Western Roman Empire, knowledge of Greek conceptions of the world deteriorated in Western Europe during the early centuries (400 to 1000 CE) of the Middle Ages, but was preserved in the Muslim world during the Islamic Golden Age and later by the efforts of Byzantine Greek scholars who brought Greek manuscripts from the dying Byzantine Empire to Western Europe in the Renaissance.

The recovery and assimilation of Greek works and Islamic inquiries into Western Europe from the 10th to 13th century revived “natural philosophy”, which was later transformed by the Scientific Revolution that began in the 16th century as new ideas and discoveries departed from previous Greek conceptions and traditions. The scientific method soon played a greater role in knowledge creation and it was not until the 19th century that many of the institutional and professional features of science began to take shape, along with the changing of “natural philosophy” to “natural science”.

Modern science is typically divided into three major branches: natural sciences (e.g., biology, chemistry, and physics), which study the physical world; the social sciences (e.g., economics, psychology, and sociology), which study individuals and societies; and the formal sciences (e.g., logic, mathematics, and theoretical computer science), which study formal systems, governed by axioms and rules. There is disagreement whether the formal sciences are science disciplines, because they do not rely on empirical evidence. Applied sciences are disciplines that use scientific knowledge for practical purposes, such as in engineering and medicine.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

PermeateFree said:

Science is accumulated factual knowledge which if you are living off the land had better be factual, or you die.

Vraiment.

But, it still has to be subject to the test of the scientific method.

While there’s little doubt that the empirical evidence will support it, it has to be tested.

Peak Warming Man said:

There is not one example of indigenous science in this thread because basically it doesn’t exist.
It’s just handwaving feel good kumbaya nonsense.

There’s not much of any kind of science either but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Instead of being abrasive and advertising your ignorance you could ask for some.

Also ms spock just started a whole thread about it.

PermeateFree said:

captain_spalding said:

PermeateFree said:

The accumulated knowledge of country and its inhabitants is scientific in one form or another. Science is knowledge, the only difference is one is recorded in writing, the other handed down or lived.

Knowledge is knoweldge.

Whatever its origin, then provided it can be demonstrated to be effective in a manner which is comprehensible and subject to falsification (no magic spells will be considered), then it may well count as, and perhaps be included, as science.

Science is accumulated factual knowledge which if you are living off the land had better be factual, or you die.

(I think I’ve mentioned this previously on this forum, but here it is again anyway). Years ago there were a series of short animated pieces on the ABC or SBS of Aboriginal stories. I think they were meant for kids. I distinctly remember a realization dawning on me that they knew about salination of soil problems, but they described it as the sea invading the land in one of the stories. It was not one about changing sea levels. It was salination of the soil. I think it warned about using all the hidden water or something. I’ve never been able to pin down the series again. It might have been the one called “The Dreaming” in around 2012 or so. After that one, I noticed science in several of the stories. It was just told in a different language.

captain_spalding said:

PermeateFree said:

Science is accumulated factual knowledge which if you are living off the land had better be factual, or you die.

Vraiment.

But, it still has to be subject to the test of the scientific method.

While there’s little doubt that the empirical evidence will support it, it has to be tested.

Do you all realise that the vast majority of human knowledge isn’t actually scientific? Yet we not only do, but must, rely on such knowledge because we don’t have the time to conduct double-blind studies on every little thing.

Nevertheless, some indigenous knowledge still qualifies as scientific.

Kothos said:

Nevertheless, some indigenous knowledge still qualifies as scientific.

Yes, it would qualify as scientific if it meets the same criteria as applied to other scientific knowledge.

It may well be that it was arrived at through observation, deduction, calculation, and experimentation, all of which are part of the scientific method. And it can be subject to the same condition of falsification as any other scientific idea/concept/conclusion.

The scientific method may well have been employed in its acquisition, perhaps instinctively/unconsciously.

But, unless the scientific method can be applied to it, then it’s not ‘indigenous science’, which is the title of this thread.

It may be ‘indigenous knowledge’, as you say, but there’s a vast amount of ‘knowledge’ all over the world, some of which is helpful, a lot of which is not, that does not qualify as ‘science’.

captain_spalding said:

PermeateFree said:

Science is accumulated factual knowledge which if you are living off the land had better be factual, or you die.

Vraiment.

But, it still has to be subject to the test of the scientific method.

While there’s little doubt that the empirical evidence will support it, it has to be tested.

Some animal activity cannot be repeated at will because you are dealing with unpredictable life forms, but it is still an observable scientific fact. You seem to think that unless everything is backed up by measurement then it is not science, but you are wrong. I think the problem with the acceptance of Aboriginal fact is because it is observational and a specimen cannot be obtained, although the dead animal is retained and required for scientific study. The famous works of Jane Goodall and Dian Fossey are good examples of this type of scientific information gathering, although with Aboriginals these observations occurred over thousands of years.

humorously, i’d suggest the first science, earliest science or proto-science is the game of peekaboo, stuff like it, related

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peekaboo

captain_spalding said:

Kothos said:

Nevertheless, some indigenous knowledge still qualifies as scientific.

Yes, it would qualify as scientific if it meets the same criteria as applied to other scientific knowledge.

It may well be that it was arrived at through observation, deduction, calculation, and experimentation, all of which are part of the scientific method. And it can be subject to the same condition of falsification as any other scientific idea/concept/conclusion.

The scientific method may well have been employed in its acquisition, perhaps instinctively/unconsciously.

But, unless the scientific method can be applied to it, then it’s not ‘indigenous science’, which is the title of this thread.

It may be ‘indigenous knowledge’, as you say, but there’s a vast amount of ‘knowledge’ all over the world, some of which is helpful, a lot of which is not, that does not qualify as ‘science’.

Sure. That makes sense.

So here’s a bit of science. If you want to craft a Woomera indigenous people worked out precisely how long each part should be based on fractional multiples of related body parts, so that each Woomera is the ideal length for each individual.

That could easily have the scientific method applied to it by sports and human motion scientists.

PermeateFree said:

Some animal activity cannot be repeated at will because you are dealing with unpredictable life forms, but it is still an observable scientific fact. You seem to think that unless everything is backed up by measurement then it is not science, but you are wrong. I think the problem with the acceptance of Aboriginal fact is because it is observational and a specimen cannot be obtained, although the dead animal is retained and required for scientific study. The famous works of Jane Goodall and Dian Fossey are good examples of this type of scientific information gathering, although with Aboriginals these observations occurred over thousands of years.

A very good point. And what we’re talking about there is, indeed, scientific knowledge.

But, it’s the type of scientific knowldege that’s the differentiation.

Your examples of Goodall and Fossey are definitely scientific knowledge, resulting from observation, which presumably led Jane and Dian to form ‘hypotheses’, and those hypotheses, with augmentation by further observation and analysis, could/may have been (i’m no expert on it) progressed to being accepted as ‘theories’.

As they’re unlikely to conclude in definite and final pronunciations of invariability, and could conceivably undergo falsification at some point, they’re not likely to arrive at recognition as ‘laws’, but they are definitely ‘science’.

And the same goes for ‘indigenous science’. Observation over thousands of yeas is excellent evidence. But not final and conclusive.

Kothos said:

Sure. That makes sense.

So here’s a bit of science. If you want to craft a Woomera indigenous people worked out precisely how long each part should be based on fractional multiples of related body parts, so that each Woomera is the ideal length for each individual.

That could easily have the scientific method applied to it by sports and human motion scientists.

Yep, that’s science. Observation, hypothesis, experimentation, repeat.

And there’s falsification there, too. When one hunter says ‘hey, this helps me a lot’ and another hunter (of different stature) tries it and says ‘doesn’t work for me’, then it demonstrates that the hypothesis/theory needs correction.

captain_spalding said:

Kothos said:

Nevertheless, some indigenous knowledge still qualifies as scientific.

Yes, it would qualify as scientific if it meets the same criteria as applied to other scientific knowledge.

It may well be that it was arrived at through observation, deduction, calculation, and experimentation, all of which are part of the scientific method. And it can be subject to the same condition of falsification as any other scientific idea/concept/conclusion.

The scientific method may well have been employed in its acquisition, perhaps instinctively/unconsciously.

But, unless the scientific method can be applied to it, then it’s not ‘indigenous science’, which is the title of this thread.

It may be ‘indigenous knowledge’, as you say, but there’s a vast amount of ‘knowledge’ all over the world, some of which is helpful, a lot of which is not, that does not qualify as ‘science’.

The astrophysicist based in coonabarabran or maybe condoblin (iirc) is/was interested in the constellations that indigenous Australians identify in the sky traditionally. As they farmed the land by the constellations.

An anthropologist was surprised and curious about indigenous Australians in remote are of Central Australis iirc because there were indications that eventhough they didn’t have access to the understanding from western education in regards to the world being a sphere, that an elder (I think) showed how he understood that the earth was going around the sun by holding one hand in a fist gesture and using a circular motion of the other hand showing the light and day thing.

captain_spalding said:

PermeateFree said:

Some animal activity cannot be repeated at will because you are dealing with unpredictable life forms, but it is still an observable scientific fact. You seem to think that unless everything is backed up by measurement then it is not science, but you are wrong. I think the problem with the acceptance of Aboriginal fact is because it is observational and a specimen cannot be obtained, although the dead animal is retained and required for scientific study. The famous works of Jane Goodall and Dian Fossey are good examples of this type of scientific information gathering, although with Aboriginals these observations occurred over thousands of years.

A very good point. And what we’re talking about there is, indeed, scientific knowledge.

But, it’s the type of scientific knowldege that’s the differentiation.

Your examples of Goodall and Fossey are definitely scientific knowledge, resulting from observation, which presumably led Jane and Dian to form ‘hypotheses’, and those hypotheses, with augmentation by further observation and analysis, could/may have been (i’m no expert on it) progressed to being accepted as ‘theories’.

As they’re unlikely to conclude in definite and final pronunciations of invariability, and could conceivably undergo falsification at some point, they’re not likely to arrive at recognition as ‘laws’, but they are definitely ‘science’.

And the same goes for ‘indigenous science’. Observation over thousands of yeas is excellent evidence. But not final and conclusive.

Ethology is the scientific study of non-human animal behavior, usually with a focus on behaviour under natural conditions, and viewing behaviour as an evolutionarily adaptive trait.[

Ethology is a rapidly growing field. Since the dawn of the 21st century researchers have re-examined and reached new conclusions in many aspects of animal communication, emotions, culture, learning and sexuality that the scientific community long thought it understood. New fields, such as neuroethology, have developed.

Theories are the norm regarding scientific investigation, simply to be 100% sure of your results is usually impossible as new previously unknown information can change everything. Even evolution with all its supporting information remains a theory.

Science also relies on honest people reporting correct information to the best of their ability and there have been plenty of qualified scientists that have been cheats.

PermeateFree said:

captain_spalding said:

PermeateFree said:

Some animal activity cannot be repeated at will because you are dealing with unpredictable life forms, but it is still an observable scientific fact. You seem to think that unless everything is backed up by measurement then it is not science, but you are wrong. I think the problem with the acceptance of Aboriginal fact is because it is observational and a specimen cannot be obtained, although the dead animal is retained and required for scientific study. The famous works of Jane Goodall and Dian Fossey are good examples of this type of scientific information gathering, although with Aboriginals these observations occurred over thousands of years.

A very good point. And what we’re talking about there is, indeed, scientific knowledge.

But, it’s the type of scientific knowldege that’s the differentiation.

Your examples of Goodall and Fossey are definitely scientific knowledge, resulting from observation, which presumably led Jane and Dian to form ‘hypotheses’, and those hypotheses, with augmentation by further observation and analysis, could/may have been (i’m no expert on it) progressed to being accepted as ‘theories’.

As they’re unlikely to conclude in definite and final pronunciations of invariability, and could conceivably undergo falsification at some point, they’re not likely to arrive at recognition as ‘laws’, but they are definitely ‘science’.

And the same goes for ‘indigenous science’. Observation over thousands of yeas is excellent evidence. But not final and conclusive.

Ethology is the scientific study of non-human animal behavior, usually with a focus on behaviour under natural conditions, and viewing behaviour as an evolutionarily adaptive trait.

It seems to me that we are in broad agreement here.

Now, shall we move on to reconciling the Israelis and the Palestinians?

captain_spalding said:

Now, shall we move on to reconciling the Israelis and the Palestinians?

That’s both simple and impossible. While there is a power imbalance there is no need for Israelis to either desire peace or care about it.

Kothos said:

captain_spalding said:

Now, shall we move on to reconciling the Israelis and the Palestinians?

That’s both simple and impossible. While there is a power imbalance there is no need for Israelis to either desire peace or care about it.

Well, we might leave it until tomorrow then.

Kothos said:

SCIENCE said:

SCIENCE said:

we mean fair enough

anyway drygrass hominid responses aside our invitation for {any of yous geniuses to explain the place in the specialist mathematics slash mathematics extension 2 syllabuses where indigenous perspectives on complex numbers and integral calculus belong} remains open

Do you have an example where this is actually happening or are you setting up a strawman because you’re racist?

¿ you mean why don’t we do the bullshit asymmetry work for you because having literally specified exactly what it is you need to look for, you can’t be bothered to yourself ?

we know the rhetorical tactics, and it’sn’t us being racist as fuck and moving the goalposts and building drygrass hominids while accusing others of doing so, it’s you

here knock yourselves out

https://educationstandards.nsw.edu.au/wps/portal/nesa/11-12/stage-6-learning-areas/stage-6-mathematics/mathematics-extension-2-2017

SCIENCE said:

Kothos said:

SCIENCE said:

anyway drygrass hominid responses aside our invitation for {any of yous geniuses to explain the place in the specialist mathematics slash mathematics extension 2 syllabuses where indigenous perspectives on complex numbers and integral calculus belong} remains open

Do you have an example where this is actually happening or are you setting up a strawman because you’re racist?

¿ you mean why don’t we do the bullshit asymmetry work for you because having literally specified exactly what it is you need to look for, you can’t be bothered to yourself ?

we know the rhetorical tactics, and it’sn’t us being racist as fuck and moving the goalposts and building drygrass hominids while accusing others of doing so, it’s you

here knock yourselves out

https://educationstandards.nsw.edu.au/wps/portal/nesa/11-12/stage-6-learning-areas/stage-6-mathematics/mathematics-extension-2-2017

Dude I’m a qualified maths teacher and you’re obviously a childish wanker. Nowhere in the extension 2 syllabus does it mention indigenous people other than in the following excerpt.

—
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Histories and Cultures
Through application and modelling across the topics of the syllabus, students have the opportunity to
experience the significance of mathematics in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander histories and
cultures. Opportunities are provided to connect mathematics with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Peoples’ cultural, linguistic and historical experiences. The narrative of the development of
mathematics and its integration with cultural development can be explored in the context of some
topics. Through the evaluation of statistical data where appropriate, students can deepen their
understanding of the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples.
When planning and programming content relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander histories
and cultures teachers are encouraged to:
● involve local Aboriginal communities and/or appropriate knowledge holders in determining
suitable resources, or to use Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander authored or endorsed
publications
● read the Principles and Protocols relating to teaching and learning about Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander histories and cultures and the involvement of local Aboriginal communities.
—

Kothos said:

SCIENCE said:

Kothos said:

Do you have an example where this is actually happening or are you setting up a strawman because you’re racist?

¿ you mean why don’t we do the bullshit asymmetry work for you because having literally specified exactly what it is you need to look for, you can’t be bothered to yourself ?

we know the rhetorical tactics, and it’sn’t us being racist as fuck and moving the goalposts and building drygrass hominids while accusing others of doing so, it’s you

here knock yourselves out

https://educationstandards.nsw.edu.au/wps/portal/nesa/11-12/stage-6-learning-areas/stage-6-mathematics/mathematics-extension-2-2017

Dude I’m a qualified maths teacher and you’re obviously a childish wanker. Nowhere in the extension 2 syllabus does it mention indigenous people other than in the following excerpt.

—
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Histories and Cultures
Through application and modelling across the topics of the syllabus, students have the opportunity to
experience the significance of mathematics in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander histories and
cultures. Opportunities are provided to connect mathematics with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Peoples’ cultural, linguistic and historical experiences. The narrative of the development of
mathematics and its integration with cultural development can be explored in the context of some
topics. Through the evaluation of statistical data where appropriate, students can deepen their
understanding of the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples.
When planning and programming content relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander histories
and cultures teachers are encouraged to:
● involve local Aboriginal communities and/or appropriate knowledge holders in determining
suitable resources, or to use Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander authored or endorsed
publications
● read the Principles and Protocols relating to teaching and learning about Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander histories and cultures and the involvement of local Aboriginal communities.
—

oh oops we’re “obviously a childish wanker” because we’re the ones calling others names like “obviously a childish wanker” oh fuck that’s … let’s see, check the thread

oh wait what did you copypaste there

Through application and modelling across the topics of the syllabus, students have the opportunity to experience the significance of mathematics in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander histories and cultures. Opportunities are provided to connect mathematics with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples’ cultural, linguistic and historical experiences. The narrative of the development of mathematics and its integration with cultural development can be explored in the context of some topics.

we literally fucking asked, without the question mark

our invitation for {any of yous geniuses to explain the place in the specialist mathematics slash mathematics extension 2 syllabuses where indigenous perspectives on complex numbers and integral calculus belong} remains open

so since

Through application and modelling across the topics of the syllabus, students have the opportunity to experience the significance of mathematics in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander histories and cultures. Opportunities are provided to connect mathematics with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples’ cultural, linguistic and historical experiences. The narrative of the development of mathematics and its integration with cultural development can be explored in the context of some topics.

go on and tell us where that place is

SCIENCE said:

Kothos said:

SCIENCE said:

¿ you mean why don’t we do the bullshit asymmetry work for you because having literally specified exactly what it is you need to look for, you can’t be bothered to yourself ?

we know the rhetorical tactics, and it’sn’t us being racist as fuck and moving the goalposts and building drygrass hominids while accusing others of doing so, it’s you

here knock yourselves out

https://educationstandards.nsw.edu.au/wps/portal/nesa/11-12/stage-6-learning-areas/stage-6-mathematics/mathematics-extension-2-2017

Dude I’m a qualified maths teacher and you’re obviously a childish wanker. Nowhere in the extension 2 syllabus does it mention indigenous people other than in the following excerpt.

—
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Histories and Cultures
Through application and modelling across the topics of the syllabus, students have the opportunity to
experience the significance of mathematics in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander histories and
cultures. Opportunities are provided to connect mathematics with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Peoples’ cultural, linguistic and historical experiences. The narrative of the development of
mathematics and its integration with cultural development can be explored in the context of some
topics. Through the evaluation of statistical data where appropriate, students can deepen their
understanding of the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples.
When planning and programming content relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander histories
and cultures teachers are encouraged to:
● involve local Aboriginal communities and/or appropriate knowledge holders in determining
suitable resources, or to use Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander authored or endorsed
publications
● read the Principles and Protocols relating to teaching and learning about Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander histories and cultures and the involvement of local Aboriginal communities.
—

oh oops we’re “obviously a childish wanker” because we’re the ones calling others names like “obviously a childish wanker” oh fuck that’s … let’s see, check the thread

oh wait what did you copypaste there

Through application and modelling across the topics of the syllabus, students have the opportunity to experience the significance of mathematics in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander histories and cultures. Opportunities are provided to connect mathematics with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples’ cultural, linguistic and historical experiences. The narrative of the development of mathematics and its integration with cultural development can be explored in the context of some topics.

we literally fucking asked, without the question mark

our invitation for {any of yous geniuses to explain the place in the specialist mathematics slash mathematics extension 2 syllabuses where indigenous perspectives on complex numbers and integral calculus belong} remains open

so since

Through application and modelling across the topics of the syllabus, students have the opportunity to experience the significance of mathematics in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander histories and cultures. Opportunities are provided to connect mathematics with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples’ cultural, linguistic and historical experiences. The narrative of the development of mathematics and its integration with cultural development can be explored in the context of some topics.

go on and tell us where that place is

Yes, you’re still a childish wanker, sorry. It says “some topics”, not “all topics” and you purposely chose complex numbers and calculus because it would be difficult to find much relationship between those and indigenous knowledge.

Other topics are proofs, vectors and mechanics. All of which could have indigenous examples. The association doesn’t necessarily have to have a direct relationship to indigenous knowledge. One are of indigenous knowledge could be married to one area of maths by having one investigate the other, such as when the quoted text mentions statistical investigation.

This is how the concept of cross-curricular learning works. You could teach projectile motion in physics at the same time as the battle of Waterloo by analysing musket, rifle and cannon technology, for example.

Kothos said:

Other topics are proofs, vectors and mechanics. All of which could have indigenous examples. The association doesn’t necessarily have to have a direct relationship to indigenous knowledge. One are of indigenous knowledge could be married to one area of maths by having one investigate the other, such as when the quoted text mentions statistical investigation.

so go, you’re the qualified mathematics teacher, example them

obviously statistics could be used to investigate indigenous affairs, just as they could be used to investigate national socialists, you do you but that’s a BS link no more than “hey look we can make FORTRAN indigenous by using it to chart the number of incarcerated First Nations people”, so no

SCIENCE said:

Kothos said:

Other topics are proofs, vectors and mechanics. All of which could have indigenous examples. The association doesn’t necessarily have to have a direct relationship to indigenous knowledge. One are of indigenous knowledge could be married to one area of maths by having one investigate the other, such as when the quoted text mentions statistical investigation.

so go, you’re the qualified mathematics teacher, example them

obviously statistics could be used to investigate indigenous affairs, just as they could be used to investigate national socialists, you do you but that’s a BS link no more than “hey look we can make FORTRAN indigenous by using it to chart the number of incarcerated First Nations people”, so no

We’re not “making it indigenous” you dumb arse. We’re just finding links to teach multiple topics together so that kids from different backgrounds feel included and so all kids realise the holistic nature of knowledge.

Kothos said:

SCIENCE said:

Kothos said:

Other topics are proofs, vectors and mechanics. All of which could have indigenous examples. The association doesn’t necessarily have to have a direct relationship to indigenous knowledge. One are of indigenous knowledge could be married to one area of maths by having one investigate the other, such as when the quoted text mentions statistical investigation.

so go, you’re the qualified mathematics teacher, example them

obviously statistics could be used to investigate indigenous affairs, just as they could be used to investigate national socialists, you do you but that’s a BS link no more than “hey look we can make FORTRAN indigenous by using it to chart the number of incarcerated First Nations people”, so no

We’re not “making it indigenous” you dumb arse. We’re just finding links to teach multiple topics together so that kids from different backgrounds feel included and so all kids realise the holistic nature of knowledge.

So you don’t have examples, you’re just claiming that token links are inclusivity. We mean as a bunch of dumb arses sorry we mean backends sorry we mean partsthatsitongrounds, obviously we appreciate that you’re trying to include kids like us and realise that the holy sources of knowledge known as “qualified mathematics teachers” think that calling people names on an internet forum reflects well on the profession.

monkey skipper said:

captain_spalding said:

Kothos said:

Nevertheless, some indigenous knowledge still qualifies as scientific.

Yes, it would qualify as scientific if it meets the same criteria as applied to other scientific knowledge.

It may well be that it was arrived at through observation, deduction, calculation, and experimentation, all of which are part of the scientific method. And it can be subject to the same condition of falsification as any other scientific idea/concept/conclusion.

The scientific method may well have been employed in its acquisition, perhaps instinctively/unconsciously.

But, unless the scientific method can be applied to it, then it’s not ‘indigenous science’, which is the title of this thread.

It may be ‘indigenous knowledge’, as you say, but there’s a vast amount of ‘knowledge’ all over the world, some of which is helpful, a lot of which is not, that does not qualify as ‘science’.

The astrophysicist based in coonabarabran or maybe condoblin (iirc) is/was interested in the constellations that indigenous Australians identify in the sky traditionally. As they farmed the land by the constellations.

An anthropologist was surprised and curious about indigenous Australians in remote are of Central Australis iirc because there were indications that eventhough they didn’t have access to the understanding from western education in regards to the world being a sphere, that an elder (I think) showed how he understood that the earth was going around the sun by holding one hand in a fist gesture and using a circular motion of the other hand showing the light and day thing.

Way ahead of the flat earthers.

SCIENCE said:

Kothos said:

SCIENCE said:

so go, you’re the qualified mathematics teacher, example them

obviously statistics could be used to investigate indigenous affairs, just as they could be used to investigate national socialists, you do you but that’s a BS link no more than “hey look we can make FORTRAN indigenous by using it to chart the number of incarcerated First Nations people”, so no

We’re not “making it indigenous” you dumb arse. We’re just finding links to teach multiple topics together so that kids from different backgrounds feel included and so all kids realise the holistic nature of knowledge.

So you don’t have examples, you’re just claiming that token links are inclusivity. We mean as a bunch of dumb arses sorry we mean backends sorry we mean partsthatsitongrounds, obviously we appreciate that you’re trying to include kids like us and realise that the holy sources of knowledge known as “qualified mathematics teachers” think that calling people names on an internet forum reflects well on the profession.

Oh stop being such a snowflake. Every comment you’ve made in this thread has been surly, disingenuous, and stupid. If you can’t take it don’t dish it out.

Kothos said:

SCIENCE said:

Kothos said:

We’re not “making it indigenous” you dumb arse. We’re just finding links to teach multiple topics together so that kids from different backgrounds feel included and so all kids realise the holistic nature of knowledge.

So you don’t have examples, you’re just claiming that token links are inclusivity. We mean as a bunch of dumb arses sorry we mean backends sorry we mean partsthatsitongrounds, obviously we appreciate that you’re trying to include kids like us and realise that the holy sources of knowledge known as “qualified mathematics teachers” think that calling people names on an internet forum reflects well on the profession.

Oh stop being such a snowflake. Every comment you’ve made in this thread has been surly, disingenuous, and stupid. If you can’t take it don’t dish it out.

So give us the examples. Go on, now people are snowflakes for calling out your surly, disingenuous, and stupid bullshit¿ Oh wait we found a thread you just contributed to, let’s see…

I said maths, not complex analysis. If you want to move goal posts because you can’t sustain an argument go argue with imbeciles.

… hang on just a tick, did some hypocrite scream “you can’t sustain an argument” and then post nothing but ad hominem attacks¿ And then say “If you can’t take it don’t dish it out.“¿

We mean like damn if you wanted to be correct, just post the (counter)examples to the claim, and we’re all good, you win¡

SCIENCE said:

Kothos said:

SCIENCE said:

So you don’t have examples, you’re just claiming that token links are inclusivity. We mean as a bunch of dumb arses sorry we mean backends sorry we mean partsthatsitongrounds, obviously we appreciate that you’re trying to include kids like us and realise that the holy sources of knowledge known as “qualified mathematics teachers” think that calling people names on an internet forum reflects well on the profession.

Oh stop being such a snowflake. Every comment you’ve made in this thread has been surly, disingenuous, and stupid. If you can’t take it don’t dish it out.

So give us the examples. Go on, now people are snowflakes for calling out your surly, disingenuous, and stupid bullshit¿ Oh wait we found a thread you just contributed to, let’s see…

I said maths, not complex analysis. If you want to move goal posts because you can’t sustain an argument go argue with imbeciles.

… hang on just a tick, did some hypocrite scream “you can’t sustain an argument” and then post nothing but ad hominem attacks¿ And then say “If you can’t take it don’t dish it out.“¿

We mean like damn if you wanted to be correct, just post the (counter)examples to the claim, and we’re all good, you win¡

“Nothing but we hominem attacks”. If you can’t read the examples 8v3 given there’s not much point my continuing. Alternatively you’re purposely ignoring them because you enjoy being indignant. I’m sorry you’re offended but, I’m guessing you live your life that way and are accustomed to it.

Peak Warming Man said:

There is not one example of indigenous science in this thread because basically it doesn’t exist.
It’s just handwaving feel good kumbaya nonsense.

We will have to agree to disagree. I think the CSIRO is a credible source.

The CSIRO isn’t a credible source for you?

https://www.csiro.au/en/research/indigenous-science

Bill Gammage discusses ‘The Biggest Estate on Earth’

https://www.acds.edu.au/teaching-learning/science-threshold-learning-outcomes-tlos/science-tlos/

“Science TLOs

The Science Threshold Learning Outcomes describe what a science graduate show know and be able to do. They have been adapted for sub-disciplines of science.

The Science TLOs are a national discipline reference point for curriculum design, assessment standards and benchmarking between institutions. The Science TLOs are a consensus view from Australian universities about what a science or mathematical science graduate should know and be able to do. They are important in setting agreed standards for science graduates across the Australian higher education sector.”:https://www.acds.edu.au/teaching-learning/science-threshold-learning-outcomes-tlos/science-tlos/

So the Australia Council of Deans of Science clearly demarcate what a science graduate should know. They then go on to engage with Indigenous science in multiple ways, and this is just one website.

Indigenous Science – Australian Council of Deans of Science

The case to recognise Indigenous knowledge as science | Albert Wiggan | TEDxSydney

Indigenous Knowledge, Science, and Resilience: What Have We Learned from a Decade of International Literature on “Integration”?

Complex thinking has strongly questioned this notion of a meta point of view along with its heuristic value as a principle for the creation of knowledge. Instead, it seeks and analyses the web of relationships among different perspectives. This is continually redefined in a dynamic process involving multiple points of observation and explanation. These places are fundamentally incommensurable, yet they can complement each other and be part of a constructive network. What matters, in fact, is the possibility of including multiple viewpoints that are vicarious in building a cognitive universe and can disclose a more complete picture of reality.

Traditional and Indigenous knowledge has successfully preserved and restored biodiversity across the globe. However, its recognition as being as equally valid as Western science as a way of knowing remains lacking. If we are to preserve global biodiversity and rewild key habitats, science and Indigenous knowledge must work in partnership while also being restitutive and rights based.

“Examples of Aboriginal science

There are many achievements that could find their way into a science curriculum.
Physics

Aboriginal people developed the boomerang and other sophisticated weapons (e.g. woomera).

Boomerangs were used for a range of purposes other than hunting, for example to improve stone knives. And if you’re asking who developed the first unmanned controlled flight, it’s probably Aboriginal people with the boomerang. Note also that most modern aircraft’s wings mirror the shape of a boomerang.
Astronomy

Aboriginal people knew how the tides are linked to the phases of the moon, while Italian scientist Galileo Galilei was still proclaiming, incorrectly, that the moon had nothing to do with tides.

Others had figured out how eclipses work. The Emu in the Sky is a well-known Kamilaroi dreaming story which connects Aboriginal and Western astronomy. The stars were also used as seasonal indicators.

In 2018 the International Astronomical Union (IAU) – the global network of the world’s professional astronomers – recognised four stars in the night sky by their Aboriginal names. The names include three from the Wardaman people of the Northern Territory: Larawag, Wurren and Ginan in the Western constellations of Scorpius, Phoenix and Crux (the Southern Cross). One name is from the Boorong people of western Victoria: Unurgunite in Canis Majoris (the Great Dog).
Tip

Wardaman Senior Elder Bill Yidumduma Harney, an artist, author and musician, contributed some of his traditional star knowledge for the books Dark Sparklers (2003) and Four Circles (2015). These books remain the most detailed records of the astronomical knowledge of any Aboriginal group in Australia.

Check out the Australian Indigenous Astronomy website which allows you to browse by community or topic and has educational and research-related content.
Maths

Early anthropologists who studied Aboriginal languages thought Aboriginal people only had limited words for numbers, or failed to inquire about more advanced numerical systems. There were words for ‘one’ and ‘two’ which Aboriginal people then combined to construct words for ‘three’ (‘one two’ or ‘one one one’) and ‘four’ (‘two two’ or ‘one one one one’). Later works simply quoted these early findings without question, including authors who wrote classroom resources. Hence this linguistic failure is the main cause for the myth of primitive Aboriginal minds and was taught at Australian schools until at least the 1980s.

Truth is that there is “considerable variation in Aboriginal number systems” which means that some might have only limited words, but others included words for much higher numbers some of which could be extrapolated indefinitely. And this has been known publicly since the early 20th century.

Aboriginal people encoded numbers also non-verbally, for example in message sticks. They could contain information about distance or the number of people to a party.

Before dismissing the repetition or combination of lower numerals to form higher numbers, remember that some languages have similar concepts. The French word for 80, for example, is ‘quatre-vingts’ which literally means “four twenties”; 89 is ‘quatre-vingt-neuf’, meaning “four twenty nine”, and 95 is ‘quatre-vingt-quinze’ or “four twenty fifteen”.

marrma dambumirri dambumirri rulu — Gamatj word for 250

Navigation

How could they traverse this great continent without compasses, but using stars and oral maps?
Biology

Aboriginal people managed country carefully, for example through controlled burning to maximise productivity. They possessed ethno-botanical knowledge linked to specific places and environments. This resulted in very fertile soils.
Chemistry

Aboriginal people had an intimate knowledge of bush medicine, including organic and inorganic chemistry and how to apply acid/base techniques. For example, they treated poisonous plants (such as cycads and nardoo) to make them usable for food or medicine or kill animals for food (e.g. fish). They also knew how to transform Spinifex resin into a very strong glue. This knowledge is based on chemical reactions that occur during fermentation, combustion, pyrolysis and calcination.

Aboriginal people knew long about the anti-bacterial properties of honey. Scientists confirmed that specific chemical components relating to antibacterial activity of several Australian Leptospermum honeys were similar to, or better than, that of the well-known manuka honey in New Zealand. Also, honey of the native stingless bee has a much lower GI than regular sugar and doesn’t cause tooth decay because its sweet component is trehalulose and not glucose and fructose. Stingless bee honey can fetch as much as $200 per kilogram.

Aboriginal people knew how to form and utilise new substances, for example quicklime (calcium oxide), pigments and ochres (iron oxide, charcoal), acid (pyroligneous acid), plaster (calcium sulphate), alkali salts (salts of potassium and sodium), beverages (ethanol), charcoal, and by-products such as heat and light.
Forensics

Aboriginal people were masters in animal and human tracking and analysing footprints, comparable to fingerprinting in forensic science.
Warfare

They organised fierce resistance to the British invaders, and sometimes won significant military victories such as the raids by Aboriginal warrior Pemulwuy or Jandamarra.

You might be forgiven for not knowing. The old paradigm of “primitive natives” is still deeply ingrained in Australian society, keeping us from opening to the notion of “intelligent and sophisticated Aboriginal nations” which is closer to reality.

Next time you talk or teach, show that there is far more to explore than the common stereotypes of Aboriginal culture.

The great anthropologists of the 20th century… tell us much about Aboriginal art, songs and spirituality, but are strangely silent about intellectual achievements. — Ray Norris, Chief Research Scientist at the CSIRO Astronomy & Space Science

Source: Aboriginal knowledge for the science curriculum – Creative Spirits, retrieved from https://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/education/aboriginal-knowledge-for-the-science-curriculum
“:https://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/education/aboriginal-knowledge-for-the-science-curriculum

Link name

Tyson Yunkaporta’s PhD is freely available. He discusses and gives examples of how to engage in and teach complex analysis in Indigenous and Western scientific ways. Yunkaporta’s Phd (2009)

“Mathematics is a living, growing, creative act in which all students can excel.

YDC’s view of mathematics is illustrated in the diagram below. It shows the relationship between perceived reality and invented mathematics and is adapted from Matthews (2009). It has three tenets:

Mathematics is a cultural and contextual abstraction of reality based on symbols. Mathematics reflects back on reality and empowers people to solve problems in their own lives. This abstraction and reflection is a creative but also a culturally biased act. “:https://research.qut.edu.au/ydc/about/yumi-deadly-maths/

Relationship between perceived reality and invented mathematics
(adapted from Matthews, 2009)

Indigenous Science Content

The First Scientists: Deadly Inventions and Innovations from Australia’s First Peoples by Corey Tutt

“
Ecosystems

The First Australians had millennia to study the way that land, plants and animals interacted and were interlinked. Their ability to observe and collect information about these natural systems allowed 60,000+ years of continuous culture. This makes Australia’s first people the earliest observational scientists who’s society is still with us. This encyclopedia-like knowledge and an understanding that nature was different across place and time, and was vital to successfully inhabit every part of Australia. The perspectives that developed over those millennia are still here for us to learn from. We have chosen the large overarching topic of Ecosystems to match the complexity the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders see the world. Plants do not exist without the birds that feed on their fruit, the microbes that keep their roots healthy, and the nutrient in the soil in which they grow. Systems are complex and Indigenous knowldeges and perspectives embrace that complexity at their core.”:https://www.acds.edu.au/teaching-learning/indigenous-science/indigenous-science-content/ecosystems/

You can also hear from Corey Tutt (NSW Young Australian of the year for 2020) as Dr Angela Ziebell talks to him about what Science and Indigenous Science means to him

https://www.acds.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/Corey-Tutt-interview-in-MP3-format.mp3

“YuMi Deadly Maths (YDM) is a unique mathematics pedagogical approach developed across 2010–12 to improve capacity to teach mathematics. It aims for the highest level of mathematics understanding through activity that engages students and involves parents and community. YDM aims to empower teachers to prepare effective mathematics lessons.

Originally designed for Indigenous students, YDM has been successfully adapted to low-SES students and mainstream schools. With a focus on how to teach, an emphasis on big ideas and connecting mathematics topics, and a special pedagogy that starts and ends with students’ reality, it is effective for all students. YDM follows the Australian Curriculum: Mathematics and fits in with or extends many existing programs and teaching approaches.

YDM has been effective in improving student attendance, engagement and performance, and in empowering teachers to go beyond their training and take control of planning and designing their own sequences of mathematics lessons. The YDM approach is unique in its focus on creativity, structure and culture with regard to mathematics and on whole school change with regard to implementation. It never limits the type of mathematics experience the students are to receive. We believe all students should receive the same mathematics as in elite schools. YDM provides practical and active ways to enable this to happen for all students, particularly Indigenous and low-SES students.”:http://example.com/

The Queensland Curriculum & Assessment Authority encourge and mandate the use of complex Indigenous knowledge systems into the our curriculum.

Knowledge frameworks of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples

Uncle Ernie Grant shares how to acknowledge Indigenous holistic views of the world

————————————————
While science has achieved a remarkable understanding of nature, affording humans an astonishing technological capability, it has led, through Euro-American global domination, to the muting of other cultural views and values, even threatening their continued existence. There is a growing realization that the diversity of knowledge systems demand respect,

Local Science Vs Global Science
Approaches to Indigenous Knowledge in International Development edited by Paul Sillitoe
—————————————————-

Yes. Either PWM is claiming that science didn’t exist anywhere until the development of the scientific method in the 17th century in Europe or he is being over dismissive of Indigenous practices that Australian Aboriginals followed in their lives. While there was little examination of mathematics or physics by First Nations Australians there was much environmental science of equal to many cultures around the world.

Witty Rejoinder said:

Yes. Either PWM is claiming that science didn’t exist anywhere until the development of the scientific method in the 17th century in Europe or he is being over dismissive of Indigenous practices that Australian Aboriginals followed in their lives. While there was little examination of mathematics or physics by First Nations Australians there was much environmental science of equal to many cultures around the world.

The boomerang was a clever bit of non-science or no maths.

Witty Rejoinder said:

Yes. Either PWM is claiming that science didn’t exist anywhere until the development of the scientific method in the 17th century in Europe or he is being over dismissive of Indigenous practices that Australian Aboriginals followed in their lives. While there was little examination of mathematics or physics by First Nations Australians there was much environmental science of equal to many cultures around the world.

He’s just using a very specific meaning of the word “science”, that’s all.

Observing how the natural world works, and devising practices that allow humans to survive in that world more successfully, may or may not be called “science”, depending on how you define the term. Either way, I doubt that PWM disputes that the original Australian peoples did this (I’m sure he’ll correct me if I’m wrong).

Personally I’d call it engineering.

roughbarked said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Yes. Either PWM is claiming that science didn’t exist anywhere until the development of the scientific method in the 17th century in Europe or he is being over dismissive of Indigenous practices that Australian Aboriginals followed in their lives. While there was little examination of mathematics or physics by First Nations Australians there was much environmental science of equal to many cultures around the world.

The boomerang was a clever bit of non-science or no maths.

Sure.

You don’t need science or maths for successful engineering.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Yes. Either PWM is claiming that science didn’t exist anywhere until the development of the scientific method in the 17th century in Europe or he is being over dismissive of Indigenous practices that Australian Aboriginals followed in their lives. While there was little examination of mathematics or physics by First Nations Australians there was much environmental science of equal to many cultures around the world.

He’s just using a very specific meaning of the word “science”, that’s all.

Observing how the natural world works, and devising practices that allow humans to survive in that world more successfully, may or may not be called “science”, depending on how you define the term. Either way, I doubt that PWM disputes that the original Australian peoples did this (I’m sure he’ll correct me if I’m wrong).

Personally I’d call it engineering.

Of course you would.

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Yes. Either PWM is claiming that science didn’t exist anywhere until the development of the scientific method in the 17th century in Europe or he is being over dismissive of Indigenous practices that Australian Aboriginals followed in their lives. While there was little examination of mathematics or physics by First Nations Australians there was much environmental science of equal to many cultures around the world.

He’s just using a very specific meaning of the word “science”, that’s all.

Observing how the natural world works, and devising practices that allow humans to survive in that world more successfully, may or may not be called “science”, depending on how you define the term. Either way, I doubt that PWM disputes that the original Australian peoples did this (I’m sure he’ll correct me if I’m wrong).

Personally I’d call it engineering.

Of course you would.

The point is, what you call it isn’t very important.

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Yes. Either PWM is claiming that science didn’t exist anywhere until the development of the scientific method in the 17th century in Europe or he is being over dismissive of Indigenous practices that Australian Aboriginals followed in their lives. While there was little examination of mathematics or physics by First Nations Australians there was much environmental science of equal to many cultures around the world.

He’s just using a very specific meaning of the word “science”, that’s all.

Observing how the natural world works, and devising practices that allow humans to survive in that world more successfully, may or may not be called “science”, depending on how you define the term. Either way, I doubt that PWM disputes that the original Australian peoples did this (I’m sure he’ll correct me if I’m wrong).

Personally I’d call it engineering.

Of course you would.

The point is, what you call it isn’t very important.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Yes. Either PWM is claiming that science didn’t exist anywhere until the development of the scientific method in the 17th century in Europe or he is being over dismissive of Indigenous practices that Australian Aboriginals followed in their lives. While there was little examination of mathematics or physics by First Nations Australians there was much environmental science of equal to many cultures around the world.

He’s just using a very specific meaning of the word “science”, that’s all.

Observing how the natural world works, and devising practices that allow humans to survive in that world more successfully, may or may not be called “science”, depending on how you define the term. Either way, I doubt that PWM disputes that the original Australian peoples did this (I’m sure he’ll correct me if I’m wrong).

Personally I’d call it engineering.

Certainly. I suppose we should ask if the learning and application of knowledge over time is ‘science’?

Witty Rejoinder said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Yes. Either PWM is claiming that science didn’t exist anywhere until the development of the scientific method in the 17th century in Europe or he is being over dismissive of Indigenous practices that Australian Aboriginals followed in their lives. While there was little examination of mathematics or physics by First Nations Australians there was much environmental science of equal to many cultures around the world.

He’s just using a very specific meaning of the word “science”, that’s all.

Observing how the natural world works, and devising practices that allow humans to survive in that world more successfully, may or may not be called “science”, depending on how you define the term. Either way, I doubt that PWM disputes that the original Australian peoples did this (I’m sure he’ll correct me if I’m wrong).

Personally I’d call it engineering.

Certainly. I suppose we should ask if the learning and application of knowledge over time is ‘science’?

The answer to that is surely no.

‘Science’ is part of the learning of knowledge over time, but it certainly isn’t all of it, and it may not have anything to do with application, depending on how you define it.

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

He’s just using a very specific meaning of the word “science”, that’s all.

Observing how the natural world works, and devising practices that allow humans to survive in that world more successfully, may or may not be called “science”, depending on how you define the term. Either way, I doubt that PWM disputes that the original Australian peoples did this (I’m sure he’ll correct me if I’m wrong).

Personally I’d call it engineering.

Of course you would.

The point is, what you call it isn’t very important.

This.

Witty Rejoinder said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Yes. Either PWM is claiming that science didn’t exist anywhere until the development of the scientific method in the 17th century in Europe or he is being over dismissive of Indigenous practices that Australian Aboriginals followed in their lives. While there was little examination of mathematics or physics by First Nations Australians there was much environmental science of equal to many cultures around the world.

He’s just using a very specific meaning of the word “science”, that’s all.

Observing how the natural world works, and devising practices that allow humans to survive in that world more successfully, may or may not be called “science”, depending on how you define the term. Either way, I doubt that PWM disputes that the original Australian peoples did this (I’m sure he’ll correct me if I’m wrong).

Personally I’d call it engineering.

Certainly. I suppose we should ask if the learning and application of knowledge over time is ‘science’?

Well, if science is at least partly ‘f*** around and find out’, then it’s at least partly science.

sure, who wouldn’t happily do the first

The Rev Dodgson said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Yes. Either PWM is claiming that science didn’t exist anywhere until the development of the scientific method in the 17th century in Europe or he is being over dismissive of Indigenous practices that Australian Aboriginals followed in their lives. While there was little examination of mathematics or physics by First Nations Australians there was much environmental science of equal to many cultures around the world.

He’s just using a very specific meaning of the word “science”, that’s all.

Observing how the natural world works, and devising practices that allow humans to survive in that world more successfully, may or may not be called “science”, depending on how you define the term. Either way, I doubt that PWM disputes that the original Australian peoples did this (I’m sure he’ll correct me if I’m wrong).

Personally I’d call it engineering.

Either way, it can be, and is, incorporated into Australian curricula. He’s saying it can’t or shouldn’t be.

Kothos said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Yes. Either PWM is claiming that science didn’t exist anywhere until the development of the scientific method in the 17th century in Europe or he is being over dismissive of Indigenous practices that Australian Aboriginals followed in their lives. While there was little examination of mathematics or physics by First Nations Australians there was much environmental science of equal to many cultures around the world.

He’s just using a very specific meaning of the word “science”, that’s all.

Observing how the natural world works, and devising practices that allow humans to survive in that world more successfully, may or may not be called “science”, depending on how you define the term. Either way, I doubt that PWM disputes that the original Australian peoples did this (I’m sure he’ll correct me if I’m wrong).

Personally I’d call it engineering.

Either way, it can be, and is, incorporated into Australian curricula. He’s saying it can’t or shouldn’t be.

If you are talking about PWM, I didn’t see where he said anything like that.

If you are talking about the guy in the video, my opinion is somewhere midway between his position, and some of the posts in this thread suggesting that indigenous knowledge should be taught in science lessons as an equally valid way of looking at science.

Both positions are about equally ridiculous.

The Rev Dodgson said:

If you are talking about PWM, I didn’t see where he said anything like that.

If you are talking about the guy in the video, my opinion is somewhere midway between his position, and some of the posts in this thread suggesting that indigenous knowledge should be taught in science lessons as an equally valid way of looking at science.

Both positions are about equally ridiculous.

Yeah, people can sometimes be a bit too zealous with their ideas/viewpoints.

There’s certainly nothing wrong with pointing out that ‘indigenous peoples’ all over the world, and not just in Australia, have developed some eminently workable technologies and practices, and have employed at least some aspects of ‘the scientific method’ to do that, even if they weren’t conscious of the idea of a ‘scientific method’.

But to declare ‘indigenous knowledge’ and its modes of acquisition as being an equally valid way of looking at science may be pushing the pendulum a bit too far one way, whatever the motivation behind that effort.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Kothos said:

Either way, it can be, and is, incorporated into Australian curricula. He’s saying it can’t or shouldn’t be.

If you are talking about PWM, I didn’t see where he said anything like that.

Ah well, you’ll need to re-read the thread then. He said it at least twice.

captain_spalding said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

If you are talking about PWM, I didn’t see where he said anything like that.

If you are talking about the guy in the video, my opinion is somewhere midway between his position, and some of the posts in this thread suggesting that indigenous knowledge should be taught in science lessons as an equally valid way of looking at science.

Both positions are about equally ridiculous.

Yeah, people can sometimes be a bit too zealous with their ideas/viewpoints.

There’s certainly nothing wrong with pointing out that ‘indigenous peoples’ all over the world, and not just in Australia, have developed some eminently workable technologies and practices, and have employed at least some aspects of ‘the scientific method’ to do that, even if they weren’t conscious of the idea of a ‘scientific method’.

But to declare ‘indigenous knowledge’ and its modes of acquisition as being an equally valid way of looking at science may be pushing the pendulum a bit too far one way, whatever the motivation behind that effort.

I agree Capn’

Kothos said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Kothos said:

Either way, it can be, and is, incorporated into Australian curricula. He’s saying it can’t or shouldn’t be.

If you are talking about PWM, I didn’t see where he said anything like that.

Ah well, you’ll need to re-read the thread then. He said it at least twice.

Why would I do that?

Just lump him in with the video guy.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Kothos said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

If you are talking about PWM, I didn’t see where he said anything like that.

Ah well, you’ll need to re-read the thread then. He said it at least twice.

Why would I do that?

Um, I figured you’d want proof.

Kothos said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Kothos said:

Ah well, you’ll need to re-read the thread then. He said it at least twice.

Why would I do that?

Um, I figured you’d want proof.

Why? I wasn’t discussing that statement.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Kothos said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Why would I do that?

Um, I figured you’d want proof.

Why? I wasn’t discussing that statement.

In spite of which, I have re-read every PWM post in this thread (oh the pain) and confirm that he did not comment on whether indigenous knowledge of the natural world should be taught in Australian schools.

The Rev Dodgson said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Kothos said:

Um, I figured you’d want proof.

Why? I wasn’t discussing that statement.

In spite of which, I have re-read every PWM post in this thread (oh the pain) and confirm that he did not comment on whether indigenous knowledge of the natural world should be taught in Australian schools.

Sure he did, I even quoted him.

Witty Rejoinder said:

Yes. Either PWM is claiming that science didn’t exist anywhere until the development of the scientific method in the 17th century in Europe or he is being over dismissive of Indigenous practices that Australian Aboriginals followed in their lives. While there was little examination of mathematics or physics by First Nations Australians there was much environmental science of equal to many cultures around the world.

Harris, J. (1990). Counting: What we can learn from white myths about Aboriginal numbers, Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 15 (1).

“Professor Chris Matthews is from the Quandamooka people of Minjerribah (Stradbroke Island) in Queensland Australia. Chris received a PhD in applied mathematics from Griffith University and was a Senior Lecturer in applied mathematics at the Griffith School of Environment, Griffith University. Over the last ten years, Chris developed a deeper interest in mathematics education for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander learners and exploring the connections between mathematics and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander knowledges.

Chris is currently the Chair of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Mathematics Alliance (ATSIMA) that aims to transform mathematics education for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander learners. He is also a senior curriculum advisor for Australian Curriculum, Asessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) for the National Mathematics Curriculum working to including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander perspectives in the curriculum.

Chris is the Associate Dean (Indigenous Leadership and Engagement) in the Science Faculty at University Technology of Sydney (UTS). As part of this role, Chris will be leading a team of academics to transform the Science curriculum to meet the Indigenous Graduate Attribute and develop a Community of Indigenous STEM professionals at UTS.”:https://www.teachermagazine.com/au_en/articles/indigenous-perspectives-in-mathematics-education

Explainer: how does the Aboriginal numeric system work?

Basic Maths Remedial Aim: The idea of this unit is to bring out the maths in the culture of the students, rather than bringing theculture into the maths for the students.

Deakin, M. (2010). Aboriginal and Islander mathematics: Comments on one aspect of the proposed National Curriculum. Gazette of the Australian Mathematical Society, 37(4): pp. 233 – 237.

YuMi Deadly Maths

About YuMi Deadly Centre resources

Jorgensen, R. (2010). Structured failing: Reshaping a mathematical future for marginalised learners. In L. Sparrow, B Kissane, & C Hurst (Eds.), Shaping the Future of Mathematics Education: Proceedings of the 33rd annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, (pp. 26-35). Fremantle: MERGA.

Dr Tyson Yunkaporta has been active in this arena as well.

Thought ritual: an Indigenous data analysis method for research authored by Tyson Yunkaporta Donna Moodie https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004461642_006

Aboriginal pedagogies at the cultural interface

Kothos said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Why? I wasn’t discussing that statement.

In spite of which, I have re-read every PWM post in this thread (oh the pain) and confirm that he did not comment on whether indigenous knowledge of the natural world should be taught in Australian schools.

Sure he did, I even quoted him.

Well go ahead and quote him again, then I can explain to you why it doesn’t say what you think it says.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Kothos said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

In spite of which, I have re-read every PWM post in this thread (oh the pain) and confirm that he did not comment on whether indigenous knowledge of the natural world should be taught in Australian schools.

Sure he did, I even quoted him.

Well go ahead and quote him again, then I can explain to you why it doesn’t say what you think it says.

Shit, sorry, it wasn’t PWM, it was SCIENCE.

Kothos said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Kothos said:

Sure he did, I even quoted him.

Well go ahead and quote him again, then I can explain to you why it doesn’t say what you think it says.

Shit, sorry, it wasn’t PWM, it was SCIENCE.

Pretty sure that’s the same person.

dv said:

Kothos said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Well go ahead and quote him again, then I can explain to you why it doesn’t say what you think it says.

Shit, sorry, it wasn’t PWM, it was SCIENCE.

Pretty sure that’s the same person.

I thought that wookie was SCIENCE?

Kothos said:

Peak Warming Man said:

There is not one example of indigenous science in this thread because basically it doesn’t exist.
It’s just handwaving feel good kumbaya nonsense.

There’s not much of any kind of science either but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Instead of being abrasive and advertising your ignorance you could ask for some.

Also ms spock just started a whole thread about it.

PWM did, however, say this. And I still disagree – some indigenous knowledge qualifies as scientific.

captain_spalding said:

dv said:

Kothos said:

Shit, sorry, it wasn’t PWM, it was SCIENCE.

Pretty sure that’s the same person.

I thought that wookie was SCIENCE?

I doubt it, but it’s a lot more likely than PWM being SCIENCE (or vice versa).

This is a really interesting conversation.

There’s been a lot written on this.

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————
It might seem crazy to think of a boomerang as a text that can be read. But this text
tells me that in learning, the shortest distance between two points is not a straight line.
You have to go off the beaten track if you want to find knowledge rather than basic
information. Sometimes those directions might seem crazy or irrelevant, but in an
Aboriginal holistic worldview in which all things are connected, this is what makes
your knowledge deep, personal and experiential. Is this a cultural difference? Is there
no holistic, non-linear thinking in western knowledge? Once again, you have to go
higher, and you’ll see that fields like science, maths and engineering are all holistic in
their most complex work. This crosses over into other disciplines too – like
complexity theory has moved from science and into organisation management and
leadership models. Formulae from econometrics are used for climate change models.

You can see that two-way interface there in the boomerang too – there are two ways
coming to meet in the middle, to find common ground, but also to create synergy and
innovation. This synergistic principle of balance and interface is a cornerstone of
Aboriginal worldviews. For example, in Yolngu culture there is that concept of
Ganma, where freshwater and saltwater meet to make brackish water. Apart from
being an important ecological catalyst in the wet season, this concept also informs
their social system and values, and the idea of Garma which is a model for cultural
exchange. You can see a similar concept in the design of the boomerang, as a way of
thinking and learning through using different perspectives. At the middle of the
boomerang there you see circles too, representing circular logic. In our way you can
see that in kinship systems, in story genres and language structure. In western science
you can see it in studies of life cycles and such.

24 Dr Tyson Yunkaporta

https://researchonline.jcu.edu.au/10974/2/01thesis.pdf
===========================================================

dv said:

Kothos said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Well go ahead and quote him again, then I can explain to you why it doesn’t say what you think it says.

Shit, sorry, it wasn’t PWM, it was SCIENCE.

Pretty sure that’s the same person.

Oh, well that’s easy enough then.

Fark, seriously. I don’t come her to be confused. Why are people arguing in the thread with multiple identities?

Kothos said:

Kothos said:

Peak Warming Man said:

There is not one example of indigenous science in this thread because basically it doesn’t exist.
It’s just handwaving feel good kumbaya nonsense.

There’s not much of any kind of science either but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Instead of being abrasive and advertising your ignorance you could ask for some.

Also ms spock just started a whole thread about it.

PWM did, however, say this. And I still disagree – some indigenous knowledge qualifies as scientific.

I don’t agree with that either, but it’s just based on a very specific definition of “science”.

The accusations of racism are not helpful.

Kothos said:

Fark, seriously. I don’t come her to be confused. Why are people arguing in the thread with multiple identities?

DV was joking. PWM is PeterT1 and SCIENCE is MZL as they were known in the old place.

Kothos said:

dv said:

Kothos said:

Shit, sorry, it wasn’t PWM, it was SCIENCE.

Pretty sure that’s the same person.

Oh, well that’s easy enough then.

Oh, didn’t notice that that was a dv contribution.

I was going to point out that dv was probably PWM, so I guess that confirms it.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Kothos said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

He’s just using a very specific meaning of the word “science”, that’s all.

Observing how the natural world works, and devising practices that allow humans to survive in that world more successfully, may or may not be called “science”, depending on how you define the term. Either way, I doubt that PWM disputes that the original Australian peoples did this (I’m sure he’ll correct me if I’m wrong).

Personally I’d call it engineering.

Either way, it can be, and is, incorporated into Australian curricula. He’s saying it can’t or shouldn’t be.

If you are talking about PWM, I didn’t see where he said anything like that.

If you are talking about the guy in the video, my opinion is somewhere midway between his position, and some of the posts in this thread suggesting that indigenous knowledge should be taught in science lessons as an equally valid way of looking at science.

Both positions are about equally ridiculous.

Indigenous science has been part of the Australian Curriculum for sometime now.

I taught four seasons from a Western perspective and also the local communities 8 seasons, and the reasons why and how that assisted them engaging with local flora and fauna – you can link it in with Sustainability which is another Cross Curriulum Priority. (That’s a really basic example).

Australian Curriculum: Science Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Histories and Cultures cross-curriculum priority JULY 2019 Content elaborations and teacher background information for Years 7-10

In all honestly …

I’m content for people to be quite precious about what is and is not science. For probably hundreds of thousands of years, humans developed their knowledge about the physical world.

These were based on observation and experimentation and were often filled in with speculation or pure superstition. Sometimes the information was quite good, other times it was useful but flawed and relied on “false middles”, other times it was way off.

The people (sensu lato) who established the first stone axe industry needed to do experimentation and think critically and systematically to some extent: same with the people who first set up fish traps or worked out how to navigate by the stars. Or for that matter, to smelt metals, build stable arches, selectively breed animals and plant cultivars, predict eclipses and tides …

All of the development in technology and knowledge of the natural world that took place up to the middle of the 2nd millennium AD occurred without the benefit of the scientific method per se. It’s no insult to any of the people who made previous advancements to acknowledge this.

There’s certainly a place in science education to discuss pre-scientific exploration and understanding of the natural world. And indeed this has always been part of the science curriculum. Any introductory astronomy or celestial mechanics course will briefly touch upon the old geocentric Ptolemaic view of the universe. There can be an argument for how much emphasis needs to be placed on these ideas but I think it is useful for context. On the other hand, I’m not expecting a science class to present geocentrism as being a currently viable system.

Similarly, I wouldn’t have a problem with indigenous ideas on the natural world being discussed in a science class, as long as the emphasis is right.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Kothos said:

Kothos said:

There’s not much of any kind of science either but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Instead of being abrasive and advertising your ignorance you could ask for some.

Also ms spock just started a whole thread about it.

PWM did, however, say this. And I still disagree – some indigenous knowledge qualifies as scientific.

I don’t agree with that either, but it’s just based on a very specific definition of “science”.

The accusations of racism are not helpful.

This is a really fascinating conversation. I am shocked that folks on the Holiday Forum didn’t know that this is all in place right now! So interesting where our sources of knowledge come from.

What is also not helpful is ignoring resources that actively engage with the comments made. I posted resources that if you actually read them would challenge some of the assertions made. If you just want to sit around and type “I feel Aboriginal people didn’t engage in Science”, then fair enough, but if you are actually engaging with the content, then you can go and read the living examples of Aboriginal Science that is being used in classrooms right now. I personally spent more time teaching Science in outdoor settings. But I still used the Australian Curriculum. This is already happening.

Aboriginal Science has been part of the Australia Curricululm for a long time now.

The elaborations acknowledge that Aboriginal Peoples and Torres Strait Islander Peoples have worked scientifically for millennia and continue to contribute to contemporary science. They are scientifically rigorous, demonstrating how Indigenous history, culture, knowledge and understanding can be incorporated into teaching core scientific concepts.

“The Australian Curriculum: Science (F-10) contains content descriptions that define what is to be
taught and what students are expected to learn. The content descriptions of the three Science
strands –

Science understanding (SU),

Science as a human endeavour (SHE) and

Science inquiry skills (SIS) – are accompanied by content elaborations.

The new elaborations promote an integrated approach to teaching the three interrelated strands of
the Australian Curriculum: Science.

• Elaborations within the Science understanding and Science as a human endeavour strands are
organised into topics and embedded in a progression of learning. Some topics are included in
several year levels to accommodate increasingly sophisticated aspects or understandings.

• Elaborations within the Science inquiry skills strand provide contexts for the inquiry process and
include reference to skills required to engage with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander histories
and cultures, in particular:

– acknowledging the scientific knowledge and skills of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Peoples

– consulting with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities in the planning or evaluation
of scientific investigations

– collaborating with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities in mutually beneficial
scientific research.

• Wherever possible, the focus of each elaboration has been chosen to facilitate the integration
of closely related content from two or more strands at the same year level or two-year band.
Such opportunities are referred to as ‘cross-strand linkages’ and are provided in the teacher
background information.

• All elaborations reference the appropriate Organising Ideas of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander Histories and Cultures cross-curriculum priority framework.

• Many elaborations offer opportunities for students to also develop the general capabilities of the
Australian Curriculum, such as Personal and Social Capability, Critical and Creative Thinking,
Ethical Understanding and Intercultural Understanding.”:https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/media/5086/ccp-tbi-7-10.pdf

Anyway I have a tone of Gaeilge obair (homework) to do, so I will look in later.

I think these are important conversations to be having. It’s really interesting to see how folks are thinking about things. I find that most interesting to see how people’s brains work. I love neuroscience and trying to link the little that I know of that to interactions I have with folks.

ms spock said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Kothos said:

PWM did, however, say this. And I still disagree – some indigenous knowledge qualifies as scientific.

I don’t agree with that either, but it’s just based on a very specific definition of “science”.

The accusations of racism are not helpful.

This is a really fascinating conversation. I am shocked that folks on the Holiday Forum didn’t know that this is all in place right now! So interesting where our sources of knowledge come from.

What is also not helpful is ignoring resources that actively engage with the comments made. I posted resources that if you actually read them would challenge some of the assertions made. If you just want to sit around and type “I feel Aboriginal people didn’t engage in Science”, then fair enough, but if you are actually engaging with the content, then you can go and read the living examples of Aboriginal Science that is being used in classrooms right now. I personally spent more time teaching Science in outdoor settings. But I still used the Australian Curriculum. This is already happening.

Aboriginal Science has been part of the Australia Curricululm for a long time now.

The elaborations acknowledge that Aboriginal Peoples and Torres Strait Islander Peoples have worked scientifically for millennia and continue to contribute to contemporary science. They are scientifically rigorous, demonstrating how Indigenous history, culture, knowledge and understanding can be incorporated into teaching core scientific concepts.

“The Australian Curriculum: Science (F-10) contains content descriptions that define what is to be
taught and what students are expected to learn. The content descriptions of the three Science
strands –

Science understanding (SU),

Science as a human endeavour (SHE) and

Science inquiry skills (SIS) – are accompanied by content elaborations.

The new elaborations promote an integrated approach to teaching the three interrelated strands of
the Australian Curriculum: Science.

• Elaborations within the Science understanding and Science as a human endeavour strands are
organised into topics and embedded in a progression of learning. Some topics are included in
several year levels to accommodate increasingly sophisticated aspects or understandings.

• Elaborations within the Science inquiry skills strand provide contexts for the inquiry process and
include reference to skills required to engage with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander histories
and cultures, in particular:

– acknowledging the scientific knowledge and skills of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Peoples

– consulting with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities in the planning or evaluation
of scientific investigations

– collaborating with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities in mutually beneficial
scientific research.

• Wherever possible, the focus of each elaboration has been chosen to facilitate the integration
of closely related content from two or more strands at the same year level or two-year band.
Such opportunities are referred to as ‘cross-strand linkages’ and are provided in the teacher
background information.

• All elaborations reference the appropriate Organising Ideas of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander Histories and Cultures cross-curriculum priority framework.

• Many elaborations offer opportunities for students to also develop the general capabilities of the
Australian Curriculum, such as Personal and Social Capability, Critical and Creative Thinking,
Ethical Understanding and Intercultural Understanding.”:https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/media/5086/ccp-tbi-7-10.pdf

Anyway I have a tone of Gaeilge obair (homework) to do, so I will look in later.

I think these are important conversations to be having. It’s really interesting to see how folks are thinking about things. I find that most interesting to see how people’s brains work. I love neuroscience and trying to link the little that I know of that to interactions I have with folks.

Please read what people actually say, rather than interpreting what they say as being one of two extreme positions.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Kothos said:

Kothos said:

There’s not much of any kind of science either but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Instead of being abrasive and advertising your ignorance you could ask for some.

Also ms spock just started a whole thread about it.

PWM did, however, say this. And I still disagree – some indigenous knowledge qualifies as scientific.

I don’t agree with that either, but it’s just based on a very specific definition of “science”.

The accusations of racism are not helpful.

Disagree. If someone is going to shut down discussion from a clear position of bias I’m not going to treat them with kid gloves. Happy to agree to disagree.

The Rev Dodgson said:

ms spock said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I don’t agree with that either, but it’s just based on a very specific definition of “science”.

The accusations of racism are not helpful.

This is a really fascinating conversation. I am shocked that folks on the Holiday Forum didn’t know that this is all in place right now! So interesting where our sources of knowledge come from.

What is also not helpful is ignoring resources that actively engage with the comments made. I posted resources that if you actually read them would challenge some of the assertions made. If you just want to sit around and type “I feel Aboriginal people didn’t engage in Science”, then fair enough, but if you are actually engaging with the content, then you can go and read the living examples of Aboriginal Science that is being used in classrooms right now. I personally spent more time teaching Science in outdoor settings. But I still used the Australian Curriculum. This is already happening.

Aboriginal Science has been part of the Australia Curricululm for a long time now.

The elaborations acknowledge that Aboriginal Peoples and Torres Strait Islander Peoples have worked scientifically for millennia and continue to contribute to contemporary science. They are scientifically rigorous, demonstrating how Indigenous history, culture, knowledge and understanding can be incorporated into teaching core scientific concepts.

“The Australian Curriculum: Science (F-10) contains content descriptions that define what is to be
taught and what students are expected to learn. The content descriptions of the three Science
strands –

Science understanding (SU),

Science as a human endeavour (SHE) and

Science inquiry skills (SIS) – are accompanied by content elaborations.

The new elaborations promote an integrated approach to teaching the three interrelated strands of
the Australian Curriculum: Science.

• Elaborations within the Science understanding and Science as a human endeavour strands are
organised into topics and embedded in a progression of learning. Some topics are included in
several year levels to accommodate increasingly sophisticated aspects or understandings.

• Elaborations within the Science inquiry skills strand provide contexts for the inquiry process and
include reference to skills required to engage with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander histories
and cultures, in particular:

– acknowledging the scientific knowledge and skills of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Peoples

– consulting with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities in the planning or evaluation
of scientific investigations

– collaborating with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities in mutually beneficial
scientific research.

• Wherever possible, the focus of each elaboration has been chosen to facilitate the integration
of closely related content from two or more strands at the same year level or two-year band.
Such opportunities are referred to as ‘cross-strand linkages’ and are provided in the teacher
background information.

• All elaborations reference the appropriate Organising Ideas of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander Histories and Cultures cross-curriculum priority framework.

• Many elaborations offer opportunities for students to also develop the general capabilities of the
Australian Curriculum, such as Personal and Social Capability, Critical and Creative Thinking,
Ethical Understanding and Intercultural Understanding.”:https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/media/5086/ccp-tbi-7-10.pdf

Anyway I have a tone of Gaeilge obair (homework) to do, so I will look in later.

I think these are important conversations to be having. It’s really interesting to see how folks are thinking about things. I find that most interesting to see how people’s brains work. I love neuroscience and trying to link the little that I know of that to interactions I have with folks.

Please read what people actually say, rather than interpreting what they say as being one of two extreme positions.

You don’t need to be in one of two positions. It’s not all or nothing. You can draw on it all in and create rich textured lesson and get students to do their own observations, experiments and research. It is not an either or or situation. Integrate the best from all traditions. And sometimes one tradition illustrates a scientific concept in a way that will appeal to your students more. So you use that, and you continuously, yourself, learn and update your own knowledge and you can share your own learning with students. Science updates all the time. So you can tell your students that what you have taught them as been updated by further research in another discipline or by other scientists. It’s not fixed in time or space. We get updated knowledge each and every day.

Australian Curriculum content is extreme? I don’t think so. ACARA has great scones and tea at their training days, adding in some fruit is probably about as extreme as they will get.

Kothos said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Kothos said:

PWM did, however, say this. And I still disagree – some indigenous knowledge qualifies as scientific.

I don’t agree with that either, but it’s just based on a very specific definition of “science”.

The accusations of racism are not helpful.

Disagree. If someone is going to shut down discussion from a clear position of bias I’m not going to treat them with kid gloves. Happy to agree to disagree.

Stop doing that then.

ms spock said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

ms spock said:

This is a really fascinating conversation. I am shocked that folks on the Holiday Forum didn’t know that this is all in place right now! So interesting where our sources of knowledge come from.

What is also not helpful is ignoring resources that actively engage with the comments made. I posted resources that if you actually read them would challenge some of the assertions made. If you just want to sit around and type “I feel Aboriginal people didn’t engage in Science”, then fair enough, but if you are actually engaging with the content, then you can go and read the living examples of Aboriginal Science that is being used in classrooms right now. I personally spent more time teaching Science in outdoor settings. But I still used the Australian Curriculum. This is already happening.

Aboriginal Science has been part of the Australia Curricululm for a long time now.

The elaborations acknowledge that Aboriginal Peoples and Torres Strait Islander Peoples have worked scientifically for millennia and continue to contribute to contemporary science. They are scientifically rigorous, demonstrating how Indigenous history, culture, knowledge and understanding can be incorporated into teaching core scientific concepts.

“The Australian Curriculum: Science (F-10) contains content descriptions that define what is to be
taught and what students are expected to learn. The content descriptions of the three Science
strands –

Science understanding (SU),

Science as a human endeavour (SHE) and

Science inquiry skills (SIS) – are accompanied by content elaborations.

The new elaborations promote an integrated approach to teaching the three interrelated strands of
the Australian Curriculum: Science.

• Elaborations within the Science understanding and Science as a human endeavour strands are
organised into topics and embedded in a progression of learning. Some topics are included in
several year levels to accommodate increasingly sophisticated aspects or understandings.

• Elaborations within the Science inquiry skills strand provide contexts for the inquiry process and
include reference to skills required to engage with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander histories
and cultures, in particular:

– acknowledging the scientific knowledge and skills of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Peoples

– consulting with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities in the planning or evaluation
of scientific investigations

– collaborating with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities in mutually beneficial
scientific research.

• Wherever possible, the focus of each elaboration has been chosen to facilitate the integration
of closely related content from two or more strands at the same year level or two-year band.
Such opportunities are referred to as ‘cross-strand linkages’ and are provided in the teacher
background information.

• All elaborations reference the appropriate Organising Ideas of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander Histories and Cultures cross-curriculum priority framework.

• Many elaborations offer opportunities for students to also develop the general capabilities of the
Australian Curriculum, such as Personal and Social Capability, Critical and Creative Thinking,
Ethical Understanding and Intercultural Understanding.”:https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/media/5086/ccp-tbi-7-10.pdf

Anyway I have a tone of Gaeilge obair (homework) to do, so I will look in later.

I think these are important conversations to be having. It’s really interesting to see how folks are thinking about things. I find that most interesting to see how people’s brains work. I love neuroscience and trying to link the little that I know of that to interactions I have with folks.

Please read what people actually say, rather than interpreting what they say as being one of two extreme positions.

You don’t need to be in one of two positions. It’s not all or nothing.

That is exactly what I and several others have been saying.

captain_spalding said:

dv said:

Kothos said:

Shit, sorry, it wasn’t PWM, it was SCIENCE.

Pretty sure that’s the same person.

I thought that wookie was SCIENCE?

hmmm

roughbarked said:

captain_spalding said:

dv said:

Pretty sure that’s the same person.

I thought that wookie was SCIENCE?

hmmm

I mean, there’s similarities. Maybe they went to school together?

ms spock said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Kothos said:

PWM did, however, say this. And I still disagree – some indigenous knowledge qualifies as scientific.

I don’t agree with that either, but it’s just based on a very specific definition of “science”.

The accusations of racism are not helpful.

This is a really fascinating conversation. I am shocked that folks on the Holiday Forum didn’t know that this is all in place right now! So interesting where our sources of knowledge come from.

What is also not helpful is ignoring resources that actively engage with the comments made. I posted resources that if you actually read them would challenge some of the assertions made. If you just want to sit around and type “I feel Aboriginal people didn’t engage in Science”, then fair enough, but if you are actually engaging with the content, then you can go and read the living examples of Aboriginal Science that is being used in classrooms right now. I personally spent more time teaching Science in outdoor settings. But I still used the Australian Curriculum. This is already happening.

Aboriginal Science has been part of the Australia Curricululm for a long time now.

The elaborations acknowledge that Aboriginal Peoples and Torres Strait Islander Peoples have worked scientifically for millennia and continue to contribute to contemporary science. They are scientifically rigorous, demonstrating how Indigenous history, culture, knowledge and understanding can be incorporated into teaching core scientific concepts.

“The Australian Curriculum: Science (F-10) contains content descriptions that define what is to be
taught and what students are expected to learn. The content descriptions of the three Science
strands –

Science understanding (SU),

Science as a human endeavour (SHE) and

Science inquiry skills (SIS) – are accompanied by content elaborations.

The new elaborations promote an integrated approach to teaching the three interrelated strands of
the Australian Curriculum: Science.

• Elaborations within the Science understanding and Science as a human endeavour strands are
organised into topics and embedded in a progression of learning. Some topics are included in
several year levels to accommodate increasingly sophisticated aspects or understandings.

• Elaborations within the Science inquiry skills strand provide contexts for the inquiry process and
include reference to skills required to engage with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander histories
and cultures, in particular:

– acknowledging the scientific knowledge and skills of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Peoples

– consulting with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities in the planning or evaluation
of scientific investigations

– collaborating with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities in mutually beneficial
scientific research.

• Wherever possible, the focus of each elaboration has been chosen to facilitate the integration
of closely related content from two or more strands at the same year level or two-year band.
Such opportunities are referred to as ‘cross-strand linkages’ and are provided in the teacher
background information.

• All elaborations reference the appropriate Organising Ideas of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander Histories and Cultures cross-curriculum priority framework.

• Many elaborations offer opportunities for students to also develop the general capabilities of the
Australian Curriculum, such as Personal and Social Capability, Critical and Creative Thinking,
Ethical Understanding and Intercultural Understanding.”:https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/media/5086/ccp-tbi-7-10.pdf

Anyway I have a tone of Gaeilge obair (homework) to do, so I will look in later.

I think these are important conversations to be having. It’s really interesting to see how folks are thinking about things. I find that most interesting to see how people’s brains work. I love neuroscience and trying to link the little that I know of that to interactions I have with folks.

Thing is, it wasnt a part of the curriculim when most of us went to school. Quite the opposite.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Kothos said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I don’t agree with that either, but it’s just based on a very specific definition of “science”.

The accusations of racism are not helpful.

Disagree. If someone is going to shut down discussion from a clear position of bias I’m not going to treat them with kid gloves. Happy to agree to disagree.

Stop doing that then.

I saw what PWM said as being very PWM, has a view, some attitude, he’s certainly not nested in amongst pretensions of excessive scientific neutrality

doubt he’d much entertain the, if you like, softer humanities-driven idea of science, whatever anthropologically inclusive maybe put it that way

but I would assert, science does lend to ideology, i’m not sure it became any less so as things evolved to include the softer sciences, perspectives from, accommodating that way

probably of some value to think back to childhood experience, have a developmental perspective, consider what science a toddler does, even accidentally as most is at that age, ask what might proto-science be, what is it really in its youngest form, youngest examples, where does it start, because it does start somewhere, perhaps even restarts over and over with every human born

one could I guess credit science entirely to the established formalism, learning from that only, but yeah I dunno, doesn’t sound like much fun

not sure what science says about fun, or stories of fun, but reckons it’d be a shit world if there were none

captain_spalding said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

If you are talking about PWM, I didn’t see where he said anything like that.

If you are talking about the guy in the video, my opinion is somewhere midway between his position, and some of the posts in this thread suggesting that indigenous knowledge should be taught in science lessons as an equally valid way of looking at science.

Both positions are about equally ridiculous.

Yeah, people can sometimes be a bit too zealous with their ideas/viewpoints.

There’s certainly nothing wrong with pointing out that ‘indigenous peoples’ all over the world, and not just in Australia, have developed some eminently workable technologies and practices, and have employed at least some aspects of ‘the scientific method’ to do that, even if they weren’t conscious of the idea of a ‘scientific method’.

But to declare ‘indigenous knowledge’ and its modes of acquisition as being an equally valid way of looking at science may be pushing the pendulum a bit too far one way, whatever the motivation behind that effort.

Science is a systematic and logical approach to discovering how things in the universe work. It is also the body of knowledge accumulated through the discoveries about all the things in the universe.

The word “science” is derived from the Latin word “scientia,” which means knowledge based on demonstrable and reproducible data, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary. True to this definition, science aims for measurable results through testing and analysis, a process known as the scientific method. Science is based on fact, not opinion or preferences. The process of science is designed to challenge ideas through research. One important aspect of the scientific process is that it focuses only on the natural world, according to the University of California, Berkeley. Anything that is considered supernatural, or beyond physical reality, does not fit into the definition of science.

https://www.livescience.com/20896-science-scientific-method.html

PermeateFree said:

captain_spalding said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

If you are talking about PWM, I didn’t see where he said anything like that.

If you are talking about the guy in the video, my opinion is somewhere midway between his position, and some of the posts in this thread suggesting that indigenous knowledge should be taught in science lessons as an equally valid way of looking at science.

Both positions are about equally ridiculous.

Yeah, people can sometimes be a bit too zealous with their ideas/viewpoints.

There’s certainly nothing wrong with pointing out that ‘indigenous peoples’ all over the world, and not just in Australia, have developed some eminently workable technologies and practices, and have employed at least some aspects of ‘the scientific method’ to do that, even if they weren’t conscious of the idea of a ‘scientific method’.

But to declare ‘indigenous knowledge’ and its modes of acquisition as being an equally valid way of looking at science may be pushing the pendulum a bit too far one way, whatever the motivation behind that effort.

Science is a systematic and logical approach to discovering how things in the universe work. It is also the body of knowledge accumulated through the discoveries about all the things in the universe.

The word “science” is derived from the Latin word “scientia,” which means knowledge based on demonstrable and reproducible data, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary. True to this definition, science aims for measurable results through testing and analysis, a process known as the scientific method. Science is based on fact, not opinion or preferences. The process of science is designed to challenge ideas through research. One important aspect of the scientific process is that it focuses only on the natural world, according to the University of California, Berkeley. Anything that is considered supernatural, or beyond physical reality, does not fit into the definition of science.

https://www.livescience.com/20896-science-scientific-method.html

reading that, cheers, master permeate

halfway into it

so, a question that springs to mind, can science be used to deny the existence of, or partial denial of something that does exist, or deny the likelihood of whatever possibly existing, and has it ever happened

consider a hypothetical proposition for a moment, an argument between you and I

I might argue the motivation for objective truth originates from resolving aspects of the subjective experience of my inner world, for example, and similarly of others, that its universally true

that knowing involves this, human knowing, that it applies scientific-based knowing

or, to put it another way..

you can’t know without awareness of the subjective, a feel for it, a feel for the subjective dimension generating the desire to know, know with greater certainty

transition said:

PermeateFree said:

captain_spalding said:

Yeah, people can sometimes be a bit too zealous with their ideas/viewpoints.

There’s certainly nothing wrong with pointing out that ‘indigenous peoples’ all over the world, and not just in Australia, have developed some eminently workable technologies and practices, and have employed at least some aspects of ‘the scientific method’ to do that, even if they weren’t conscious of the idea of a ‘scientific method’.

But to declare ‘indigenous knowledge’ and its modes of acquisition as being an equally valid way of looking at science may be pushing the pendulum a bit too far one way, whatever the motivation behind that effort.

Science is a systematic and logical approach to discovering how things in the universe work. It is also the body of knowledge accumulated through the discoveries about all the things in the universe.

The word “science” is derived from the Latin word “scientia,” which means knowledge based on demonstrable and reproducible data, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary. True to this definition, science aims for measurable results through testing and analysis, a process known as the scientific method. Science is based on fact, not opinion or preferences. The process of science is designed to challenge ideas through research. One important aspect of the scientific process is that it focuses only on the natural world, according to the University of California, Berkeley. Anything that is considered supernatural, or beyond physical reality, does not fit into the definition of science.

https://www.livescience.com/20896-science-scientific-method.html

reading that, cheers, master permeate

halfway into it

so, a question that springs to mind, can science be used to deny the existence of, or partial denial of something that does exist, or deny the likelihood of whatever possibly existing, and has it ever happened

consider a hypothetical proposition for a moment, an argument between you and I

I might argue the motivation for objective truth originates from resolving aspects of the subjective experience of my inner world, for example, and similarly of others, that its universally true

that knowing involves this, human knowing, that it applies scientific-based knowing

or, to put it another way..

you can’t know without awareness of the subjective, a feel for it, a feel for the subjective dimension generating the desire to know, know with greater certainty

Science does not exist without facts. Science is questioned continually with facts. Science grows accumulatively with facts. Science questions presumed facts. Science confirms with facts. Facts are not the property of educated people in white coats.

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

PermeateFree said:

Science is a systematic and logical approach to discovering how things in the universe work. It is also the body of knowledge accumulated through the discoveries about all the things in the universe.

The word “science” is derived from the Latin word “scientia,” which means knowledge based on demonstrable and reproducible data, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary. True to this definition, science aims for measurable results through testing and analysis, a process known as the scientific method. Science is based on fact, not opinion or preferences. The process of science is designed to challenge ideas through research. One important aspect of the scientific process is that it focuses only on the natural world, according to the University of California, Berkeley. Anything that is considered supernatural, or beyond physical reality, does not fit into the definition of science.

https://www.livescience.com/20896-science-scientific-method.html

reading that, cheers, master permeate

halfway into it

so, a question that springs to mind, can science be used to deny the existence of, or partial denial of something that does exist, or deny the likelihood of whatever possibly existing, and has it ever happened

consider a hypothetical proposition for a moment, an argument between you and I

I might argue the motivation for objective truth originates from resolving aspects of the subjective experience of my inner world, for example, and similarly of others, that its universally true

that knowing involves this, human knowing, that it applies scientific-based knowing

or, to put it another way..

you can’t know without awareness of the subjective, a feel for it, a feel for the subjective dimension generating the desire to know, know with greater certainty

Science does not exist without facts. Science is questioned continually with facts. Science grows accumulatively with facts. Science questions presumed facts. Science confirms with facts. Facts are not the property of educated people in white coats.

would there be any motivation for such an enterprise without the subjective experience of the workings inside our heads, I mean separately of course, not our as in converged

transition said:

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

reading that, cheers, master permeate

halfway into it

so, a question that springs to mind, can science be used to deny the existence of, or partial denial of something that does exist, or deny the likelihood of whatever possibly existing, and has it ever happened

consider a hypothetical proposition for a moment, an argument between you and I

I might argue the motivation for objective truth originates from resolving aspects of the subjective experience of my inner world, for example, and similarly of others, that its universally true

that knowing involves this, human knowing, that it applies scientific-based knowing

or, to put it another way..

you can’t know without awareness of the subjective, a feel for it, a feel for the subjective dimension generating the desire to know, know with greater certainty

Science does not exist without facts. Science is questioned continually with facts. Science grows accumulatively with facts. Science questions presumed facts. Science confirms with facts. Facts are not the property of educated people in white coats.

would there be any motivation for such an enterprise without the subjective experience of the workings inside our heads, I mean separately of course, not our as in converged

There is only one type of question you should ask yourself if you want to understand the scientific principle and that is “what is that?”

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

PermeateFree said:

Science does not exist without facts. Science is questioned continually with facts. Science grows accumulatively with facts. Science questions presumed facts. Science confirms with facts. Facts are not the property of educated people in white coats.

would there be any motivation for such an enterprise without the subjective experience of the workings inside our heads, I mean separately of course, not our as in converged

There is only one type of question you should ask yourself if you want to understand the scientific principle and that is “what is that?”

or why is it so?

The Rev Dodgson said:

ms spock said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Please read what people actually say, rather than interpreting what they say as being one of two extreme positions.

You don’t need to be in one of two positions. It’s not all or nothing.

That is exactly what I and several others have been saying.

Yes, well we are agreeing.

I was responding to the comment intimating that there was no Indigenous Science and the comment that there was no complex analysis. Thus I provided sources showing that no only there is but also it has been in the Australian Science Curriculum for some time now. Also I provided examples of complex analysis with links so you can explore at your leisure.

This is a very important and interesting conversation to my mind. I was fascinated to read all the responses.

roughbarked said:

ms spock said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I don’t agree with that either, but it’s just based on a very specific definition of “science”.

The accusations of racism are not helpful.

This is a really fascinating conversation. I am shocked that folks on the Holiday Forum didn’t know that this is all in place right now! So interesting where our sources of knowledge come from.

What is also not helpful is ignoring resources that actively engage with the comments made. I posted resources that if you actually read them would challenge some of the assertions made. If you just want to sit around and type “I feel Aboriginal people didn’t engage in Science”, then fair enough, but if you are actually engaging with the content, then you can go and read the living examples of Aboriginal Science that is being used in classrooms right now. I personally spent more time teaching Science in outdoor settings. But I still used the Australian Curriculum. This is already happening.

Aboriginal Science has been part of the Australia Curricululm for a long time now.

The elaborations acknowledge that Aboriginal Peoples and Torres Strait Islander Peoples have worked scientifically for millennia and continue to contribute to contemporary science. They are scientifically rigorous, demonstrating how Indigenous history, culture, knowledge and understanding can be incorporated into teaching core scientific concepts.

“The Australian Curriculum: Science (F-10) contains content descriptions that define what is to be
taught and what students are expected to learn. The content descriptions of the three Science
strands –

Science understanding (SU),

Science as a human endeavour (SHE) and

Science inquiry skills (SIS) – are accompanied by content elaborations.

The new elaborations promote an integrated approach to teaching the three interrelated strands of
the Australian Curriculum: Science.

• Elaborations within the Science understanding and Science as a human endeavour strands are
organised into topics and embedded in a progression of learning. Some topics are included in
several year levels to accommodate increasingly sophisticated aspects or understandings.

• Elaborations within the Science inquiry skills strand provide contexts for the inquiry process and
include reference to skills required to engage with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander histories
and cultures, in particular:

– acknowledging the scientific knowledge and skills of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Peoples

– consulting with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities in the planning or evaluation
of scientific investigations

– collaborating with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities in mutually beneficial
scientific research.

• Wherever possible, the focus of each elaboration has been chosen to facilitate the integration
of closely related content from two or more strands at the same year level or two-year band.
Such opportunities are referred to as ‘cross-strand linkages’ and are provided in the teacher
background information.

• All elaborations reference the appropriate Organising Ideas of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander Histories and Cultures cross-curriculum priority framework.

• Many elaborations offer opportunities for students to also develop the general capabilities of the
Australian Curriculum, such as Personal and Social Capability, Critical and Creative Thinking,
Ethical Understanding and Intercultural Understanding.”:https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/media/5086/ccp-tbi-7-10.pdf

Anyway I have a tone of Gaeilge obair (homework) to do, so I will look in later.

I think these are important conversations to be having. It’s really interesting to see how folks are thinking about things. I find that most interesting to see how people’s brains work. I love neuroscience and trying to link the little that I know of that to interactions I have with folks.

Thing is, it wasnt a part of the curriculim when most of us went to school. Quite the opposite.

You are completely right roughbarked. It wasn’t in schools for the majority of forumites here.

I find it really interesting to see the range of opinions and understandings.

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

PermeateFree said:

Science does not exist without facts. Science is questioned continually with facts. Science grows accumulatively with facts. Science questions presumed facts. Science confirms with facts. Facts are not the property of educated people in white coats.

would there be any motivation for such an enterprise without the subjective experience of the workings inside our heads, I mean separately of course, not our as in converged

There is only one type of question you should ask yourself if you want to understand the scientific principle and that is “what is that?”

frankly I think a sense of being blessed with a special objective reality, an objectivity, capacity for, rationality and such, can lend to ideology, ideological devices, in fact i’d venture it certainly does lend to that, resolves to an orientation, mental states to that end, shared notions to that end, belief in shared orientation, shared notions, probably in-large-part illusion, but illusion is powerful

the secret superiority of a felt superior grasp on and over objective reality, incorporated into that what generates mental states, orientation, whatever

transition said:

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

would there be any motivation for such an enterprise without the subjective experience of the workings inside our heads, I mean separately of course, not our as in converged

There is only one type of question you should ask yourself if you want to understand the scientific principle and that is “what is that?”

frankly I think a sense of being blessed with a special objective reality, an objectivity, capacity for, rationality and such, can lend to ideology, ideological devices, in fact i’d venture it certainly does lend to that, resolves to an orientation, mental states to that end, shared notions to that end, belief in shared orientation, shared notions, probably in-large-part illusion, but illusion is powerful

the secret superiority of a felt superior grasp on and over objective reality, incorporated into that what generates mental states, orientation, whatever

It’s not a matter of being “blessed” with anything, it’s a matter of choosing observational and analytical methods carefully to enable demonstrably accurate descriptions of the world. Science is a matter of intellectual discipline, not conceit.

Bubblecar said:

transition said:

PermeateFree said:

There is only one type of question you should ask yourself if you want to understand the scientific principle and that is “what is that?”

frankly I think a sense of being blessed with a special objective reality, an objectivity, capacity for, rationality and such, can lend to ideology, ideological devices, in fact i’d venture it certainly does lend to that, resolves to an orientation, mental states to that end, shared notions to that end, belief in shared orientation, shared notions, probably in-large-part illusion, but illusion is powerful

the secret superiority of a felt superior grasp on and over objective reality, incorporated into that what generates mental states, orientation, whatever

It’s not a matter of being “blessed” with anything, it’s a matter of choosing observational and analytical methods carefully to enable demonstrably accurate descriptions of the world. Science is a matter of intellectual discipline, not conceit.

yeah doubt that’s what constitutes the main of your orientations, equilibrium mental states, that it’s held together primarily by the force of intellectual discipline

doubt minds work that way

transition said:

Bubblecar said:

transition said:

frankly I think a sense of being blessed with a special objective reality, an objectivity, capacity for, rationality and such, can lend to ideology, ideological devices, in fact i’d venture it certainly does lend to that, resolves to an orientation, mental states to that end, shared notions to that end, belief in shared orientation, shared notions, probably in-large-part illusion, but illusion is powerful

the secret superiority of a felt superior grasp on and over objective reality, incorporated into that what generates mental states, orientation, whatever

It’s not a matter of being “blessed” with anything, it’s a matter of choosing observational and analytical methods carefully to enable demonstrably accurate descriptions of the world. Science is a matter of intellectual discipline, not conceit.

yeah doubt that’s what constitutes the main of your orientations, equilibrium mental states, that it’s held together primarily by the force of intellectual discipline

doubt minds work that way

possibly you think they should or ought, work that way, or at least project that idealization

transition said:

transition said:

Bubblecar said:

It’s not a matter of being “blessed” with anything, it’s a matter of choosing observational and analytical methods carefully to enable demonstrably accurate descriptions of the world. Science is a matter of intellectual discipline, not conceit.

yeah doubt that’s what constitutes the main of your orientations, equilibrium mental states, that it’s held together primarily by the force of intellectual discipline

doubt minds work that way

possibly you think they should or ought, work that way, or at least project that idealization

I think you think too much, being scientifically minded is just being logical and guided by the facts.

transition said:

Bubblecar said:

transition said:

frankly I think a sense of being blessed with a special objective reality, an objectivity, capacity for, rationality and such, can lend to ideology, ideological devices, in fact i’d venture it certainly does lend to that, resolves to an orientation, mental states to that end, shared notions to that end, belief in shared orientation, shared notions, probably in-large-part illusion, but illusion is powerful

the secret superiority of a felt superior grasp on and over objective reality, incorporated into that what generates mental states, orientation, whatever

It’s not a matter of being “blessed” with anything, it’s a matter of choosing observational and analytical methods carefully to enable demonstrably accurate descriptions of the world. Science is a matter of intellectual discipline, not conceit.

yeah doubt that’s what constitutes the main of your orientations, equilibrium mental states, that it’s held together primarily by the force of intellectual discipline

doubt minds work that way

I’m talking about the way science works, not the way “minds” work. Science isn’t intuitive, you have to make an effort to meet the intellectual constraints it demands, hence all the training etc.

You’ve been posting amongst science enthusiasts for many years now, I would have thought you’d have a clue about these things by now.

Bubblecar said:

transition said:

Bubblecar said:

It’s not a matter of being “blessed” with anything, it’s a matter of choosing observational and analytical methods carefully to enable demonstrably accurate descriptions of the world. Science is a matter of intellectual discipline, not conceit.

yeah doubt that’s what constitutes the main of your orientations, equilibrium mental states, that it’s held together primarily by the force of intellectual discipline

doubt minds work that way

I’m talking about the way science works, not the way “minds” work. Science isn’t intuitive, you have to make an effort to meet the intellectual constraints it demands, hence all the training etc.

You’ve been posting amongst science enthusiasts for many years now, I would have thought you’d have a clue about these things by now.

are you saying you’re doing science regularly

transition said:

Bubblecar said:

transition said:

yeah doubt that’s what constitutes the main of your orientations, equilibrium mental states, that it’s held together primarily by the force of intellectual discipline

doubt minds work that way

I’m talking about the way science works, not the way “minds” work. Science isn’t intuitive, you have to make an effort to meet the intellectual constraints it demands, hence all the training etc.

You’ve been posting amongst science enthusiasts for many years now, I would have thought you’d have a clue about these things by now.

are you saying you’re doing science regularly

I’m not a scientist. But I make an effort to think rationally when it’s required, and take due account of relevant empirical evidence ditto.

Bubblecar said:

transition said:

Bubblecar said:

I’m talking about the way science works, not the way “minds” work. Science isn’t intuitive, you have to make an effort to meet the intellectual constraints it demands, hence all the training etc.

You’ve been posting amongst science enthusiasts for many years now, I would have thought you’d have a clue about these things by now.

are you saying you’re doing science regularly

I’m not a scientist. But I make an effort to think rationally when it’s required, and take due account of relevant empirical evidence ditto.

i’m not criticizing, but might suggest your quite normal life involves little to no science at all, performed by you personally, of the sort you refer, granted it’s assumption on my part, i’ll let you correct me if i’m substantially wrong, more for the thought exercise i’m putting it to you

transition said:

Bubblecar said:

transition said:

are you saying you’re doing science regularly

I’m not a scientist. But I make an effort to think rationally when it’s required, and take due account of relevant empirical evidence ditto.

i’m not criticizing, but might suggest your quite normal life involves little to no science at all, performed by you personally, of the sort you refer, granted it’s assumption on my part, i’ll let you correct me if i’m substantially wrong, more for the thought exercise i’m putting it to you

Science plays a role in my life by providing me with a realistic foundation for my worldview, when relevant. I don’t have to carry out the science myself, personally, to achieve that.

Bubblecar said:

transition said:

Bubblecar said:

I’m not a scientist. But I make an effort to think rationally when it’s required, and take due account of relevant empirical evidence ditto.

i’m not criticizing, but might suggest your quite normal life involves little to no science at all, performed by you personally, of the sort you refer, granted it’s assumption on my part, i’ll let you correct me if i’m substantially wrong, more for the thought exercise i’m putting it to you

Science plays a role in my life by providing me with a realistic foundation for my worldview, when relevant. I don’t have to carry out the science myself, personally, to achieve that.

the proposition was do you do any at all

transition said:

Bubblecar said:

transition said:

i’m not criticizing, but might suggest your quite normal life involves little to no science at all, performed by you personally, of the sort you refer, granted it’s assumption on my part, i’ll let you correct me if i’m substantially wrong, more for the thought exercise i’m putting it to you

Science plays a role in my life by providing me with a realistic foundation for my worldview, when relevant. I don’t have to carry out the science myself, personally, to achieve that.

the proposition was do you do any at all

Why do you want to know?

Bubblecar said:

transition said:

Bubblecar said:

Science plays a role in my life by providing me with a realistic foundation for my worldview, when relevant. I don’t have to carry out the science myself, personally, to achieve that.

the proposition was do you do any at all

Why do you want to know?

because it goes to the thread subject, really, what qualifies as science, how long has it been around, i’m exploring, to generalize, protoscience you could say, dispositional characteristics that lend to it, is there a theme of similar across cultures, back in time, and how far back

I mean you refer and defer to the formalism of science, the status of it, associate with it, but do none personally, or you maybe do do some, something like it but don’t see it, or acknowledge it

i’m thinking of my self, what do I do, have I done, that is scientific in some way, could be considered so

I read plenty science-related stuff, have done, but there remains restraint about the ease with which I ‘intellectually’ associate my self with the formalism

transition said:

Bubblecar said:

transition said:

the proposition was do you do any at all

Why do you want to know?

because it goes to the thread subject, really, what qualifies as science, how long has it been around, i’m exploring, to generalize, protoscience you could say, dispositional characteristics that lend to it, is there a theme of similar across cultures, back in time, and how far back

I mean you refer and defer to the formalism of science, the status of it, associate with it, but do none personally, or you maybe do do some, something like it but don’t see it, or acknowledge it

i’m thinking of my self, what do I do, have I done, that is scientific in some way, could be considered so

I read plenty science-related stuff, have done, but there remains restraint about the ease with which I ‘intellectually’ associate my self with the formalism

Well, it is just you and a book.

transition said:

Bubblecar said:

transition said:

the proposition was do you do any at all

Why do you want to know?

because it goes to the thread subject, really, what qualifies as science, how long has it been around, i’m exploring, to generalize, protoscience you could say, dispositional characteristics that lend to it, is there a theme of similar across cultures, back in time, and how far back

I mean you refer and defer to the formalism of science, the status of it, associate with it, but do none personally, or you maybe do do some, something like it but don’t see it, or acknowledge it

i’m thinking of my self, what do I do, have I done, that is scientific in some way, could be considered so

I read plenty science-related stuff, have done, but there remains restraint about the ease with which I ‘intellectually’ associate my self with the formalism

Re science, the most important cultural differences between the modern world and traditional indigenous cultures would be:

a) The extent to which science as an intellectual discipline is free from blending with non-scientific ways of thinking.

b) The intellectual authority that science wields within those cultures, relative to religious ways of thinking.

Bubblecar said:

transition said:

Bubblecar said:

Why do you want to know?

because it goes to the thread subject, really, what qualifies as science, how long has it been around, i’m exploring, to generalize, protoscience you could say, dispositional characteristics that lend to it, is there a theme of similar across cultures, back in time, and how far back

I mean you refer and defer to the formalism of science, the status of it, associate with it, but do none personally, or you maybe do do some, something like it but don’t see it, or acknowledge it

i’m thinking of my self, what do I do, have I done, that is scientific in some way, could be considered so

I read plenty science-related stuff, have done, but there remains restraint about the ease with which I ‘intellectually’ associate my self with the formalism

Re science, the most important cultural differences between the modern world and traditional indigenous cultures would be:

a) The extent to which science as an intellectual discipline is free from blending with non-scientific ways of thinking.

b) The intellectual authority that science wields within those cultures, relative to religious ways of thinking.

>a) The extent to which science as an intellectual discipline is free from blending with non-scientific ways of thinking.

i’d expect its authority (of science) does lend regularly to non-scientific ways of thinking, notions from or reinforced by the authority lend to ideology, ideological devices, ideological influences, in the broader culture

transition said:

Bubblecar said:

transition said:

because it goes to the thread subject, really, what qualifies as science, how long has it been around, i’m exploring, to generalize, protoscience you could say, dispositional characteristics that lend to it, is there a theme of similar across cultures, back in time, and how far back

I mean you refer and defer to the formalism of science, the status of it, associate with it, but do none personally, or you maybe do do some, something like it but don’t see it, or acknowledge it

i’m thinking of my self, what do I do, have I done, that is scientific in some way, could be considered so

I read plenty science-related stuff, have done, but there remains restraint about the ease with which I ‘intellectually’ associate my self with the formalism

Re science, the most important cultural differences between the modern world and traditional indigenous cultures would be:

a) The extent to which science as an intellectual discipline is free from blending with non-scientific ways of thinking.

b) The intellectual authority that science wields within those cultures, relative to religious ways of thinking.

>a) The extent to which science as an intellectual discipline is free from blending with non-scientific ways of thinking.

i’d expect its authority (of science) does lend regularly to non-scientific ways of thinking, notions from or reinforced by the authority lend to ideology, ideological devices, ideological influences, in the broader culture

That’s a lot of words.

roughbarked said:

transition said:

Bubblecar said:

Re science, the most important cultural differences between the modern world and traditional indigenous cultures would be:

a) The extent to which science as an intellectual discipline is free from blending with non-scientific ways of thinking.

b) The intellectual authority that science wields within those cultures, relative to religious ways of thinking.

>a) The extent to which science as an intellectual discipline is free from blending with non-scientific ways of thinking.

i’d expect its authority (of science) does lend regularly to non-scientific ways of thinking, notions from or reinforced by the authority lend to ideology, ideological devices, ideological influences, in the broader culture

That’s a lot of words.

i’ll give you an example of something recent

the (dubious) enthusiasm to collect expanded data (involving science) about covid infections (and deaths etc) has lent to normalizing living with unlimited covid transmission and infection (and mass injury), to the extent it became a way of counting it into expanded prevalence and normalization, then it became so prevalent it became uncountable, which further lends to normalization

so you have in there normalization of collecting expanding data involving science for the purpose of normalizing acceptance of prevalence of infection and prevalence of injury

transition said:

roughbarked said:

transition said:

>a) The extent to which science as an intellectual discipline is free from blending with non-scientific ways of thinking.

i’d expect its authority (of science) does lend regularly to non-scientific ways of thinking, notions from or reinforced by the authority lend to ideology, ideological devices, ideological influences, in the broader culture

That’s a lot of words.

i’ll give you an example of something recent

the (dubious) enthusiasm to collect expanded data (involving science) about covid infections (and deaths etc) has lent to normalizing living with unlimited covid transmission and infection (and mass injury), to the extent it became a way of counting it into expanded prevalence and normalization, then it became so prevalent it became uncountable, which further lends to normalization

so you have in there normalization of collecting expanding data involving science for the purpose of normalizing acceptance of prevalence of infection and prevalence of injury

:)

transition said:

roughbarked said:

transition said:

>a) The extent to which science as an intellectual discipline is free from blending with non-scientific ways of thinking.

i’d expect its authority (of science) does lend regularly to non-scientific ways of thinking, notions from or reinforced by the authority lend to ideology, ideological devices, ideological influences, in the broader culture

That’s a lot of words.

i’ll give you an example of something recent

the (dubious) enthusiasm to collect expanded data (involving science) about covid infections (and deaths etc) has lent to normalizing living with unlimited covid transmission and infection (and mass injury), to the extent it became a way of counting it into expanded prevalence and normalization, then it became so prevalent it became uncountable, which further lends to normalization

so you have in there normalization of collecting expanding data involving science for the purpose of normalizing acceptance of prevalence of infection and prevalence of injury

Information collection and statistics all play a part in scientific understanding, but they can also be manipulated to interpretation in which case it is being dishonest and certainly not scientific. Science does not select evidence that purely supports one view or another and disregard other facts. Science is an honest appraisal of the facts to fit a situation and can be modified as new evidence comes to hand.

The sort of conspiracies you find on social media is not and never will be science as the principle of evaluation is totally disregarded. Science deals with facts, yet facts can have different interpretations that even well-versed scientists will disagree until conclusive evidence is found to prove the point one way or the other.

We can all use scientific principles when we evaluate something for the first time, that is if you want to come to some sort of understanding. However whatever conclusion you reach can be modified by later evidence. Nevertheless, if you just accept the opinion of others or shrug your shoulders and go on your way that that is not science and does not follow the scientific concept. This is why some people view things from a scientific perspective, whilst others just fantasise their opinions.

roughbarked said:

transition said:

roughbarked said:

That’s a lot of words.

i’ll give you an example of something recent

the (dubious) enthusiasm to collect expanded data (involving science) about covid infections (and deaths etc) has lent to normalizing living with unlimited covid transmission and infection (and mass injury), to the extent it became a way of counting it into expanded prevalence and normalization, then it became so prevalent it became uncountable, which further lends to normalization

so you have in there normalization of collecting expanding data involving science for the purpose of normalizing acceptance of prevalence of infection and prevalence of injury

:)

gad you appreciated that, didn’t quite have you yelling back draw me a stick picture instead, i’ll try harder until you demand comic stickman pictures

Today’s Richard Dawkins Foundation newsletter covers this topic:

It might be funny, if it weren’t so worrisome. Recent weeks have seen some absurd new instances of science beset by would-be censors operating under the banner of “inclusion.”

Examples are many, and they come from all over the globe. We’ll look at an ongoing controversy in New Zealand, where a new government policy requires science students be taught that Maori “Ways of Knowing” share equal standing with so-called “western” science. Richard Dawkins wrote a stirring rebuttal in The Spectator, stating “The true reason science is more than an origin myth is that it stands on evidence: massively documented evidence, double blind trials, peer review, quantitative predictions precisely verified in labs around the world.”

Then again, the phrase double blind wouldn’t be used at all if the EEB Language Project had its way. This small group of U.S. and Canadian academics wants to eliminate “potentially harmful terms used in ecology and evolutionary biology.” Incredibly, their list of potentially harmful terms includes basic descriptors such as male and female, as well as, yes, blind/double blind (because it implies ableism, of course). Dawkins had some choice public comment for this group, as well.

A recent incident involving a dropped Qur’an in a U.K. high school led to an outsized show of anger from (and apology to) the local Muslim community. At least one of the students involved even reportedly received death threats. We’ll look at the recent response from the U.K. Home Secretary, who is looking to restore some sanity and sense of scale to the way schools respond to future controversies.

The good news is there are still plenty of people willing to stand up for science, reason, and rationality, without acceding to oversensitivity or a veto based on hurt feelings. The CFI Investigations Group recently doubled down on its long-running Paranormal Challenge, offering a $500,000 prize to anyone who can prove they have supernatural abilities under scientific test conditions. And the recently released video of Richard Dawkins’s conversation with Neil deGrasse Tyson from CSICon 2022 is an inspiring reminder of the questions great minds can explore—and debate—when they are given a space to do so.

Richard Dawkins
Attempting to enforce speech restrictions or limit what is considered “acceptable” lines of inquiry is a dark and dangerous path. Whether one is motivated by extreme religious fervor or an extreme interpretation of “tolerance” and “inclusion” makes little difference; the result is the same. Science and reason suffer when ideas can only be explored through the prism – or more aptly “prison”— of contemporary orthodoxy.

As a community of scientists, skeptics, and freethinkers, it’s incumbent upon us to remain committed to the principles of free expression. We cannot promote a greater understanding of our world by limiting the ways in which we explore and describe it.

Robyn E. Blumner
CEO and President, Center for Inquiry
Executive Director, Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason & Science

Bubblecar said:

Today’s Richard Dawkins Foundation newsletter covers this topic:

It might be funny, if it weren’t so worrisome. Recent weeks have seen some absurd new instances of science beset by would-be censors operating under the banner of “inclusion.”

Examples are many, and they come from all over the globe. We’ll look at an ongoing controversy in New Zealand, where a new government policy requires science students be taught that Maori “Ways of Knowing” share equal standing with so-called “western” science. Richard Dawkins wrote a stirring rebuttal in The Spectator, stating “The true reason science is more than an origin myth is that it stands on evidence: massively documented evidence, double blind trials, peer review, quantitative predictions precisely verified in labs around the world.”

I think indigenous cultural explanations and “ways of knowing”-type paradigms should share equal standing with ethics. but not facts.

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

roughbarked said:

That’s a lot of words.

i’ll give you an example of something recent

the (dubious) enthusiasm to collect expanded data (involving science) about covid infections (and deaths etc) has lent to normalizing living with unlimited covid transmission and infection (and mass injury), to the extent it became a way of counting it into expanded prevalence and normalization, then it became so prevalent it became uncountable, which further lends to normalization

so you have in there normalization of collecting expanding data involving science for the purpose of normalizing acceptance of prevalence of infection and prevalence of injury

Information collection and statistics all play a part in scientific understanding, but they can also be manipulated to interpretation in which case it is being dishonest and certainly not scientific. Science does not select evidence that purely supports one view or another and disregard other facts. Science is an honest appraisal of the facts to fit a situation and can be modified as new evidence comes to hand.

The sort of conspiracies you find on social media is not and never will be science as the principle of evaluation is totally disregarded. Science deals with facts, yet facts can have different interpretations that even well-versed scientists will disagree until conclusive evidence is found to prove the point one way or the other.

We can all use scientific principles when we evaluate something for the first time, that is if you want to come to some sort of understanding. However whatever conclusion you reach can be modified by later evidence. Nevertheless, if you just accept the opinion of others or shrug your shoulders and go on your way that that is not science and does not follow the scientific concept. This is why some people view things from a scientific perspective, whilst others just fantasise their opinions.

agree with the thrust of most that as understand it

there is this thing though, where the authority of the normative aspects of science, involving standards etc and largely rightly presumed goodness of its neutrality (for want of a better way of putting it) migrates into normative effects beyond the neutral collection of data (for example) into broader culture and notions held by people, that lends to ideology, and this influences the further collection of data (information, whatever), as if it’s naturally a neutral exercise no matter how far it goes, or of whatever applied

i’m suggesting it can be deployed in a blinding way, can be self-blinding, and socially blinding

transition said:

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

i’ll give you an example of something recent

the (dubious) enthusiasm to collect expanded data (involving science) about covid infections (and deaths etc) has lent to normalizing living with unlimited covid transmission and infection (and mass injury), to the extent it became a way of counting it into expanded prevalence and normalization, then it became so prevalent it became uncountable, which further lends to normalization

so you have in there normalization of collecting expanding data involving science for the purpose of normalizing acceptance of prevalence of infection and prevalence of injury

Information collection and statistics all play a part in scientific understanding, but they can also be manipulated to interpretation in which case it is being dishonest and certainly not scientific. Science does not select evidence that purely supports one view or another and disregard other facts. Science is an honest appraisal of the facts to fit a situation and can be modified as new evidence comes to hand.

The sort of conspiracies you find on social media is not and never will be science as the principle of evaluation is totally disregarded. Science deals with facts, yet facts can have different interpretations that even well-versed scientists will disagree until conclusive evidence is found to prove the point one way or the other.

We can all use scientific principles when we evaluate something for the first time, that is if you want to come to some sort of understanding. However whatever conclusion you reach can be modified by later evidence. Nevertheless, if you just accept the opinion of others or shrug your shoulders and go on your way that that is not science and does not follow the scientific concept. This is why some people view things from a scientific perspective, whilst others just fantasise their opinions.

agree with the thrust of most that as understand it

there is this thing though, where the authority of the normative aspects of science, involving standards etc and largely rightly presumed goodness of its neutrality (for want of a better way of putting it) migrates into normative effects beyond the neutral collection of data (for example) into broader culture and notions held by people, that lends to ideology, and this influences the further collection of data (information, whatever), as if it’s naturally a neutral exercise no matter how far it goes, or of whatever applied

i’m suggesting it can be deployed in a blinding way, can be self-blinding, and socially blinding

Well, that comes back to the interpretation of facts. Science is so structured that it eventually will discover misinterpretations whether made honestly or dishonestly by the addition of new information or the lack of collaboration by others, in which case it is simply ignored and if dishonest, the person responsible is discredited and their careers possibly ended.

The real difference between indigenous science and science generally, is one is documented and published for posterity, whilst the other is handed down verbally from one generation to another. Some may think everything passed down by indigenous people is scientific of which it certainly is not. However, in our culture there are myths, folklore and stories too and we don’t regard them as being scientific either.

we are trial and error among other things

SCIENCE said:

we are trial and error among other things

A great deal of science is done like that.

PermeateFree said:

SCIENCE said:

we are trial and error among other things

A great deal of science is done like that.

But that is the unrecognised stuff.

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

SCIENCE said:

we are trial and error among other things

A great deal of science is done like that.

But that is the unrecognised stuff.

No, most do it, it’s a great way of discovery.