Indigenous Myth and Science: From Egypt to New Zealand

It may be hurtful to say Indigenous myths aren't science. But that doesn't really matter, because it is true.

I completed this piece sitting in the shadow of the Great Pyramid of Giza, which was the tallest building in the world for perhaps 5000 years.

Besides the feeling of incredible good fortune to be able to experience these wonders of antiquity, two contrasting pictures jumped into my head when they first emerged as surreal apparitions in the early morning hours, as my airport van turned a corner.

First, these gargantuan and otherworldly remnants of the distant past provide a stark reminder of the fact that the dustbin of history is large enough to encompass even once-great and powerful civilizations—a useful object lesson for our times. Second, even an an ancient civilization that invested so much time and energy in imaginary myths and honoring invented Gods possessed sophisticated technical expertise that has withstood the test of time.

Which brings me to the purpose of this piece. Last July, a scandalous episode in New Zealand made the rounds on the internet. Various colleagues rose to stand in defense of seven scientists being investigated by the New Zealand Royal Society for pointing out that Māori creation myths were not science. I signed letters supporting the scientists but had otherwise not actively entered into the debate there because I found the whole thing too depressing

Last week I was forced to confront it in more detail when I appeared on a New Zealand podcast and was asked to focus on the detailed claims and counterclaims associated with the 2021 New Zealand government report arguing for parity for Mātauranga Māori—which include Māori creation myths—in the teaching of science in secondary schools there.

First the verbiage from the government report:

“ Our goal is to ensure parity for mātauranga Māori with the other bodies of knowledge credentialed by NCEA (particularly Western/Pākehā epistemologies).” The proposed curriculum “promotes discussion and analysis of the ways in which science has been used to support the dominance of Eurocentric views (among which, its use as a rationale for colonisation of Māori and the suppression of Māori knowledge); and the notion that science is a Western European invention and itself evidence of European dominance over Māori and other indigenous peoples. Pūtaiao allows opportunities to incorporate Māori perspectives and knowledge about the natural world into the classroom."

Second some of the content of the public letter written by the seven scientists, entitled In Defense of Science:

“This perpetuates disturbing misunderstandings of science emerging at all levels of education and in science funding…Indigenous knowledge is critical for the preservation and perpetuation of culture and local practices, and plays key roles in management and policy. However, in the discovery of empirical, universal truths, it falls far short of what we can define as science itself. To accept it as the equivalent of science is to patronise and fail indigenous populations; better to ensure that everyone participates in the world’s scientific enterprises. Indigenous knowledge may indeed help advance scientific knowledge in some ways, but it is not science.”

Next, virtue signaling from the University of Auckland Vice-Chancellor about the group of seven letter:

“It had caused "considerable hurt and dismay" among staff and students, she wrote in an email on Monday…While the academics are free to express their views, I want to make it clear that they do not represent the views of the University of Auckland…The University has deep respect for mātauranga Māori as a distinctive and valuable knowledge system. We believe that mātauranga Māori and Western empirical science are not at odds and do not need to compete. They are complementary and have much to learn from each other."

And finally, a counter-letter written by two academics and co-signed by over 2000 other people, which helped lead to the New Zealand Royal Society investigation of the original seven:

“The Professors claim that "science itself does not colonise", ignoring the fact that colonisation, racism, misogyny, and eugenics have each been championed by scientists wielding a self-declared monopoly on universal knowledge…The Professors present a series of global crises that we must "battle" with science, again failing to acknowledge the ways in which science has contributed to the creation of these challenges. Putting science on a pedestal gets us no further in the solution of these crises…We believe that mistrust in science stems from science's ongoing role in perpetuating 'scientific' racism, justifying colonisation, and continuing support of systems that create injustice. There can be no trust in science without..an active commitment to change.”

I’ll discuss each of these in turn, because there are misconceptions associated with the original proposal and all the responses to it.

As correctly pointed out by the seven scientists, the original proposal reflected a serious misunderstanding of science. There is no such thing as Western Science, Eastern Science, Chinese Science, or Indigenous Science. There is just Science: a process that allows us to understanding how the world works by careful empirical investigation supplemented by rigorous theoretical analysis and predictions that are then subject to additional empirical testing. Nothing more, and most importantly, nothing less.

The misconception reminds me of a lovely riff from the beautiful beat-poem, Storm, by Tim Minchen, when he asks, “Do you know what they call ‘alternative medicine’ that’s been proved to work? Medicine.”

The suggestion in the report that science has been used to promote the dominance of Eurocentric views is a particularly egregious example of this misunderstanding. Science has been used to promote an understanding of the world, and has led to technological progress that has been used for good, and bad. If it has led to dominance, it is because science works and leads to an understanding and harnessing of natural processes, and myth doesn’t.

The ludicrous letter from 2000 signatories pushes this misunderstanding further. It doesn’t distinguish science as a process from individual scientists as human beings living in cultures that exploit the fruits of science in different ways. The claim that “colonisation, racism, misogyny, and eugenics have each been championed by scientists” means absolutely nothing on its own. As Steven Pinker pointed out in a different context, it is like claiming that European Architecture is inherently evil because European architects designed the Nazi gas chambers. It is superficial and flawed thinking.

A subtle, but ultimately deeper flaw, in my opinion, comes from the latter part of the same sentence, “wielding a self-declared monopoly on universal knowledge”. I would argue that there is only one kind of knowledge, at least about the real world, and that is empirical knowledge. And the process of science is the only demonstrated way that we can reliably gain such knowledge. Its monopoly is not self-declared, but self-evident.

The letter, which claims to be about science, also perpetuates a modern disingenuous myth that is all-too often accepted today, and about which I have written extensively: That science is somehow racist. Science is a process. Anyone can do it, and anyone’s scientific claims can be subject to questioning, and if necessary, ridicule. Science itself is no more racist than it is Republican, or Democrat, Tory or Liberal. It is practiced by scientists who themselves may be one or the other, or none of the above. But to target science itself in this way is what breeds mistrust of science in the modern world. There is no need for the process of science to change. It works fine as is, thank you.

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

This however does not imply that ancient ‘wisdom’ is always wisdom, or is generally competitive with the understanding we have today based on the process of modern science.

In the podcast, my interviewer pointed out a claim by a New Zealand geologist that the Māori creation myth involving the superhuman trickster Māui, in which Māui used a fishhook from his grandmother to raise a giant fish out of the water, and which became the North Island of what is now New Zealand, was a metaphor for the scientific process of vulcanism by which New Zealand actually emerged.

I have heard the same kind of nonsense attributed to ancient creation myths from many of the world’s religions, all of which are sufficiently vague as to allow almost any interpretation. But more important, this myth bears no resemblance to actual science. It doesn’t describe any measurable physical process. It doesn’t present any predictions for observables by which one could test the hypothesis, nor does it provide any tools to try and predict the future evolution of the Island. It is also not true. To suggest that in any way this ‘knowledge’ is on par with modern geophysics is to demean the worth of science itself.

Finally, I want to take issue with the superficial virtue signaling from the University of Auckland Vice-Chancellor, which is unfortunately all too common among academic administrators today, who have neither the intellectual integrity to stand up for sound scholarship, nor the backbone to stand up against twitter mobs. Claiming that “mātauranga Māori and Western empirical science are not at odds” sounds nice, but of course it isn’t true, at least when ancient myth has been superseded by, or is in contradiction with, the knowledge produced by modern science.

But the more worrisome assertion is that the group of seven’s letter had “caused "considerable hurt and dismay" among staff and students”, as if that matters. In the first place, if a reasoned discussion by a group of scientists causes hurt and dismay among some, those who are hurt own the problem. As I have argued extensively elsewhere, borrowing on arguments made by numerous colleagues, being offended itself confers no special privilege on the offended party, nor does it necessarily require an apology. What it should require from those who are offended is one of two options: Either a reasoned response or dismissing the offense.

The increasingly common notion that words themselves cause irreversible harm to others is now serving to silence debate in the Academy on a host of topics that need to be debated. As Christopher Hitchens emphasized, the freedom of speech that results from such open debate confers not just freedom for those who are speaking, but freedom for listeners who may learn that their own a priori beliefs may be wrong.

Indeed, that is the beauty of science: the freedom, indeed the obligation, to be willing to prove yourself wrong. And that is one of the most important things that separates science from myth and superstition.