New Zealand academics investigated over Māori knowledge letter

As long as they are consistent. We can’t condemn alternative and indigenous medicine as valid responses to the pandemic, but champion them in science classrooms. The comparison with creationism is apt. If Maori mythology is valid, so must be biblical mythology.

It would have been helpful to include a link to the letter or more quotes so that we could judge for ourselves.

Responding to report above: Pinker's response is hypocritical: 'We' are entitled (sic) to 'silence' 'them' but they mustn't silence us. Pinker's works are over-rated anyway; he's hardly an authority in these matters. He is in my view notorious for eurocentrism.

Pinker isn't advocating the silencing of anyone. He surely believes that science ought to remain scientific and that it ought not to adopt methodologies, viewpoints, or ideologies that run counter to scientific modes of thought. Maori culture and mythology may have much that is wise or lovely, but that doesn't make it scientific. Talk about Maori culture all you want, but don't call aspects of it scientific when they are not scientific. And don't cancel scientists who raise objections about non-science or anti-science being introduced (jammed, shoehorned) into scientific realms.

In order to understand, never mind comment, on this article we need more details. What exactly are they proposing to add to the science curriculum? As a botanist (my original subject before I ended up a computer science academic) it was well known that indigenous peoples often had valuable insights into the plant life of their region, even if they did not express them in (western) scientific terms. I could certainly see ways of incorporating Maori ideas into discussions about the biology of the environment in ways that would enhance not diminish what is to be taught. If this is just general waffle about adding indegious material just for the sake of it, I can see why scientists might squeal. So analyse what is being proposed specifically so that it can be judged on its merits, please.

Mythology? Difficult to claim academic freedom applies to speech on that about which one is profoundly ignorant. The use of compelling and exciting natratives in 'fireside tales' is only the recording and transmission method of ecological and social science, reflecting Maori psychologies about ethics, persuasion, memory recall, and regulatory enforcement. No wonder they're being investigated.

"Freedom of speech" cannot be interpreted as a right to disparage the worldviews of historically marginalised groups, reproducing ideas of their inferiority and primitivism which they have suffered through for 200 years. The idea that real "science" is based only on observations, not linked to myths, ideologies and theories is ridiculous. Ever heard of paradigm shifts?