Thread starter
#1
The curriculum has been made available
http://www.theage.com.au/pdf/ScienceK-10.pdf
Presenting 'aboriginal observations' as part of the history of science is scandalous. It is not science to believe that Almudj the Rainbow Serpent brings forth the wet season
But the curriculum goes further than that - it is suggesting that the observations contribute to our current scientific knowledge.
I really can't see CSIRO meteorological forecasts ever including aborigine observations. We can respect and learn about Aborigine traditions but they don't belong in the science curriculum.
http://www.theage.com.au/pdf/ScienceK-10.pdf
Presenting 'aboriginal observations' as part of the history of science is scandalous. It is not science to believe that Almudj the Rainbow Serpent brings forth the wet season
But the curriculum goes further than that - it is suggesting that the observations contribute to our current scientific knowledge.
I really can't see CSIRO meteorological forecasts ever including aborigine observations. We can respect and learn about Aborigine traditions but they don't belong in the science curriculum.
Plus, the cultural contributions of indigenous groups have made, and continue to make, an impression on the scientific method - even the Rainbow serpent. Those cultural observations are borne out of a rudimentary form of scientific process - observation, theory, testing. The theory might be crude, but the history of observation can be very valuable in aiding Western science (which might have better theories, but less observation).
For example, in relation to climate change, Western science has only 100 years of observing something that can take thousands of years. Indigenous knowledge may be able to provide additional ways of looking at the problem (or may not). Similarly, western science is brilliant at extracting medicine from plants (and making it purer, stronger and cheaper produce), but has very little knowledge of which plants to examine. Indigenous cultures, with thousands of years of observation of the Australian (or other) landscape, may be able to identify which plants Western scientists should look at.
The same applies equally to middle-eastern religions, of course. Its just that because Western science grew up in a climate where those traditions were strongest, much of the observation ingrained in those religious traditions has already been extracted and expanded upon. And now those same religious traditions are asking that we remove that expansion, and go back to beliefs more suitable for 2010 BC than the present. As far as I'm aware, no-one is at this point suggesting that Indigenous creation myths should replace science, unlike those in america suggesting that Biblical accounts should do so.

