Viewpoint

Maori Science Revisited

Terence Lomax

New Zealand faces a number of issues regarding the development of scientific research. The last 10 years have seen many changes in the operation of science. One significant issue that still faces science in New Zealand is adequate treatment of the traditional Maori knowledge base. Treaty issues aside, this issue is important because through defining processes for inclusion of community perspectives, it is thought that the science system will become more relevant and innovative. The government now regards relevancy as highly important because it is relevancy (however one defines it) which justifies the public funding of science.

Mike Dickison [Maori Science, May 1994] made the case that "Maori Science" does not qualify as science. He argued that traditional Maori knowledge was a body of knowledge, that "science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge" and implied that "science" is distinct from the underlying knowledge base: "if knowing a lot about flax is enough to make you a scientist, then so is knowing a lot about rugby".

It is implicit in "science" that there exists an accurate and detailed body of observation before it can proceed to the hypothesis stage. A lot may be learnt by patient, detailed and accurately recorded observation (whether oral or written). Traditional bodies of knowledge often hold valuable observations and understandings about the natural world. China certainly had science before Europe. It was authoritarian concern about the social results arising from science that lead to the shutting down of technological growth in China in the fourteenth century, long before similar developments in Europe.

Western science arises out of a religious framework that interpreted technological information to explain Man's place in the world (that is, science!). The word "science" is actually a concept that has changed throughout history. The New Shorter Oxford Dictionary includes the following comments under the entry "science":

1b Theoretical perception of a truth, as contrasted with moral conviction.
3a A particular branch of knowledge or study; a recognised department of learning; specifically each of the seven medieval liberal arts.
man of science (a) a man skilled or learned in any discipline, art or craft;

The cultural framework can act to either stimulate or stifle further enquiry. It was when the received interpretation by the "science hierarchy" and the actual data (as found by applying technology through experiment and observation) conflicted that a parting of the ways came about between the "scientists" and the political or religious powers.

It is clear (resorting to an "appeal to authority") that science is the attempt to formulate theories, based upon observed data, which allow one to increase an understanding of the world in which we live. There is clear evidence that Maori had a framework for understanding observable facts; noted anthropologist Elsdon Best, in 1924, says as much. Science is a process!

Perhaps the real situation is that Maori had a great deal of science, but little advanced technology. The problem for Maori was that technology assists observation. Trial and observation are universal human activities. It is perhaps unfortunate that Dickison did not outline significant differences between a tohunga verifying a particular fact versus how a "scientist" might do this. It is important not to confuse the data base and its interpretation (the science) with the method of gaining the information (the technology).

Dickison asserted that Maori knowledge acquisition "was neither objective (relying as it did on religious faith), rational (it mixed supernatural with mundane explanations), nor cooperative (it relied on authority rather than challenge and consensus)". Maori historically lacked the technology to further investigate these frameworks. This does not render the data base and theories unscientific, just untested -- one could assert that empirical testing is a valid form of test when other avenues are not available: vis "research by management". The willingness to test data and their inter-relationships without bias identifies true science.

What Maori did have was a system firstly for accurate oral recording of significant data, and secondly, a frame of reference with which to relate that knowledge to the world. This required a certain type of mental training and a system. By retaining the data in this system, the chances of corruption of data over extended periods were reduced. The data recording system relied upon a "different technology", and a different cultural practice and understanding. This does not render incorrect the observation method for obtaining data.

The difference between traditional Maori knowledge and "Western science" surely rather lies in the methodology for recording of that data base (oral versus written), and the interpretation given the information (that is, the theories), rather than the unbiased testing. Interpretation (arising from the tests that might be applied) is based upon the existing framework. This does not render the knowledge invalid, but may require that we re-interpret the knowledge. Maori argue that to retain the "science", the cultural foundations which would assist explaining its context and meaning must also be retained.

The practical objective knowledge is certainly capable of being isolated and investigated within other frames of reference, such as "Western science". To do that, one must recognise traditional Maori knowledge as a potentially valuable resource. Loss of rights to traditional intellectual property through the "research" activities (eg.. on uses for natural products) of large corporates is one of the problems that Maori believe they face!

The assertion that "Maori society had neither the communication network nor the social structure for collaborative research to go on between different iwi" is unsustainable! Maori did not have a written language. This prevented a wide-ranging peer review process. Maori certainly carried out a conference process within the wananga (or "universities"). Sometimes it was the practice, at the end of such conferences, for a "papal bull" to come out, concluding that "such and such is the case".

This common viewpoint was important for the maintenance of oral histories, and is not very far from a "consensus of opinion" arising from a discussion of the literature. The tohunga (or wananga) became responsible for that statement as "the authority". It is unfortunate that because Maori had an oral tradition, we have no record of such discussions.

Dickison suggests that to class matauranga with science demeans it. Current government policy would suggest that the aim of science is to increase the sustainability of the economy and the environment. This latter policy has more in common with Dickison's definition of Maori science "getting along in the world than understanding what makes it tick", than his statement that "the aim of science is to understand how the world really works"

Additionally, suggesting that a restriction on who can access the knowledge base implies that Maori could not have had "objective rational co-operative knowledge acquisition" is specious. In our present society not all families are wealthy, nor does every child fully and effectively partake in a stimulating and supportive education system. This does not mean that our current society does not have science.

The real issue is surely one of resourcing. Maori would argue that science is only one of the databases necessary for society, and that it is integral to society along with the other databases such as culture. Dickison seems to argue that science is a viewpoint additional or alternative to the wider knowledge (or matauranga) of society. History (which certainly isn't accurate!), theology, and music are often core curriculum subjects. Matauranga Maori with its extensive environmental and cultural knowledge base, is unique. Perhaps it should be regarded as a core knowledge requirement for New Zealanders.

Should there be an effort to underpin matauranga Maori with the resources and education that will ensure its survival?
There is now a very real problem of low Maori participation in science, arising historically from the displacement of Maori from economic assets, and thereby denying the opportunity to acquire the technologies with which to verify and improve Maori science. Provided quality criteria are established, matauranga Maori may well provide the vehicle to remedy this low participation rate.

Verifying the knowledge base does not mean that the knowledge base is necessarily correct. The challenge for "science" is to firstly understand and then verify that knowledge base so as to distinguish fact from myth and fiction, and thereby allow mataraunga Maori to become a valuable part of mainstream science (or culture) where appropriate. Clearly if the knowledge is not recorded and children educated, then such verification will be impossible and it will be increasingly and irrevocably lost.

The process of science and objective observation does not mean that "telling the story" is restricted to only one cultural perspective. Dickison himself says " a perfect scientistis continually questioning, never accepting hearsay or declaring an area closed to inquiry".

Dr Terence Lomax is a senior scientist at the Forest Research Institute, and also carries out policy analysis work.