In short, what defined Western science and made it absolutely unique – and uniquely powerful – was the tight integration of formal methods, rigorous verification and public replicability. Additionally and crucially, it was self-aware, devoting ongoing attention to the regulative principles with which scientific practice had to comply.

The contrast even to China could not have been starker, helping to explain why China’s initial advantage in virtually every area of technology stalled and then collapsed. As for the chasm separating science from Indigenous knowhow, with its secrecy, its anthropomorphic explanations and its reliance on the authority of elders, it can only be measured in light years.

However, Husic’s claim is not just absurd. It is, like Bruce Pascoe’s fantasies about settled agriculture, deeply patronising. Husic plainly does not grasp the complex of ideas that comprise the scientific method. But he clearly believes that Indigenous culture, if it is to be respected, must be cast as an anticipation, if not a mirror, of Western culture. If we had science, whatever that may be, they must have had it too – and many centuries before us.

One might have hoped that the decisive refutation of Pascoe’s contentions by Keryn Walshe and Peter Sutton would have laid those views, and the broader attitudes they embody, to rest.

Yet they live on, thanks, in part, to sheer ignorance. Also at work is the conviction that historical accuracy and intellectual honesty matter less than “celebrating” Indigenous culture – a conviction that, far from promoting science, offends the unbending commitment to the truth that is science’s very essence. Significant too is the now ingrained hostility to the Western achievement, and to the scientific spirit, which is among its glittering jewels, with it.

However, spinning fairytales is no way of convincing the community, and young people in particular, of science’s vast potential. Nor will it do anything to reverse the continuing fall in the number of high school students taking core science subjects. Having a minister for science who knows what the term means will certainly not solve those problems. But it would be a sensible place to start.

SadKangaroo wrote on Dec 6^th, 2024 at 10:51am:


I view the Bible in much the same way. It represents humanity’s early attempt to explain the world around them, an endeavour that parallels the essence of science.

While we now understand that the sun’s movement across the sky is due to the Earth’s rotation rather than divine intervention, such explanations were their way of making sense of the universe at the time.

The same applies to Indigenous Australians. Their rich traditions and stories were their initial frameworks for interpreting and understanding the complexities of the natural world.

They, much like our ancestors two millennia ago, did not advance their observations to the stage of making predictive hypotheses. Nevertheless, I believe it is fair to characterise their efforts as an embryonic form of scientific inquiry. [/quote]

Well, you are as ignorant as Husic.


Ergas:
However, the great thinkers of the 17th century radically transformed what Kant later referred to as science’s “regulative principles”: that is, the rules that distinguished science, as an activity and as a body of knowledge, from mere knowhow.

At a fundamental level, the transformation involved a dramatic change in the conception of the cosmos.

In effect, the 17th century upended the Aristotelian view of nature, which claimed that the basic properties of matter differed in the various parts of the universe. Nature, the proponents of the new science argued, was homogenous, uniform and symmetrical: matter was the same throughout the universe, governed by the same causes or forces. Moreover, those forces were mechanical: the very essence of science lay in uncovering their laws of motion.

In turn, those presuppositions of regularity and homogeneity underpinned a change that proved momentous: the rejection of Aristotle’s prohibition on metabasis, that is, on the transposition of methods from one discipline to another.

The sciences, said Rene Descartes in 1637, could not progress “in isolation from each other”; they all had to advance, and could only advance, by adopting common methods, centred on developing mathematical representations of the phenomena they were seeking to explain.

And the test of those representations had to be both analytical and empirical: analytical in terms of mathematical correctness; empirical, in that it had to be shown that the representation could be used to recreate the phenomenon.

Truth, in other words, was “fact” in the Latin sense of the word: that which can be done or made. As Giambattista Vico summarised the new thinking in 1710, “verum et factum convertuntur” – the true is that which can be converted into fact, ie, can be done in practice.

That is why Newton, to prove the existence of a centre of gravity, devised the famous experiment of the rotating bucket filled with water. It is also why Francis Bacon resuscitated the Greek term “praxis” – the unity of theory and practice – in the Novum Organum (1620) to describe the “scientia activa” of experimentation, which, far from diverting study from its object, was the sole means of “augmenting” it.
...
However, the pioneers of the new science were cautious in their claims. Yes, mathematical techniques could accurately model limiting cases, such as motion in a vacuum; but they only approximated actual outcomes. And it was improper to speculate about the underlying causes of phenomena beyond what could be directly observed and experimentally verified.

Hence Newton’s great outcry, “hypotheses non fingo”, “I feign no hypotheses”, regardless of how much superficial completeness adding unproven hypotheses might give his system.

That intellectual modesty opened the road to a recognition of the uncertainties inherent both in the actual operation of the laws of motion and in their testing. In what ranks among humanity’s great breakthroughs, Blaise Pascal’s work on probability theory, and Thomas Bayes’ formalisation of inductive inference, set the basis for the systematic hypothesis testing that allowed Western science to progress at an unprecedented rate.

Another crucial feature of the intellectual revolution: its openness. Traditionally, true knowledge had been seen as esoteric, handed down, within closed circles, from one generation to the other and validated by the weight of inherited authority. By the end of the 17th century, that notion had been utterly discredited. Instead, theories, models and experimental results were widely published, discussed and contested, vastly accelerating their development.

In short, what defined Western science and made it absolutely unique – and uniquely powerful – was the tight integration of formal methods, rigorous verification and public replicability.

I don't think for a second you comprehend what you've copy/pasted from The Australian.

Yes, we understand that the intellectual and methodological shifts of the 17th century that redefined science, emphasising universal laws, empirical verification, and open knowledge-sharing.

But it redefined science, not created it.

I suggest you check the source material before being outraged because The Australian told you to be,



Transcript here.

I would suggest if you take issue with what he's said, articulate it, lay out why and we can have a discussion, don't just copy and paste the opinions of others because it helps you ensure nothing positive is said about Indigenous Culture.

You're as lazy and easily manipulated as you are stupid.

We are still learning from the lessons Indigenous learning has taught us, from bushfire management and mitigation to sustainable farming.

I know you don't like to hear it, because you can't bash it, but it's simply the truth.

Frank wrote on Dec 6^th, 2024 at 3:47pm:


It seems you’re attempting to redefine the concept of science to fit your narrative.

There certainly was a form of "Stone Age" science, though it wasn’t formalised in the way we understand science today. Early humans engaged in activities that involved observation, experimentation, and problem-solving, all fundamental elements of scientific thinking.

This applies to early Indigenous cultures as well.

Toolmaking, fire management, astronomy, hunting and gathering techniques, shelter construction, and art and symbolism, these are all examples of pre-revolutionary science. These practices demonstrate a deep, empirical understanding of the natural world, even if they weren’t documented in the formalised manner we now associate with scientific discovery.

If you had actually taken the time to read, or even watch (if you’re too lazy to read) Husic’s Press Club address, you would understand the context of what he was saying.

Instead, you've chosen to simply parrot an Australian opinion piece that deliberately misrepresents Husic’s comments in order to argue that he lacks an understanding of science, thus making him unfit for the portfolio. In doing so, you’re further maligning and attacking Indigenous Australian culture which was more your goal clearly.

And honestly, you're not fooling anyone.

SadKangaroo wrote on Dec 6^th, 2024 at 5:39pm:



Here are some other black scientists:

https://www.pbslearningmedia.org/resource/nat17-sci-crows/tool-making-crows/

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Dec 6^th, 2024 at 5:56pm:


To dismiss Indigenous science is to deny the intellectual achievements of entire cultures based on racial prejudice.  No wonder you swooped in to join this little chat. Such attitudes reflect a profound misunderstanding of what constitutes knowledge and progress. Science is enriched, not diminished, by recognising and respecting diverse ways of knowing.

Who 'dismissed Aboriginal science'? Only an extremist would jump to that conclusion....  Aboriginal knowledge is incorporated into the Science organised - and like all other such things - it has merits and deficiencies...  no point in arguing over the merits of setting fire to one patch of bush over another....

You're a very edgy person, aren't you, Kanga ... an extremist??  We've got our eyes on you ... you've shown your true self under the pressure exerted early  ... heh, heh, heh ...