Australia

3835 readers

107 users here now

A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.

Before you post:

If you're posting anything related to:

The Environment, post it to Aussie Environment
Politics, post it to Australian Politics
World News/Events, post it to World News
A question to Australians (from outside) post it to Ask an Australian

If you're posting Australian News (not opinion or discussion pieces) post it to Australian News

Rules

This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone. In addition to those rules:

When posting news articles use the source headline and place your commentary in a separate comment

Banner Photo

Congratulations to @[email protected] who had the most upvoted submission to our banner photo competition

Recommended and Related Communities

Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:

Plus other communities for sport and major cities.

https://aussie.zone/communities

Moderation

Since Kbin doesn't show Lemmy Moderators, I'll list them here. Also note that Kbin does not distinguish moderator comments.

Additionally, we have our instance admins: @[email protected] and @[email protected]

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Calling Indigenous lore science marks Ed Husic’s ignorance (www.theaustralian.com.au)

submitted 2 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

9 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

What I appreciate is the overwhelmingly evidence he puts forward that indigenous peoples did not practise science.
Oh wait he just goes on about the history of 'western achievement', and makes no point of comparison to prove some science was not happening in indigenous cultures.

Also, why is an economist given a platform on this?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Then show us a single hypothesis formed by Indigenous peoples pre-colonisation.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The onus of proving a point in an article of their construction should be on the author.

Anyway, here's an article: https://australian.museum/learn/first-nations/indigenous-science/.
Another: https://blog.qm.qld.gov.au/2012/08/01/science-principles-in-traditional-aboriginal-australia/

A website of resources (Australian council of deans of science): https://www.acds.edu.au/teaching-learning/indigenous-science/

Food detoxification by indigenous people: https://www.scienceflip.com.au/subjects/chemistry/equilibriumandacidreactions/learn10/

https://scienceready.com.au/pages/aboriginal-detoxification-methods?srsltid=AfmBOop0v07LPvhyOAoNohVwoF6XHWgw-XgvskBWCe-Ua2Vf2iQmk4JG

If you're after an artifact with a written hypothesis from an exclusively spoken language society, I can't help you there.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

The article, while not great, is clearly the refutation of claims made by Ed Husic. The onus of proof would then be on Ed.

From your first link

One only has to look at the origins of the word ‘Science’. It comes from the Latin word ‘Scientia’, which simply means ‘to know’.

To suggest that there are any groups of human beings who didn’t have science is, ironically, quite unscientific.

This completely dismisses that science is a formalised practice of the scientific method and is akin to claiming that any knowledge is science which I reject.

I have yet to read the other sources provided, which I will get to when I have the time.