The problem with those crying about "Western" science being colonial, oppressive, against minorities and other cultures and obviously dominated by the white patriarchy (and so on), is that in their fury about science being a tool of political power, they really do believe it to be as a tool of political power and that it ought to be used as such. The agenda is that it has to be used...this time by them. — ssu

I think it is more complex than that.

Where others would see the abuse of the term science or referring to science when the issue doesn't have anything to do with science just as a minor issue, just like Thomas Kuhn was annoyed when George Bush Sr used Kuhn's term "a new paradigm" to portray GOP tax policies, the people worried about science being "Western" see it differently. Those who genuinely believe in "Western" science having to be decolonized believe it's not about just the misuse of the scientific method, they believe science is inherently a political tool of power and not much else. — ssu

It seemed like the quotes in the op were related to science in academia as part of the education. I am not saying some of the complainees are not wanting to throw the whole thing out, but I think you are simplifying the issue.

Let's bring it down to what this is all about: getting new academic positions and openings. In the end "decolonizing science" will really apply to those who get the new 'decolonized' positions. Where others usually would treat job enrollment and equal opportunity as a separate issue from the actual science, that is not the case here. If you will have a "decolonized" science program, you think it will be run by your typical white males that you find in science programs today? — ssu

This is essentially an ad hom.

, lets look at where the discussion of decolonization of science has taken place. Has it taken place in China? Because China would be the obvious place for this discussion to be taking place as it has a very long tradition of non-Western science. It isn't, at least that I'm aware of, because everybody there is, well, basically Chinese. And Japan we can dismiss by saying it hasn't been a colony (even if it was occupied after WW2). Even if Japanese surely aren't European and do have an own non-Western culture, they haven't at all been insisting that the science they do would be Japanese, not Western. — ssu

In both those countries you will find what in the West would be considered outside of science, inside the research, or overlapping with the science. It is openly assumed, by many, in those scientific communities that what in the West is consider the only epistemologically justifiable method of gaining knowledge, as one amongst a number. If you look at actual practices and the history of science in the West it is actually more diverse than these debates would lead one to think. But in the East this is more openly acknowledged.

This is essentially an ad hom. — Coben

Really?

Just observe what the discussion of decolonizing the education system has been in let's say in South Africa. It really has been a discussion of the background of those who get the academic positions. Now I would argue that it is a matter of employment policy, not science itself. Yet this is how the academia works: once some subfield gets a lot traction, there is the desire to separate it from the traditional field of inquiry. The down-to-Earth objective: get new jobs, create a new field with it's own jargon (to keep out others). Once you have those positions, then you can start writing articles in your own academic journal and refer to your friends.

If you look at actual practices and the history of science in the West it is actually more diverse than these debates would lead one to think. — Coben

And just where have I said that it's not diverse? It's the critics who actually don't understand the whole point of what just science is that make the claims of Science being some kind of a unified system.

Those arguing for some kind of specific science, be it indigenous science, islamic science or whatever creationist humbug are politicizing themselves science. And they believe it's totally normal because they start from the idea that science is a tool of political power.

Those arguing for some kind of specific science, be it indigenous science, islamic science or whatever creationist humbug are politicizing themselves science. And they believe it's totally normal because they start from the idea that science is a tool of political power. — ssu

You don't understand their motivations. You fail to see that the science that is taught is not culturally neutral, it is imbued with a set of beliefs that are not necessary to make accurate predictions or build precise technology. Those who hold conflicting beliefs that they cherish and that define them do not want to change them because it is not necessary, rather they want to come up with scientific theories that have a similar predictive power but that are formulated in a way that doesn't conflict with their beliefs. What's wrong with that?

Modern science is imbued for instance with the belief of materialism, that deep down all we are is matter, that consciousness is a byproduct that doesn't cause anything, that we are like machines subjected to unchanging laws. These are not beliefs that follow from observation or experiment, these are beliefs that are arbitrarily imposed and that are not necessary to make accurate predictions or build precise technology. Some people do not want to hold these beliefs, what's wrong with that? Why do you insist on making them change their beliefs so they suit yours?

Teaching and education isn't actually the same thing as science.

Those who hold conflicting beliefs that they cherish and that define them do not want to change them because it is not necessary, rather they want to come up with scientific theories that have a similar predictive power but that are formulated in a way that doesn't conflict with their beliefs. — leo

Those that want to make their own beliefs and ideologies more credible by resorting to proclaiming their beliefs being backed up by science or worse, argue that their beliefs being not beliefs but simply scientific facts are a minority. The vast majority do see the difference beliefs and empirical results of some objective scientific test. The vast majority of scientific research simply has no political or ideological agenda.

The error people typically do here is that they focus on the practical applications, usually a commercial ones, that have been made (possible) thanks to something done in scientific research. The difference between science and technology doesn't matter to them either. And the horror if it's a military application, then it becomes that the scientist who had something to do with the app was deliberately making 'the science' just the app in mind and hence is a wretched person right from the start! And when Science is what scientists do, not a method to be used, then you get the reasoning that science kills. Because....nuclear physics gave us nuclear weapons.

Modern science is imbued for instance with the belief of materialism, that deep down all we are is matter, that consciousness is a byproduct that doesn't cause anything, that we are like machines subjected to unchanging laws. — leo

Leo, that simply isn't science. What you are talking about is Physicalism.

First of all, for many scientists or academic researchers using the scientific method, physicalism simply is totally irrelevant to the issues they are studying. If you are studying sociology or politics, you surely can use the scientific method yet care less about materialism, because the whole topic of what you are studying simply isn't an physical object or matter. Or how about the mathematician? Does he or she care about matter?

The error people typically do here is that they focus on the practical applications, usually a commercial ones, that have been made (possible) thanks to something done in scientific research. — ssu

Even from the purely academic perspective, research is now rarely funded unless it has a practical application. Maybe practicality is a better demarcation than methodology.

Even from the purely academic perspective, research is now rarely funded unless it has a practical application. Maybe practicality is a better demarcation than methodology. — ernestm

This is one of the pitfalls were modern science veer into, just like it to be seen just as a tool of political power. And that demarcation could be useful.

If the role of science is to give us just practical applications, it isn't anymore about understanding the reality around us better. When that isn't anymore the objective, the applications also are limited to the present scientific paradigm. Like if we wouldn't have relativity, but just Newtonian physics, perhaps we could have still a GPS system guiding us, but it simply wouldn't be so accurate.

Philosophy isn't problematic. The habits of ignorant or malicious people are the problem.

I'll continue this thread from year ago, while the discourse still continues. Now it's not called decolonization of science but more straightforwardly that science is racist.

In a recent editorial the science journal Cell, or rather the white males at the journal, join the woke movement:

Science has a racism problem. And it is not limited to scientific discoveries and their attendant usage. The scientific establishment, scientific education, and the metrics used to define scientific success have a racism problem as well.

And what is the journal's response? Few highlights:

Representing – we will feature and amplify Black and other underrepresented minority authors of Cell papers on social media. If you are a person of color and you wish to be highlighted in this way, please tell us. Email the editor of your paper with the subject line ‘‘Faces of Cell’’ at any point in the publication process, and we will be honored to post about your paper with your photo and/or your Twitter handle and to re-tweet and amplify your own posts and stories.

We pledge to purposefully highlight Black authors and perspectives in the review and commentary content that we commission and publish and to share these with the greater scientific community.

– we pledge to improve the diversity of our advisory board and our reviewer pool, using our experience with gender equity initiatives to increase representation of non-white scientists, which is far too low.

If there are ways that we can use our voice and our platform to help the Black scientist community, we want to hear them. Please email us if you have concrete ideas for perspectives you want to see or creative ways that you think we can help. We promise to hear them.

See editorial here: Science Has a Racism Problem

And so what does this mean for the new woke Cell journal? Looking at their net pages, the most read articles are: "Tracking Changes in SARS-CoV-2 Spike: Evidence that D614G Increases Infectivity of the COVID-19 Virus" and "Targets of T Cell Responses to SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus in Humans with COVID-19 Disease and Unexposed Individuals". The journal puts up articles like: "For Black Scientists, the Sorrow Is Also Personal" and "A Commitment to Gender Diversity in Peer Review". And to be fair, the journal links also to it's "Cell Press Coronavirus Resource Hub".

The interest in Covid-19 is obvious, even making a dent in the woke revolution: when the #ShutDownAcademia had it's "strike" in order to make a point for the George Floyd incident, it was pointed out that researchers doing Covid-19 research would be exempt.

From the above comes to my mind a poster I saw in a psychology congress (my wife was participating in it) by some Iranian psychologist. The science itself seemed to be normal, but the only difference was that here and there was added "if God wills" and "God is most great". Yeah, science isn't dying, only another ladder is added to the bureaucracy and the narrative is adjusted.

Its not just science, its the death of reason. Feelings and agenda over facts.

I'm an optimist, DingoJones, the end is not here.

The battlefield should be right here on this forum, but people are still getting only banned for the "normal" reasons. That makes me optimistic. I'm confident that science will prevail. :up:

Well I wouldnt say the end is near...we functioned as a species for a long time on just emotion and tribalism. Even with reason dead, humans will be able to stumble through technological and social advancement so this all keeps ticking along. Its just the dark times that the absence of uniform reasoning that I dont think is possible to avoid right now. The wrong kinds of people are driving the car right now.

Or we simply are letting them drive the car as driving the car seems to be "racist and white privilege". Hence many will eagerly let anybody to drive the car as not to be viewed as racists.

But yes, sometimes these issues become literally crazy:

Teaching the Pythagorean Theorem or pi in geometry class perpetuates white privilege by giving the “perception that mathematics was largely developed by Greeks and other Europeans.”

That’s what Rochelle Gutierrez argues in her new anthology for math teachers, “Building Support for Scholarly Practices in Mathematics Methods.”

The University of Illinois professor says teachers must become more aware of the “politics that mathematics brings” to society. “On many levels, mathematics itself operates as Whiteness,” Ms. Gutierrez writes in the book, reported Campus Reform. “Who gets credit for doing and developing mathematics, who is capable in mathematics, and who is seen as part of the mathematical community is generally viewed as White.”

Mathematics also perpetuates white privilege because the economy places a high value on abstract reasoning.

(See article)

Yes, its all very hard to take seriously.

Just to continue this thread from last year and to show how this kind of thinking and "decolonizing" of science has gone forward and is going forward. In Oregon, it seems that they are fighting rampant racism and white supremacy culture in math.

White supremacy culture infiltrates math classrooms in everyday teacher actions. Coupled with the beliefs that underlie these actions, they perpetuate educational harm on Black, Latinx, and multilingual students, denying them full access to the world of mathematics. - We see white supremacy culture show up in the mathematics classroom even as we carry out our professional responsibilities outlined in the California Standards for the Teaching Profession (CSTP). Using CSTPas a framework, we see white supremacy culture in the mathematics classroom can show up when:

• The focus is on getting the “right” answer.
• Independent practice is valued over teamwork or collaboration.
• “Real-world math” is valued over math in the real world.
• Students are tracked (into courses/pathways and within the classroom).
• Participation structures reinforce dominant ways of being.
• Teachers enculturated in the USA teach mathematics the way they learned it.
• Expectations are not met.
• Addressing mistakes.
• Teachers are teachers and students are learners.

And it goes on... If the above is "white supremacy culture", as it is claimed, this will not be tolerated. Now to design a culturally sustaining math space or to promote to ethnomathematics might be something refreshing and new like "Intentionally integrate physical movement in math classes", but that issues above like "addressing mistakes" are seen as evidence of white supremacy, I'm not so sure where this will lead. Above all when the issue is something like mathematics and not art history.

But I urge everyone to look at A Pathway to Equitable Math Instruction Dismantling Racism in Mathematics Instruction -Exercises for educators to reflect on their own biases to transform their instructional practice . This is promoted by the Oregon Department of Education (see here)

As the pamphlet states:

Teachers should use this workbook to self-reflect on individual practices in the classroom and identify next steps in their antiracist journey as a math educator.

Forward with the new glorious education of math!!!

Before I retired twenty years ago there were discussions in the math department about race and subject matter. We agreed that whenever a topic came up in which a minority had made a significant contribution we would mention that fact. But twisting the subject matter around into some sort of ethnomathematics was not considered.

Indeed it's worth mentioning what a global endeavor mathematics has been and try to make the subject interesting for students by relating it to their life. Some of the proponents of "non-European oriented math & science" do emphasis this and I don't find anything wrong in their ideas.

However I fear that the chosen rhetoric has a quite different agenda. To talk about toxic white supremacy and racism in mathematics is a deliberate and open attack especially in the US. To object or to criticize what is said then of course is "upholding toxic white supremacy" and racism. And basically I find it quite racist to divide students like this by race as obviously from the minorities mentioned (Black, Latinx, multilingual) Asians are excluded and native Americans forgotten (as many times happens).

And from a philosophical view, the following idea that is promoted seems bizarre:

White supremacy culture shows up in math classrooms when...

The focus is on getting the “right” answer.

Instead...

The concept of mathematics being purely objective is unequivocally false, and teaching it is even much less so. Upholding the idea that there are always right and wrong answers perpetuate objectivity as well as fear of open conflict.

How this is unequivocally false and "white supremacist" goes over my head when you think about the foundations of mathematics. And what open conflict is being talked here? Perhaps I think too much that mathematics is linked to logic or set theory. For me, mathematics is different from other sciences...especially from humanities and social sciences. It is rigorous and logical and mathematical statements are either true or false, even if there are obvious limitations on what we can prove to be true or false. There can be various other logical systems used, of course, yet they then follow their own rules (and is something not being taught at schools). I don't think that there is real insight behind these ideas, because the writers of the pamphlet continue with the following line:

Of course, most math problems have correct answers, but sometimes there can be more than one way to interpret a problem, especially word problems, leading to more than one possible right answer.

Sometimes. Yet in my view an interpretation of a problem in various ways isn't actually math.

Unfortunately, there are math teachers who criticize a student who solves a problem in a novel way.