When you walk into a science museum in Canada, you might expect to see the usual exhibits: dinosaurs, space exploration, maybe a section on the human body. But in many of these museums—especially in the last decade or so—you’ll also come across exhibits that highlight indigenous knowledge systems. They supposedly are included to “integrate indigenous science” alongside Western science.
Take the Canadian Museum of Nature in Ottawa or the Science
North Centre in Sudbury as examples. These places now go beyond just displaying
indigenous artifacts in a glass case with a label. Instead, they tell
fuller stories that indigenous peoples have told for hundreds of years.
And, importantly, the museums are calling it, “science”. Let’s say there’s an
exhibit on animal migration or weather patterns. Western science might show
satellite images or data from GPS collars on caribou. Right next to that, you
might see a quote or video from an Inuit elder explaining how the animals'
migration can be predicted by the thickness of sea ice or the behavior of
birds. The display might even note that these traditional observations—passed
orally over generations—have proven reliable and are now being used to
complement Western research in areas like climate change.
Similarly, in botany exhibits, you'll see how indigenous
knowledge of plant medicine is featured—not as folklore or superstition, but as
a parallel system of empirical, research-based science. For example, the
Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) people’s use of white cedar for respiratory issues is
sometimes included in exhibits not just as a cultural note, but claimed to be
reliable bioactive compounds.
The museums are moving away from terms like "myth"
or "primitive beliefs." Instead, they use phrases like
"indigenous knowledge systems," "traditional ecological
knowledge," or "indigenous science." These shifts claim that
while the methods and metaphors may differ from Western science, the
goals—observation, prediction, and explanation of the natural world—are
fundamentally scientific.
The rationalizing museum official assertion likely will be
to describe their policy as an attempt to “decolonize science communication”.
In other words, they are motivated to change the long-standing tendency to
treat Western science as the “gold standard” for knowing the world. By
incorporating “indigenous science “respectfully and on equal footing,
they seek to “broaden the public’s understanding of what science can
be”.
Occasionally there are debates about whether some
beliefs—such as spiritual interpretations of nature—fit into the category of
science. But museums are increasingly comfortable with refusing to accept those
arguments. Accordingly, museum visitors might see one exhibit showing a
geological explanation of how a mountain formed, and right next to it, an
indigenous story that explains the mountain’s origin in cultural and spiritual
terms. Whether intended or not, the juxtaposition implies that the “science” museum
is not fully committed to the scientific method—that indigenous beliefs have
equal standing.
In short, Canadian science museums are
treating indigenous knowledge not as something “other” or “less,”
but as a legitimate, tested, and deeply rooted form of science. In
my opinion, this Canadian “science” approach is grossly flawed. It
is perfectly appropriate, even laudable, to respect and inquire about
indigenous myths and traditions. But equating them with science is
both absurd and intellectually dishonest. Science is much more than an artifact
and/or longstanding belief. Above all, science is a continually
recursive process in which ideas are proposed, tested, challenged, retested,
and refined.
I am not religious and firmly “believe” the basic theory of
evolution. The belief is firmly rooted in knowing that the theory has
been tested in thousands of rigorously conducted scientific studies.
However, if compelling evidence is discovered that debunks evolution, I am
ready, willing, and able to revise my evolution beliefs.
Speaking of evolution and returning to the Canadian museum
approach, I have a question: Do their museums have Creationist
explanations and displays in the evolution section? To repeat, I am not
religious and I do not believe in Creationism. However, there is a kind
of Creationism belief system known as "theistic evolution".
That perspective generally acknowledges the scientific validity of
evolution while simultaneously suggesting that God initiated and guided the evolutionary
process, possibly including the introduction of souls into humans. Most
notably, Francis Collins, a highly respected figure in both scientific and
religious circles is a prominent proponent of theistic evolution. He was
a leading professional in the field of genetics and director of the National
Institutes of Health (NIH). Collins has written extensively on the
compatibility of science and faith, advocating for a view that God created the
universe and used the process of evolution to bring about life.
If you ask Canadian museum leaders why Creationism is not
worthy of inclusion in their collections, the reply quite likely will be some
thinly veiled version of “Creationism is pseudoscience advocated by ignorant,
science-denying, right-wing zealots”. As to the museum “indigenous
science “ that they do include, I would ask three questions: 1. What
is your definition of science? 2. Specifically explain the
criteria you use to evaluate the scientific bona fides of each
indigenous science exhibit. 3. Who is/are the scientist(s)
responsible for the science that you do “advertise” and endorse?
This blog, then, suggests that we never should blindly
accept someone else's definition of science. When we do, we allow them to make
intimidating incriminations of "You're not following the science"
whenever we disagree. We always need to know what is the science
presented, who has produced it, and what is its purpose.
