Ancient Wisdom vs Science

Robert Bartholomew writes:

For millennia, indigenous cultures have accumulated a vast repository of information that has helped them to adapt and survive. 

Prior to European contact, the Quechua of the Andes used quinine from the bark of the cinchona tree to treat fevers. It later proved to be the first effective treatment for malaria. Salicin from the willow tree was used by tribes in the Americas to treat pain, fever, and inflammation and led to the development of aspirin. The active ingredient in snakeroot,  reserpine, was used for centuries by native peoples in India to treat high blood pressure and was adopted by Western physicians as an early treatment for hypertension. 

From stellar navigation to sophisticated construction techniques, agricultural innovations, and hunting strategies, indigenous knowledge has made significant contributions to human progress. 

Yep. I am often amazed by how good indigenous knowledge is. For example in Peru I was stunned that the Incas made their buildings hundreds of years ago earthquake proof, using ancient knowledge.

While these achievements deserve respect, many practices promoted under the banner of indigenous knowledge lack scientific merit and should be approached with caution. 

In Australia, attempts to incorporate the Aboriginal practice of ‘spiritual healing’ into the health system have been met with alarm as it involves a belief in sorcery and supernatural intrusions rather than biological agents. In the United States, alternative treatments include Native American herbal remedies, spiritual ceremonies, and sweat lodges. 

Not all traditional knowledge is good!

There is a long history of once revered European beliefs that have not passed scientific muster from astrology and alchemy. While once held to be legitimate knowledge, each of these practices eventually collapsed under the weight of scientific scrutiny.    

Bad traditional knowledge is not unique to any culture. European or western culture has had no shortage of these over time. However as scientific understanding advances, they get abandoned.

Nowhere has the trend of embracing indigenous knowledge gained more of a foothold in mainstream institutions than in New Zealand where the government has given it equal status with science in the school qualification system. This elevation has resulted in many grandiose claims about the power of the Māori lunar calendar to influence everything from human health and well-being to horticulture and the weather.

In 2023, Māori politician Hana Maipi-Clarke asserted that the calendar could be used to predict floods. There is no evidence to support this claim. Many factors affect rainfall: air and water temperature, atmospheric pressure, cloud formation, wind, humidity, the jet stream, and the burning of fossil fuels. The moon is not one of them.

Another popular claim is that a full moon can affect plant growth by pulling moisture in the soil upward to nourish seedlings. The moon’s gravitational pull on soil moisture is negligible.  

Just last year the government allocated $400,000 to study if lunar phases affect pregnancy activities despite studies consistently showing no correlation between lunar phases with childbirth and health outcomes. Such projects divert important resources from evidence-based maternal care. The relevant factors in birth outcomes are biological, genetic, and medical, not the waxing and waning of the moon.

Let us not forget the taxpayer money that got spent on researching if playing whale songs to trees will cure them!

Indigenous traditions deserve respect but they must be held to the same rigorous standard as other bodies of knowledge. Some ‘ancient wisdom’ is has proved to be genuinely valuable, while other claims lack scientific grounding or have yet to undergo rigorous testing.

For science to survive the culture wars, scientists must be willing to evaluate indigenous knowledge without dismissing it outright or accepting its veracity uncritically, but duly evaluating it on merit, regardless of cultural significance.

This should be a totally uncontroversial statement. Sadly it is not.