By embracing indigenous superstitions, the West’s great science museums are abandoning their mission to educate and compromising their scientific integrity.
Would that a supernatural museum could exist, no building would be large enough to hold the Bazillion fantasies, the haunted museum wing, the Babylonian mythology wing, the Japanese demons wing... the Catholic Church wing... and which version of each superstition.
Agreed that superstition (“faith-based”) beliefs have no place in a science museum, there are plenty churches, temples, sacred spaces which are precisely museums of superstition.
The essay, an excellent one, ends as follows: "Carl Sagan wrote a book promoting science, skepticism, and critical thinking titled “The Demon-Haunted World.” Museum staff might benefit from reading this book, recognizing that the “demons” mentioned in the title can’t be summoned with a whistle. Because they’re not real."
This sets up an unnecessary conflict and therefore contributes to the notion that religion is the enemy of science, which is not necessarily true. I think that a better concluding line would be this: "Because this is a museum of science, not religion, and therefore has nothing to say about the whistle's religious efficacy."
I agree with you on all issues and note, as others have referred to earlier, that the conflation of scientific facts (i.e. backed up by hard physical evidence) with peoples feelings or beliefs which are not supported by direct physical evidence is a very dangerous thing.
I have no problem with peoples beliefs and them being promoted as such but don't accept that a science museum is the right place for that to occur.
Our young people have been - and continue to be - presented with scientific facts and a "wish list" that some people have about how they would like the universe to be as equally valid. How can children's young, inexperienced minds possibly recognise which is which if the information is not presented in a truthful and clear way?
As an Australian I can relate to these observations. The rush to apologize and find redemption for the perceived wrongs of our forfathers has contributed to a perfect storm of contradictory claims on reality. Unfalseafiable declarations of what is sacred have been protected and embedded in our legislation for years - defended by an army of anthropologist who I doubt believe a word of it themselves.
Supernatural explanations, be they Christian fundamentalist or indigenous, should not be considered science. “I have no need of that hypothesis,” as Pierre-Simon Laplace allegedly quipped in the 19th century.
While I support scientific integrity, I see this particular issue differently. In my view, museums of natural history are about history (obviously) and culture, in addition to science. Spiritual beliefs and practices are integral to indigenous peoples' history and culture. Therefore, I think it is entirely appropriate for these museums to include discussion of indigenous beliefs alongside the artifacts, within the context of their history and culture.
I read this through the lens of how the denial of sex is compared to Creationism as a threat rather than a critical analysis of biology, especially evolutionary theory. I wonder how much the "beyond the binary" ideology (that I've supported in the past) that conflates a tiny intersex population with some great sex diversity and the existence of multiple sexes (not gender identities) has made its way into museum exhibits. I wince but can imagine museum exhibits with the worst fallacies of transgenderism (sex can and does change; with enough hormones and surgery your chromosomes start to shift, etc.) Perhaps such exhibits quote the 30 year old line by Fausto-Sterling that the sex binary doesn't seem to be able to hold all our evolving knowledge of sex differences, AS IF that means there must be more than XX and XY, and that the two gametes surely have similarities and some kind of continuum or "spectra" between them. I may try to write about this in my book on sex and gender across the university, so please email me at chammer@maine.edu if you know how museums of science are addressing gender ideology (like Campbell's BIO textbook did - which I think was a good thing as it would be more stark if the huge social issue were ignored??)
I know that Scientific American, to which I haven't subscribed in a few years, has had a number of articles promoting the incorporating indigenous beliefs in their analysis. And Dr. Jerry Coyne in his website "Why Evolution Is True" has written extensively about New Zealand and the extraordinary extent to which indigenous myths are being incorporated into science teaching.
But I have a cynical suspicion/question: In terms of land claims, Is the reluctance to have a skeleton's DNA analyzed, Is that fear that the DNA would be found to belong to another tribe than the one currently occupying a piece of land and consequently put into question to whom that piece of land actually belongs?
> Intelligent Design–a concept with an “aim to redefine science by allowing an appeal to supernatural beings and powers.”
Not necessarily. ID -- tho it obviously overlaps with various religious claims -- is in itself merely a challenge to the notion that everything we see in biology can have arisen by random mutations. Given that we may not be alone in the universe and given that intelligent beings design things and given that we ourselves are already 'designing' life to an increasing degree every year, there is nothing remotely unscientific about the hypothesis that certain aspects of biology on Earth could have been designed, even as the Corona Virus was designed in that lab in Wuhan. Whether the postulated designer is a deity or not is quite secondary. The true scientist is neutral on the question.
So I agree that the scientific method as our best lens on reality. But it's a cultural tradition all the same. I'm not really seeing much harm in acknowledging other cultural traditions in what are essentially displays of cultural artifacts. I worry more about political postmodern critical theories undermining science. Really interesting article though, which I enjoyed and appreciated, anyway.
So regarding Native American pieces on loan museum staff allow their warnings or demands to be displayed along with treatment of this stuff to how saints relics were treated in the medieval church along with modern day shroud of Turin reverence. Meteorites should be studied though and if whomever wants something displayed that way to have their beliefs respected then what's the harm if it's on loan. You are supposed to stay away from stuff with human hair, how do we know their spiritual dog whistle doesn't bring spirits? The same thing should apply, metaphysics are scientifically studied afterall. I just couldn't help thinking about a museum employee picking up the whistle whilst in a mischievous mood blows it and Nighmare at the museum begins, que in the metal riff and 80s like intro because an awesome horror movie is about to begin :), If one group gets the respect to care for their objects on loan and it draws a crowd for their museum maybe an anthropologist would want to study the relic and how it's still revered instead of treating it like it is a quaint amusement it is interesting though, and you absolutely nailed it, how unequal the respect for the beliefs are, also aren't those supporting that at the museum giving them reverence and thereby power if these are such spiritually charged objects, maybe the museum employees happily avoid caring for what tribes hold to be sacred. Pregnant women aren't even able to fly after so many months, if it's spiritual in nature I'm more interested in if they are that concerned for the viewer why they would have loaned it out ehh all in all I personally don't think it's sexist.
I’m amused by the lack of understanding of science. You can prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that neither whistles nor prayers will summon supernatural intervention in daily reality. No mountains have ever moved, no legless people healed with a new leg, no poor were fed, no healing spirits streamed forth. Evolution is indeed a random process, shattered glass doesn’t spontaneously fly back together, ice cubes don’t form spontaneously in a furnace.
A museum of anthropology is slightly different from a museum of art, and a museum of superstition.
“Affronts” to superstitions need not be humored - the owners need not share their objects. Claims that meteorites are sacred - well, only property rights are recognized in our legal systems, not superstition.
If a lender demanded that an object not be handled by an “unclean” person, for example, I hope the museum tosses it over the fence.
I think museums are trying to walk the fine line of respecting the beliefs of the creators of anthropological objects (and yes making sure museums maintain access to objects) but I look at it in the way I look at baptism as an atheist: I don't believe in this sacrament but I know that family members do so I don't see any harm in allowing my kid to be baptized if it keeps family from worrying about eternal damnation. I understand the point that wording should be careful: "According to the beliefs of X, this whistle has the power to summon spirits". Eg reporting beliefs rather than espousing them. If the latter is what's occurring that does seem a big overstep.
Would that a supernatural museum could exist, no building would be large enough to hold the Bazillion fantasies, the haunted museum wing, the Babylonian mythology wing, the Japanese demons wing... the Catholic Church wing... and which version of each superstition.
Agreed that superstition (“faith-based”) beliefs have no place in a science museum, there are plenty churches, temples, sacred spaces which are precisely museums of superstition.
The essay, an excellent one, ends as follows: "Carl Sagan wrote a book promoting science, skepticism, and critical thinking titled “The Demon-Haunted World.” Museum staff might benefit from reading this book, recognizing that the “demons” mentioned in the title can’t be summoned with a whistle. Because they’re not real."
This sets up an unnecessary conflict and therefore contributes to the notion that religion is the enemy of science, which is not necessarily true. I think that a better concluding line would be this: "Because this is a museum of science, not religion, and therefore has nothing to say about the whistle's religious efficacy."
Great article, Elizabeth.
I agree with you on all issues and note, as others have referred to earlier, that the conflation of scientific facts (i.e. backed up by hard physical evidence) with peoples feelings or beliefs which are not supported by direct physical evidence is a very dangerous thing.
I have no problem with peoples beliefs and them being promoted as such but don't accept that a science museum is the right place for that to occur.
Our young people have been - and continue to be - presented with scientific facts and a "wish list" that some people have about how they would like the universe to be as equally valid. How can children's young, inexperienced minds possibly recognise which is which if the information is not presented in a truthful and clear way?
As an Australian I can relate to these observations. The rush to apologize and find redemption for the perceived wrongs of our forfathers has contributed to a perfect storm of contradictory claims on reality. Unfalseafiable declarations of what is sacred have been protected and embedded in our legislation for years - defended by an army of anthropologist who I doubt believe a word of it themselves.
Supernatural explanations, be they Christian fundamentalist or indigenous, should not be considered science. “I have no need of that hypothesis,” as Pierre-Simon Laplace allegedly quipped in the 19th century.
Yet more evidence for how ideology is corrupting our scientific and cultural institutions.
These people may think that they are just being nice to other cultures, but they are doing great damage.
While I support scientific integrity, I see this particular issue differently. In my view, museums of natural history are about history (obviously) and culture, in addition to science. Spiritual beliefs and practices are integral to indigenous peoples' history and culture. Therefore, I think it is entirely appropriate for these museums to include discussion of indigenous beliefs alongside the artifacts, within the context of their history and culture.
I read this through the lens of how the denial of sex is compared to Creationism as a threat rather than a critical analysis of biology, especially evolutionary theory. I wonder how much the "beyond the binary" ideology (that I've supported in the past) that conflates a tiny intersex population with some great sex diversity and the existence of multiple sexes (not gender identities) has made its way into museum exhibits. I wince but can imagine museum exhibits with the worst fallacies of transgenderism (sex can and does change; with enough hormones and surgery your chromosomes start to shift, etc.) Perhaps such exhibits quote the 30 year old line by Fausto-Sterling that the sex binary doesn't seem to be able to hold all our evolving knowledge of sex differences, AS IF that means there must be more than XX and XY, and that the two gametes surely have similarities and some kind of continuum or "spectra" between them. I may try to write about this in my book on sex and gender across the university, so please email me at chammer@maine.edu if you know how museums of science are addressing gender ideology (like Campbell's BIO textbook did - which I think was a good thing as it would be more stark if the huge social issue were ignored??)
I know that Scientific American, to which I haven't subscribed in a few years, has had a number of articles promoting the incorporating indigenous beliefs in their analysis. And Dr. Jerry Coyne in his website "Why Evolution Is True" has written extensively about New Zealand and the extraordinary extent to which indigenous myths are being incorporated into science teaching.
But I have a cynical suspicion/question: In terms of land claims, Is the reluctance to have a skeleton's DNA analyzed, Is that fear that the DNA would be found to belong to another tribe than the one currently occupying a piece of land and consequently put into question to whom that piece of land actually belongs?
> Intelligent Design–a concept with an “aim to redefine science by allowing an appeal to supernatural beings and powers.”
Not necessarily. ID -- tho it obviously overlaps with various religious claims -- is in itself merely a challenge to the notion that everything we see in biology can have arisen by random mutations. Given that we may not be alone in the universe and given that intelligent beings design things and given that we ourselves are already 'designing' life to an increasing degree every year, there is nothing remotely unscientific about the hypothesis that certain aspects of biology on Earth could have been designed, even as the Corona Virus was designed in that lab in Wuhan. Whether the postulated designer is a deity or not is quite secondary. The true scientist is neutral on the question.
So I agree that the scientific method as our best lens on reality. But it's a cultural tradition all the same. I'm not really seeing much harm in acknowledging other cultural traditions in what are essentially displays of cultural artifacts. I worry more about political postmodern critical theories undermining science. Really interesting article though, which I enjoyed and appreciated, anyway.
An actual supernatural museum could be really fun but yeah, this stuff should not be presented as science.
So regarding Native American pieces on loan museum staff allow their warnings or demands to be displayed along with treatment of this stuff to how saints relics were treated in the medieval church along with modern day shroud of Turin reverence. Meteorites should be studied though and if whomever wants something displayed that way to have their beliefs respected then what's the harm if it's on loan. You are supposed to stay away from stuff with human hair, how do we know their spiritual dog whistle doesn't bring spirits? The same thing should apply, metaphysics are scientifically studied afterall. I just couldn't help thinking about a museum employee picking up the whistle whilst in a mischievous mood blows it and Nighmare at the museum begins, que in the metal riff and 80s like intro because an awesome horror movie is about to begin :), If one group gets the respect to care for their objects on loan and it draws a crowd for their museum maybe an anthropologist would want to study the relic and how it's still revered instead of treating it like it is a quaint amusement it is interesting though, and you absolutely nailed it, how unequal the respect for the beliefs are, also aren't those supporting that at the museum giving them reverence and thereby power if these are such spiritually charged objects, maybe the museum employees happily avoid caring for what tribes hold to be sacred. Pregnant women aren't even able to fly after so many months, if it's spiritual in nature I'm more interested in if they are that concerned for the viewer why they would have loaned it out ehh all in all I personally don't think it's sexist.
I’m amused by the lack of understanding of science. You can prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that neither whistles nor prayers will summon supernatural intervention in daily reality. No mountains have ever moved, no legless people healed with a new leg, no poor were fed, no healing spirits streamed forth. Evolution is indeed a random process, shattered glass doesn’t spontaneously fly back together, ice cubes don’t form spontaneously in a furnace.
A museum of anthropology is slightly different from a museum of art, and a museum of superstition.
“Affronts” to superstitions need not be humored - the owners need not share their objects. Claims that meteorites are sacred - well, only property rights are recognized in our legal systems, not superstition.
If a lender demanded that an object not be handled by an “unclean” person, for example, I hope the museum tosses it over the fence.
I think museums are trying to walk the fine line of respecting the beliefs of the creators of anthropological objects (and yes making sure museums maintain access to objects) but I look at it in the way I look at baptism as an atheist: I don't believe in this sacrament but I know that family members do so I don't see any harm in allowing my kid to be baptized if it keeps family from worrying about eternal damnation. I understand the point that wording should be careful: "According to the beliefs of X, this whistle has the power to summon spirits". Eg reporting beliefs rather than espousing them. If the latter is what's occurring that does seem a big overstep.
Why are these objects not repatriated back if they are so spiritually powerful and important to the people who made them?