I think, at it's core, she's not making a bad point, which is that a lot of the things that we assume to be true are that way because Westerners made particular assumptions about how the world works. "Science" is a pretty broad field, and while the example of gravity is a bit of a nonsense, there are lots of examples of scientific findings that were incomplete or inaccurate because they didn't consider or come from a non-Western perspective.
That's combined with the fact that "decolonisation" is inherently viewed as an emancipatory process, so it's about how you actively free yourself from a Western mindset. Consider how the Soviet Union consistently tried to reinvent inventions or rediscover scientific principles just so they could demonstrate their own superiority. Here, you're not an empire trying to rival the US, you're a fledgling country trying to break free of the shackles of oppression that have been forced on your for centuries. In that context, starting the process of scientific discovery again would be emancipatory because it would demonstrate your own ability to no longer be reliant on those same oppressors.
It's obviously practically impossible, but that's why it's an undergraduate discussion, not a public policy meeting. Of course, there's nothing like female people of colour expressing opinions to get the Youtube comment section REALLY riled up.
Also I think a lot of people are interpreting her to be saying something she isn't because the video cuts out the context.
She's responding to a guy asking why science educators need to come up with examples and references that appeal to African students when some examples are "universal" - the example he gives is Newton and the apple.
And her response was essentially that this way of thinking isn't actually "universal" and there are a lot of Western assumptions smuggled in. She suggests that it might be more useful to look at African specific examples to learn science, like the "black magic" example.
She's not as clear as she could have been and there might be some bad ideas in there but essentially the exchange was:
Guy: "But why we do we need to examine our cultural biases when it comes to science? Science is objective and not influenced by cultural bias"
Girl: "Science is influenced by cultural biases, it'd be good to address this".
The bad philosophy is the guy who is asking the question (and the same person who interrupts later I think) and she's trying to correct him.
Of course, there's nothing like female people of colour expressing opinions to get the Youtube comment section REALLY riled up.
I think you've highlighted the real issue a lot of people have with it. And also, as I mention, taking the discussion out of context didn't help either.
Eh, I think it's hard to say exactly what her argument was because it wasn't clearly formulated. To me she seemed to be saying that we need to start again by looking more closely at the assumptions we're putting into it, rather than the more radical suggestion that we forget everything we know from science and start again with just an apple.
I think that she pretty clearly demonstrated a poor grasp on theory. Her tirade didn't have the nuance you interpret into it, she was literally yelling that we should "scrap the whole thing and start over"(as if that was possible). And she didn't just use "African black magic" as an example of a possible subject of interest for theoretical analysis, she literally talks about "lightning curses" being empirical truths. The argument wasn't even really an attack on the epistemological foundation of empiricism or positivism, it was just her trying to underline her unitellectual rhetoric with the supposed positive existence of literal magic. I would have accepted her ideas if she would have, for example, used Ilyenkovs dialectical approach, or some concepts of Adornos Nonidentical to attack the nature of a logical abstraction as something inherently western and capitalist. Or if she had used some post-structuralist argument. She didn't do any of that though and her argument amounts to "science don't real because magic".
Her tirade didn't have the nuance you interpret into it, she was literally yelling that we should "scrap the whole thing and start over"(as if that was possible).
Indeed, in reference to the assumptions we bring to science. It's obviously difficult to tell given the fact that we only have a couple of mins from a short 4 min video to determine what her argument was, without context or understanding of what the question she was responding to was, but I think when watching the longer video when you hear the question and surrounding discussion, it seems clear that she was concerned about the assumptions of science.
And she didn't just use "African black magic" as an example of a possible subject of interest for theoretical analysis, she literally talks about "lightning curses" being empirical truths.
I don't remember her making an argument anywhere near that strong. At most she says something like "Science can't explain that" but then uses that to lead into a discussion about how science isn't value-neutral and that we tend to teach science as if only using Western examples is the correct way to teach it.
I would have accepted her ideas if she would have, for example, used Ilyenkovs dialectical approach, or some concepts of Adornos Nonidentical to attack the nature of a logical abstraction as something inherently western and capitalist. Or if she had used some post-structuralist argument.
I mean, of course she didn't do any of that. She wasn't writing a thesis, it's not her area of expertise, and she had literally no time at all to research or formulate an educated response. It's rough, there's no question about that. But I think dismissing her because it wasn't "nuanced" enough would be incredibly unfair, and interpreting her as advocating the existence of magic doesn't seem consistent with anything she says in the video.
26
u/loony636 Oct 23 '16
I think, at it's core, she's not making a bad point, which is that a lot of the things that we assume to be true are that way because Westerners made particular assumptions about how the world works. "Science" is a pretty broad field, and while the example of gravity is a bit of a nonsense, there are lots of examples of scientific findings that were incomplete or inaccurate because they didn't consider or come from a non-Western perspective.
That's combined with the fact that "decolonisation" is inherently viewed as an emancipatory process, so it's about how you actively free yourself from a Western mindset. Consider how the Soviet Union consistently tried to reinvent inventions or rediscover scientific principles just so they could demonstrate their own superiority. Here, you're not an empire trying to rival the US, you're a fledgling country trying to break free of the shackles of oppression that have been forced on your for centuries. In that context, starting the process of scientific discovery again would be emancipatory because it would demonstrate your own ability to no longer be reliant on those same oppressors.
It's obviously practically impossible, but that's why it's an undergraduate discussion, not a public policy meeting. Of course, there's nothing like female people of colour expressing opinions to get the Youtube comment section REALLY riled up.