I was rejecting the idea that we have to prove Indigenous knowledge. We know there is such a thing. Its called knowledge and its different to material sciences. So it exists and the Indigenous peoples tell us so. Its like defending their language as a real thing from the past.
Then we reject the notion that unprovable knowledge is worth talking about. Your full modus operandi is coming in to clear view. I should have seen it earlier. It is classic pseudoscience "methodology".
1. Find some minor "anomaly" in an active area of scientific inquiry
2. Accuse "mainstream science" of ignoring the minor anomoly.
3. Concoct some mysterious alternative way of it occurring.
4. Argue minor anomaly into prominence among a group of ill-informed followers
5. Blame "mainstream science" when it doesn't catch on with the general public
6. Accuse mainstream of "ignoring ancient or hidden knowledge" or being to "materialist" to understand the "spiritual".
7. Grift suckers.
Unfortunately for you Steve, this isn't your grift and you are just one of the people the vasephrenologists and ancient tech grifters have pulled in for their support. I hope, for your own sake, you haven't given them anything but your clicks and likes. Since this isn't your grift you came in at #2 and can only go as far as #6.
Aboriginals are one of the most interesting and complex cultures. Steeped in the Dreamtime which is sort of the equivelant of the Creation story.
Only in recent times are we discovering their knowledge. They now lead most of the environments programs caring for the land. That includes working science and tech with Indigneous knowledge. Or redirecting science and tech into Indigenous applications.
Which is all very cool, but hardly relevant as we shall see...
I mean they were not a building culture so theres no vases or megaliths. The giant natural rocks and other natural sites are the megaliths. Their culture is much more ancient . I mean the Boomerang is pretty cool. So is the
Didgeridoo.
Because the didn't have the cultural practice that allows the development of large settlements and societies that can sustain workshops of full time stone vessel craftsmen or tens of thousands of off-season laborers building the tomb of their great king --- agriculture.
They are good at sustainable living, sustainable crops. Blending in crops to thive with their natural environment without disturbing the land. Unlike modern tech that destroys nature despite its advanced tech. Which shows that Indigenous knowledge is a deeper knowledge that knows nature and how it works. Where actually material science is dumb in that sense.
Which has nothing to do with ancient indigenous knowledge of crop growth. Since they didn't have agriculture until recently, this is either you slipping to another region of agricultural indigenous people, or you are talking about groups of Aboriginals that have adopted agriculture into their communities and done it the way that fits their philosophies. It is still not relevant.
The use of fire is another practice that helps regrowth, hunting, and maintaining the land. They manage to control the bush pretty good and then we come along and stop all the knowledge and wonder why we get mega bush fires that wipe out growth the size of a small nation destroying homes and people.
The use of fire in agriculture, landscape management, game management is found in various places in the world. The Midwestern
oak savannas, my native landscape (and home to my favorite tree -- the Burr oak, require fire to maintain and that has mostly likely been intentional human generated fires for millennia.
There are many ways. Too many to name.
Western science and traditional knowledge: Despite their variations, different forms of knowledge can learn from each other
For example, some authors (Freeman, 1992; Iaccarino, 2003) have suggested that traditional knowledge systems can be helpful in dealing with complex systems: “The understanding of complex systems remains a major challenge for the future, and no scientist today can claim that we have at hand the appropriate methods with which to achieve this. Thus, we cannot discuss the future of science without taking into account the philosophical problems generated by the study of complexity.
Modern, or Western, science may not be best suited to fulfil this task, as its view of the world is too constrained by its characteristic empirical and analytical approach that, in the past, made it so successful. We should therefore remember the contributions of other civilizations to the understanding of nature. […] Such traditional or indigenous knowledge is now increasingly being used not only with the aim of finding new drugs, but also to derive new concepts that may help us to reconcile empiricism and science” (Iaccarino, 2003).
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Science Must Embrace Traditional and Indigenous Knowledge to Solve Our Biodiversity Crisis
It’s taken thousands of years, but Western science is finally catching up to Traditional Knowledge
A double standard exists concerning the acceptance of Traditional Knowledge by practitioners of Western science.
theconversation.com
As I stated yesterday, these are well known areas where people living in a landscape know it better than outsiders: the nature of the ecosystem, uses of native plants, etc.
None of it is a magic ancient technology for cutting or shaping stone. Quit these distractions.
