Hostility to science

About Deloria’s bizarre chapters called “The Spatial Problem of History” and “Natural and Hybrid Peoples”: Velikovsky and Sitchin, whose work he is so caught up with, have been thoroughly disproven by any number of astrological, biological and geological observations. He does what I've seen New Agers and creationists do time and time again -- selectively cite evidence that is consistent with an idea, while ignoring huge bodies of data that are completely contradict the idea, lambasting "scientific elites" for being close-minded. It is actually doctrinaire folks like Velikovsky and Sitchin and, sadly, Deloria, who act most close-minded. They show no understanding of the necessity of scientific predictions being internally consistent and accurate across a range of empirical data. It's a real shame, because he wants to make a valid point: the Western-centric view of history is not the correct view, and other views of human history are possible. But the most effective way to make that point is not to advance bizarre ideas that are at odds with evidence. I have found many times that indigenous people can be very hostile to science and see it simply as another form of colonialism in the domain of knowledge. One can hardly blame them for that! Still, it’s frustrating to see a book that could be one of the most important books of hte 20th century ruined by these wacko arguments, throwing out the good of science along with the bad. The relationship of science to indigenous knowledge definitely needs work.