The article, while not great, is clearly the refutation of claims made by Ed Husic. The onus of proof would then be on Ed.
From your first link
One only has to look at the origins of the word ‘Science’. It comes from the Latin word ‘Scientia’, which simply means ‘to know’.
To suggest that there are any groups of human beings who didn’t have science is, ironically, quite unscientific.
This completely dismisses that science is a formalised practice of the scientific method and is akin to claiming that any knowledge is science which I reject.
I have yet to read the other sources provided, which I will get to when I have the time.
The onus of proving a point in an article of their construction should be on the author.
Anyway, here’s an article: https://australian.museum/learn/first-nations/indigenous-science/.
Another: https://blog.qm.qld.gov.au/2012/08/01/science-principles-in-traditional-aboriginal-australia/
A website of resources (Australian council of deans of science): https://www.acds.edu.au/teaching-learning/indigenous-science/
Food detoxification by indigenous people: https://www.scienceflip.com.au/subjects/chemistry/equilibriumandacidreactions/learn10/
https://scienceready.com.au/pages/aboriginal-detoxification-methods?srsltid=AfmBOop0v07LPvhyOAoNohVwoF6XHWgw-XgvskBWCe-Ua2Vf2iQmk4JG
If you’re after an artifact with a written hypothesis from an exclusively spoken language society, I can’t help you there.
The article, while not great, is clearly the refutation of claims made by Ed Husic. The onus of proof would then be on Ed.
From your first link
This completely dismisses that science is a formalised practice of the scientific method and is akin to claiming that any knowledge is science which I reject.
I have yet to read the other sources provided, which I will get to when I have the time.