Notices
Results 1 to 72 of 72
Like Tree16Likes
  • 1 Post By sampson
  • 1 Post By Strange
  • 1 Post By sampson
  • 1 Post By scoobydoo1
  • 1 Post By Dywyddyr
  • 1 Post By KALSTER
  • 2 Post By scoobydoo1
  • 1 Post By sculptor
  • 1 Post By sculptor
  • 1 Post By Dywyddyr
  • 1 Post By Harold14370
  • 1 Post By seagypsy
  • 1 Post By scoobydoo1
  • 2 Post By Strange

Thread: What would Science be like without Anthropology?

  1. #1 What would Science be like without Anthropology? 
    Forum Junior sampson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    246
    Or.....Is ego the reason some Scientists will not even recognize Anthropology as a Science, especially when the study of mankind involves truth surrounding their religion? Open for discussion until thrown in the trash can or blocked, .....very likely.


    mikepotter84 likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    Quote Originally Posted by sampson View Post
    Or.....Is ego the reason some Scientists will not even recognize Anthropology as a Science, especially when the study of mankind involves truth surrounding their religion? Open for discussion until thrown in the trash can or blocked, .....very likely.
    Still trying to bitch about Catholicism.

    Anthropology is a formal field of study which is not quantifiable, testable, amenable to experimentation, or falsification. As such, it is not really a science. It has nothing to do with ego (except perhaps on your part) and everything to do with the definition of the scientific method.


    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Junior sampson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    246
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sampson View Post
    Or.....Is ego the reason some Scientists will not even recognize Anthropology as a Science, especially when the study of mankind involves truth surrounding their religion? Open for discussion until thrown in the trash can or blocked, .....very likely.
    Still trying to bitch about Catholicism.

    Anthropology is a formal field of study which is not quantifiable, testable, amenable to experimentation, or falsification. As such, it is not really a science. It has nothing to do with ego (except perhaps on your part) and everything to do with the definition of the scientific method.
    So noted. These words will be on your plate to eat later.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Junior sampson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    246
    Some Info to get AlexG started: Anthropology has 4 disciplines, Cultural, Archaeology, Linguistics, and Physical. Which one do you suppose Genetics falls under ? Biology?, Native American Blood studies, Native American Dental studies, etc. just for a small sample? Go do your own homework and wake me when you are ready to eat.
    Last edited by sampson; July 9th, 2013 at 03:41 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    12,029
    Quote Originally Posted by sampson View Post
    the study of mankind involves truth surrounding their religion?
    What?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    I suppose some sub-fields within anthropology (forensic and linguistic anthropology, for example) are quite "sciency" but much of it (art, politics, sociology, etc) appears to be lacking hard data and so is less sciency.
    babe likes this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Junior sampson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    246
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    I suppose some sub-fields within anthropology (forensic and linguistic anthropology, for example) are quite "sciency" but much of it (art, politics, sociology, etc) appears to be lacking hard data and so is less sciency.
    I suppose so. What about Genetics and Biology of Man, Native American Blood and Dental studies for example. What about the entire discipline of Physical Anthropology? There are too many sub-disciplines for me to list. Leave it to AlexG to do his own homework and wake me when he is ready to eat.
    mikepotter84 likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    Yawn..

    Quantifiable? Testable? Falsifiable? Nope.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by sampson View Post
    I suppose so. What about Genetics and Biology of Man, Native American Blood and Dental studies for example. What about the entire discipline of Physical Anthropology? There are too many sub-disciplines for me to list. Leave it to AlexG to do his own homework and wake me when he is ready to eat.
    I wasn't going to try and list every subfield and assign a degree of sceinceness to it. But I guess we agree that some things are a bit sciency and some are not. So, overall, not very sciency at all.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Junior sampson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    246
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sampson View Post
    I suppose so. What about Genetics and Biology of Man, Native American Blood and Dental studies for example. What about the entire discipline of Physical Anthropology? There are too many sub-disciplines for me to list. Leave it to AlexG to do his own homework and wake me when he is ready to eat.
    I wasn't going to try and list every subfield and assign a degree of sceinceness to it. But I guess we agree that some things are a bit sciency and some are not. So, overall, not very sciency at all.
    Well you can lead a self proclaimed Scientist to Webster's but you can't make him swallow his ego and his own definitions of his Science.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by sampson View Post
    Well you can lead a self proclaimed Scientist to Webster's but you can't make him swallow his ego and his own definitions of his Science.
    1. I don't know who "self proclaimed Scientist" is supposed to refer to.

    2. You haven't led anyone to Webster's (until now).

    3. You are the one who appears to have an ego problem.

    4. I see the MW definition does use the word science (Anthropology - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary) but then they have 5 definitions of "science" only one of which is a reasonably accurate summary of science as used in this forum (Science - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary).

    I'm sure anthropology is interesting and possibly even useful but you can't deny that it, like sociology or psychology, is a pretty "soft" science based more on subjective opinions than hard data.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Junior sampson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    246
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sampson View Post
    Well you can lead a self proclaimed Scientist to Webster's but you can't make him swallow his ego and his own definitions of his Science.
    1. I don't know who "self proclaimed Scientist" is supposed to refer to.

    2. You haven't led anyone to Webster's (until now).

    3. You are the one who appears to have an ego problem.

    4. I see the MW definition does use the word science (Anthropology - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary) but then they have 5 definitions of "science" only one of which is a reasonably accurate summary of science as used in this forum (Science - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary).

    I'm sure anthropology is interesting and possibly even useful but you can't deny that it, like sociology or psychology, is a pretty "soft" science based more on subjective opinions than hard data.
    I have just posted the four disciplines of the Science, and led you to the multiple (50 or more)sub disciplines of Physical and Biological Anthropology, so you and AlexG are just being obtuse. On to the OP, I have no more time for your pp contest.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    Anthropology was always a gut major. Anthro, for when you just can't handle math.

    From the UCLA catalog for the Dept. of Anthropology:

    Anthropology, the broadest of the social sciences, is the study of humankind. One of the strengths of anthropology as a discipline is its "holistic" or integrative approach; it links the life sciences and the humanities and has strong ties with disciplines ranging from biology and psychology to linguistics, political science, and the fine arts. Anthropological study is appropriate for people with a wide variety of interests: human cultures and civilizations both present and past, human and animal behavior, particular regions of the world such as Africa, Asia, Latin America, Oceania, etc.
    It doesn't really get within spitting distance of science.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    I remember now, our last conversation was like this. You make vague unsupported assertions and refuse to explain what you are talking about.

    Quote Originally Posted by sampson View Post
    I have just posted the four disciplines of the Science
    I don't know about "the" four (Wikipedia lists a different four, for example and Webster's only lists three). But so what?

    And, again, you didn't "lead anyone to Webster's".

    , and led you to the multiple (50 or more)sub disciplines of Physical and Biological Anthropology
    Where exactly did you mention "(50 or more)sub disciplines of Physical and Biological Anthropology"?

    I have no more time for your pp contest.
    You started it. For some reason.

    Regarding your original question, could you suggest some of the important insights we have gained from anthropology, that we wouldn't have got from other branches of science? (I'm not saying there aren't any, I'm just not sure what they are.)
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Junior sampson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    246
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post

    Regarding your original question, could you suggest some of the important insights we have gained from anthropology, that we wouldn't have got from other branches of science? (I'm not saying there aren't any, I'm just not sure what they are.)
    Once you acknowledge the accepted definition of Anthropology, your question is moot.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    What would Science be like without Anthropology?
    No different than it is with Anthropology.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    Quote Originally Posted by sampson View Post
    What would Science be without Anthropology?
    Science.

    A bouquet of flowers without lilium bulbiferums; is still a bouquet of flowers.
    Strange likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by sampson View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post

    Regarding your original question, could you suggest some of the important insights we have gained from anthropology, that we wouldn't have got from other branches of science? (I'm not saying there aren't any, I'm just not sure what they are.)
    Once you acknowledge the accepted definition of Anthropology, your question is moot.
    Of course I accept the standard definition of anthropology (after all, I am the one who provided a link to a definition not you). But that doesn't answer your question: "What would Science be like without Anthropology?" (otherwise there would have been no point asking it).

    So, to determine what science would be like without it, we need to know what information, insights, breakthroughs, etc. anthropology has produced.

    Does your computer rely on anthropology? No, just physics and chemistry.

    Does modern life-saving medicine rely on anthropology? No, chemistry and biology. But, I suppose anthropology may have helped a little by identifying some plants and other things used in traditional medicine that really do have some useful effects.

    Any other examples? Come on, you seem very attached to anthropology, perhaps you can tell us how it has changed science?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    12,029
    "What would Science be like without Anthropology?"
    Anthropologyless.
    Strange likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    I feel I have to jump in and defend Anthropology here, but then it'll look like I agree with sampson.



    Sampson, your greatest obstacle on this forum thus far has been your attitude. We can have a halfway decent conversation here if you just drop your attitude. And no, the others have been reacting to you.

    I am not taking a jab this time. 'Common, I'm asking.
    Strange likes this.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    I feel I have to jump in and defend Anthropology here,
    I think it should be made clear that I'm not belittling the social sciences of anthropology, or just about any of the other disciplines. "Science" in the context of how I'm using the term in this thread is akin to a tree with many branches, or going back to my post #17; "A bouquet of flowers without lilium bulbiferums; is still a bouquet of flowers." It (Science) is either a single discipline or a host of disciplines in building a body of knowledge through the use of the scientific method.

    Another way of looking at the question would be "What would science be without Computer Science?", the answer; still Science. Just like mathematics would still be mathematics without Computer Science had machines that performed calculations and processing of information not be invented.
    Strange and Neverfly like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Junior sampson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    246
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    I feel I have to jump in and defend Anthropology here, but then it'll look like I agree with sampson.



    Sampson, your greatest obstacle on this forum thus far has been your attitude. We can have a halfway decent conversation here if you just drop your attitude. And no, the others have been reacting to you.

    I am not taking a jab this time. 'Common, I'm asking.
    No problem, it is just an opinion, not an attitude. One has to think of Anthropology as an umbrella title that covers many of the Sciences. If you refuse to follow this logic and the verifying links I have provided, then it exposes your shortcomings, and brings up questions of why, which it did bring up concerning the first thread. In any case, as I said previously, it has been enlightening, but I can drop this thread like a hot iron,....done.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by sampson View Post
    One has to think of Anthropology as an umbrella title that covers many of the Sciences.
    Oh, I think I might have totally misunderstood you. Are you suggesting that biology, say, is simply a sub-discipline of anthropology?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    The expression "know thyself" comes to mind.
    Anthropology is simply the study of man(humans).
    We look to the past with archaeology, then follow up with linguistics, and patterns within cultural anthropology, and now with dna. To answer the where did we come from part of the "who are we, where did we come from" question.

    Hinging on cultural anthropology, a study into psychology is apropos if not essential. this looks into "why do we do the things we do?", how do we organize ourselves and our knowledge.

    What, really is any science without the interface with man?
    All of our creations fall within the greater "study of man".

    Knowing who and what we are gives insites into what we see, learn, sense, know and surmise and what lies beyond that within our proclivities of/to being "human".

    Dare I say that anthropology lies at the core of all science?
    ...............
    Ok, the U wherein I took the anthropology degree was hell bent on throwing off the cloak of anthropology being derided as an "armchair science".
    No mistake there that Anthropology and psychology shared the behavioural sciences building(known around campus as the BSBbuilding---without a hint of conscious redundancy----------more at "the study of man").
    Are we oftimes a silly species?
    Are we constantly changing our environment, and the environmental acquisition of knowledge?
    Is it a species denominator that most teens tend to think of the older generation as primitive and stupid?
    Is that phase of rebellion the hallmark of our species?
    It is said of neanderthalensis that they had an unchanged stone culture(tool kit) for over 60 thousand years. While sapiens sapiens tool kit changes from generation to generation with increasing complexity(and, it seems frequency).

    While anthropology is closing in on why we look at, see, learn, sense, know and surmise what we do, it lacks the prometheus to know if we are seeing all that is possible.
    Where do our strengths turn into weaknesses?
    Where are we blinded by our brilliance?
    sampson likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    Dare I say that anthropology lies at the core of all science?
    You can dare say it, but it certainly doesn't make it correct. Unless you want to include basket weaving as a science.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    344
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    Yawn..

    Quantifiable? Testable? Falsifiable? Nope.
    Physical Anthropology involves the discovery and study of hominid fossils...is that a waste of time? I really wish you'd educate yourself before making ignorant statements. We use empirical data just like every other branch of science.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    Dare I say that anthropology lies at the core of all science?
    You can dare say it, but it certainly doesn't make it correct. Unless you want to include basket weaving as a science.
    and, oddly enough, it once was.
    sampson likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    12,029
    No it wasn't.
    mikepotter84 likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    Quote Originally Posted by mikepotter84 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    Yawn..

    Quantifiable? Testable? Falsifiable? Nope.
    Physical Anthropology involves the discovery and study of hominid fossils...is that a waste of time? I really wish you'd educate yourself before making ignorant statements. We use empirical data just like every other branch of science.
    Mike, you don't have a clue as to what constitutes science.

    No one said it was a waste of time. Just that it wasn't a science.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    344
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    I feel I have to jump in and defend Anthropology here, but then it'll look like I agree with sampson.



    Sampson, your greatest obstacle on this forum thus far has been your attitude. We can have a halfway decent conversation here if you just drop your attitude. And no, the others have been reacting to you.

    I am not taking a jab this time. 'Common, I'm asking.
    I almost "liked" your comment but I disagree with your assessment of Sampson's "attitude". The science of Anthropology was attacked and it deserved to be defended.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    duck

    experimentation
    observation
    refinement of technique

    or did "GOD" give the ancients baskets fully formed?

    I dare say that few(if any) of us comprehends the science involved in weaving a basket that could hold water'

    or one that will catch an hold a very large and very active fish

    or one that provides a mat for sleeping and sitting

    hell man, we wouldn't even know which would be the best materials for any particular use.
    .............
    so how would we go about finding all that out?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    344
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mikepotter84 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    Yawn..

    Quantifiable? Testable? Falsifiable? Nope.
    Physical Anthropology involves the discovery and study of hominid fossils...is that a waste of time? I really wish you'd educate yourself before making ignorant statements. We use empirical data just like every other branch of science.
    Mike, you don't have a clue as to what constitutes science.
    So only Chemistry, Physics and Engineering involve "science"? You honestly know absolutely nothing about the world outside of your one-dimensional box. I've taken 30 hours worth of Zoology courses as an Anthro student...I focused on primate evolution and behavior, which sheds light on human behavior and origins. I guess that isn't science because I'm not building something or working on curing cancer?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    experimentation
    observation
    refinement of technique
    The necessary steps in any craft. To call it science is nonsense.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    344
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    experimentation
    observation
    refinement of technique
    The necessary steps in any craft. To call it science is nonsense.
    What do you do for a living? I'm sure you're out there fixing all of the world's problems.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    Quote Originally Posted by mikepotter84 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    experimentation
    observation
    refinement of technique
    The necessary steps in any craft. To call it science is nonsense.
    What do you do for a living? I'm sure you're out there fixing all of the world's problems.
    Well Mike, I'm not working in a grocery store, and I managed to keep up a GPA a lot higher than 2.1.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    344
    I cared more about learning than "getting the grade". I read two books a week on my own during my college years...ah, the troublesome life of the autodidact...

    Also, I no longer work for a grocery store and even if I did it would be a temporary job to help me make it through the recession...

    Now answer my quesion Michio Kaku...what do YOU do for a living? And what is your degree in?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    My degree was in physics, from the Cooper Union, I've been a mainframe computer programmer for the last 40 years, and I'm currently retired.

    You see mikey, I could actually get a job and didn't have to spend my time bitching about how unfair life was to me.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    344
    Ah, working with computers, how original.

    I could actually get a job and didn't have to spend my time bitching about how unfair life was to me
    Hahahaha...

    1.) What makes you think I couldn't get a job?

    2.) I am going to get an M.A. within the next few years and further my education in order to become a professor

    3.) YOU don't "bitch"? All you ever do is complain, you miserable lout!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    If you folks aren't answering the thread question, perhaps it might be better to bring your squabbles into PM or into the "other" thread over at General Discussions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    experimentation
    observation
    refinement of technique
    The necessary steps in any craft. To call it science is nonsense.
    OK, expand
    how then does science differ from that
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    The steps of the scientific method:

    Scientific Method Step 1: Ask a Question
    Scientific Method Step 2: Make Observations and Conduct Background Research
    Scientific Method Step 3: Propose a Hypothesis
    Scientific Method Step 4: Design an Experiment to Test the Hypothesis
    Scientific Method Step 5: Test the Hypothesis
    Scientific Method Step 6: Accept or Reject the Hypothesis
    Revise a Rejected Hypothesis (return to step 3) or Draw Conclusions (Accepted)

    Basket weaving just doesn't fit.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    344
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    If you folks aren't answering the thread question, perhaps it might be better to bring your squabbles into PM or into the "other" thread over at General Discussions.
    It is related. He attacked my profession and I'm defending it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    Quote Originally Posted by mikepotter84 View Post
    It is related. He attacked my profession and I'm defending it.
    Is your profession in the social science of anthropology?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Junior sampson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    246
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    duck

    experimentation
    observation
    refinement of technique

    or did "GOD" give the ancients baskets fully formed?

    I dare say that few(if any) of us comprehends the science involved in weaving a basket that could hold water'

    or one that will catch an hold a very large and very active fish

    or one that provides a mat for sleeping and sitting

    hell man, we wouldn't even know which would be the best materials for any particular use.
    .............
    so how would we go about finding all that out?
    This reminds me of the Atlatl. I wrote a paper long ago on the invention of the Atlatl. It was invented out of the necessity of it's day. As it goes with Basket Weaving. Oddly enough,.....thanks to AlexG for innocently bringing up Basket Weaving, a Science of yesterday.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    atlatl
    seems to have been used on all continents(and australia)
    must be a very old invention
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    344
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mikepotter84 View Post
    It is related. He attacked my profession and I'm defending it.
    Is your profession in the social science of anthropology?
    Yes, I'm an Anthropologist.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    Quote Originally Posted by mikepotter84 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    Is your profession in the social science of anthropology?
    Yes, I'm an Anthropologist.
    Fantastic. Do share your speciality, and the research methodologies you have utilized during the course your profession. Some examples of your work would be very helpful in enlightening the rest of us on the precise nature of (or differences between) hard vs soft sciences.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    344
    We use the same methodology that Alex mentioned above.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by sampson View Post
    Or.....Is ego the reason some Scientists will not even recognize Anthropology as a Science, especially when the study of mankind involves truth surrounding their religion? Open for discussion until thrown in the trash can or blocked, .....very likely.
    I'm going to say anthropology is a science. There are observations, hypotheses (like how bipedalism in humans evolved, how humans spread around the world, how a certain population of people migrated to a certain place, etc.) The hypotheses can be tested by using genetic studies, geology, climatology, and so forth.

    However, what I think you are trying to say is that bitching about the pope is anthropology. It's not.
    PhDemon likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    Quote Originally Posted by mikepotter84 View Post
    We use the same methodology that Alex mentioned above.
    Well, if your suspension isn't permenant; I've actually hoped that you would share a little more than that. For example, how you have applied it (the methodology) in your work, and also, what is your field of speciality in anthropology?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Junior sampson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    246
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sampson View Post
    Or.....Is ego the reason some Scientists will not even recognize Anthropology as a Science, especially when the study of mankind involves truth surrounding their religion? Open for discussion until thrown in the trash can or blocked, .....very likely.
    I'm going to say anthropology is a science. There are observations, hypotheses (like how bipedalism in humans evolved, how humans spread around the world, how a certain population of people migrated to a certain place, etc.) The hypotheses can be tested by using genetic studies, geology, climatology, and so forth.

    However, what I think you are trying to say is that bitching about the pope is anthropology. It's not.
    I posted a link, and had an opinion on the affair. The act of shamanism and deliberate fraud in the world's largest religion is Cultural Anthropology, current events, and news. YMMV. I could go down the list of topics of todays threads and claim their was no science in half of them. Or more. Why is Mikepotter84 suspended?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    truth surrounding their religion
    often debated
    the problem arises in delineating what truths are held in regards to what, and what is part of "you got to go along to get along"
    -why psychology is an important ancillary study within anthropology?

    It seems that when people hold to certain seemingly irrational dogmas as part of their cultural peer group identity, those without that culture fail to understand the significance of the adherence to those dogmas.

    eg: My brother who is on a good day agnostic married a church going catholic, and on the day of his daughter's baptism, on the dias whereon was the baptismal fount, I inquired about his vasectomy---he was horror struck that I would mention that there. So, covertly agnostic, he was becoming overtly catholic. Peer group associations and overt acceptance of that for which he held no internal reverence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,103
    Quote Originally Posted by sampson View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sampson View Post
    Or.....Is ego the reason some Scientists will not even recognize Anthropology as a Science, especially when the study of mankind involves truth surrounding their religion? Open for discussion until thrown in the trash can or blocked, .....very likely.
    I'm going to say anthropology is a science. There are observations, hypotheses (like how bipedalism in humans evolved, how humans spread around the world, how a certain population of people migrated to a certain place, etc.) The hypotheses can be tested by using genetic studies, geology, climatology, and so forth.

    However, what I think you are trying to say is that bitching about the pope is anthropology. It's not.
    I posted a link, and had an opinion on the affair. The act of shamanism and deliberate fraud in the world's largest religion is Cultural Anthropology, current events, and news. YMMV. I could go down the list of topics of todays threads and claim their was no science in half of them. Or more. Why is Mikepotter84 suspended?
    Lack of understanding social structure and social rules within a defined social group.

    Strange though, considering he claimed to be an anthropologist. Most anthropology majors I have encountered are quite good at blending into a social group and understanding the importance of local mores and why they should be respected.
    LuciDreaming likes this.
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by sampson View Post
    I posted a link, and had an opinion on the affair.
    Giving your opinion does not constitute anthropology. What hypothesis were you proposing or what scientific theory were you discussing?
    The act of shamanism and deliberate fraud in the world's largest religion is Cultural Anthropology, current events, and news. YMMV. I could go down the list of topics of todays threads and claim their was no science in half of them. Or more.
    Yes, and you are adding to the list of topics without science content. Are you proud of that?
    Why is Mikepotter84 suspended?
    He flew off the handle about a moderator decision and went on a rant. We don't need more rants, we need more science discussion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Junior sampson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    246
    [QUOTE=Harold14370;438988]
    Quote Originally Posted by sampson View Post
    Yes, and you are adding to the list of topics without science content. Are you proud of that?
    [quote]I don't agree that I did, back to square one. I have no recourse and the thread is blocked. Done. Over.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by sampson View Post
    One has to think of Anthropology as an umbrella title that covers many of the Sciences.
    Can you clarify what you mean by this. Are you suggesting that biology, say, is simply a sub-discipline of anthropology?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    It doesn't really get within spitting distance of science.
    Be glad Skin Walker no longer posts here. He would disassemble your dleiberately provocative play of ignorance in a trice.

    As sampson has pointed out, there are many aspects of anthropology that meet any reasonable definition of being a science. Or perhaps you think Leakey senior was only a blowhard.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Junior sampson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    246
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sampson View Post
    One has to think of Anthropology as an umbrella title that covers many of the Sciences.
    Can you clarify what you mean by this. Are you suggesting that biology, say, is simply a sub-discipline of anthropology?
    Biology is the study of life. The part of Biology involving Homo Sapiens, crosses over into The Science of Anthropology, as do many other Sciences.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by sampson View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sampson View Post
    One has to think of Anthropology as an umbrella title that covers many of the Sciences.
    Can you clarify what you mean by this. Are you suggesting that biology, say, is simply a sub-discipline of anthropology?
    Biology is the study of life. The part of Biology involving Homo Sapiens, crosses over into The Science of Anthropology, as do many other Sciences.
    OK. It's just that your use of "umbrella term" was potentially misleading.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    The steps of the scientific method:

    Scientific Method Step 1: Ask a Question
    Scientific Method Step 2: Make Observations and Conduct Background Research
    Scientific Method Step 3: Propose a Hypothesis
    Scientific Method Step 4: Design an Experiment to Test the Hypothesis
    Scientific Method Step 5: Test the Hypothesis
    Scientific Method Step 6: Accept or Reject the Hypothesis
    Revise a Rejected Hypothesis (return to step 3) or Draw Conclusions (Accepted)

    Basket weaving just doesn't fit.
    ok
    think of pre pottery people(firing clay pots was another of the great scientific leaps made by our ancestors)
    pre pottery person:
    (ask a question) How do I make a vessel in which I can boil water?
    (make observations and conduct...) beavers build dams that hold back water in a river, making a lake
    (propose an hypothesis) What if I weave sticks together to form a vessel
    (design the experiment) weave sticks together
    (test the hypothesis) place water in the "basket" and see that the experiment failed= the damned thing leaks (save that observation for another experiment)
    (reject the hypothesis)revisit the natural occuring dams
    (revise) try different materials
    repeat above
    (revise) try other materials
    \Finally, after much trial and error, the inner fibers of a willow are woven tightly into a basket that holds water
    drop hot rocks from the fire into the water
    boil the muscles until the shells opens
    feast/

    meanwhile
    remember the leaking versions of the experiments, and try to weave fish traps, baskets to hold fruits, nuts, and grains, nets, etc.....
    Keep testing other materials and other uses/
    then one day
    coat the inside of the basket with clay, and accidentally leave it (too long) in the fire
    later, somewhat embarrased by your folly, observe that though the basket was burned away, you now have a fireproof vessel.
    (propose an hypothesis) what if I were to just make a vessel out of clay, and then fire it
    (experiment) sometimes it worked, and sometime it failed
    (analyse your failures)
    (refine the experiment using different clays, and different thicknesses of the clay,
    wander off disgusted by your failures
    come back and notice that the clay had become less wet
    fire that clay
    notice that the firing didn't destroy the clay
    try wet and almost dry clays
    begin the pottery revolution

    and the scientific method is born near a campfire of paleolithic man
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    You seem to be confusing trial and error (and the development of technology) with science.

    What if I weave sticks together to form a vessel
    Today's piece of trivia: text, texture, textile and technology share a common etymology.
    (probably from PIE root *tek- "shape, make"; cf. Sanskrit taksan "carpenter," Latin texere "to weave")
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    sampson
    you do yourself a disservice as an anthropologist when you think in terms of
    The act of shamanism and deliberate fraud in the world's largest religion is Cultural Anthropology,
    "...deliberate fraud"-----is an umbrella concept that abrogates further investigation.
    I would recommend that you eschew such delineations.
    Assume a neutral viewpoint if you wish to investigate/understand the tendencies of the subject behaviours.

    Alternately broaden the use of the term to the greater society
    eg: claiming that the USA is a democracy is a deliberate fraud
    then look for other deliberate frauds within the culture, and find the link between used car salesmen, advertising, politics,
    then look to the links within the culture that would tend toward accepting and furthering "deliberate frauds"

    and, now we are approaching cultural anthropology.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    You seem to be confusing trial and error (and the development of technology) with science.

    What if I weave sticks together to form a vessel
    Today's piece of trivia: text, texture, textile and technology share a common etymology.
    (probably from PIE root *tek- "shape, make"; cf. Sanskrit taksan "carpenter," Latin texere "to weave")
    strrange, you may be correct
    It may just be a matter of perspective
    and, as I am degreed in anthropology
    I carry certain baggage(biases) with me

    the old saying
    If your only tool is a hammer, pretty soon all problems begin to look like a nail.
    ...........
    thanks for the "trivia"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Just to expand on it a bit... Clearly there has been a gradual process of development of what is now generally accepted (not without some debate still) as the "scientific method". The sort of trial and error, problem solving you describe was certainly the start. It is an ability shared with quite a few other animals.

    Although the word science, meaning 'knowledge', has been in use for about 700 years, it is only in the last couple of hundred that it has come to have the narrower sense of a rigorous and methodical approach to gathering knowledge.

    One of the key difference, at the qualitative level, is the attempt to isolate different effects. So, while your pre-pottery-person might stop looking when he finds that doing A=B+C works, a scientific approach will look at the effects of A, B and C combined and individually, taking into account conditions X, Y and Z.

    The other important factor, which is required by this attempt to be more complete where you want to find out whether reducing A by 10% is more important than increasing C by 5%, is that science has become quantitative. It relies on objective data.

    thanks for the "trivia"
    We can add dachshund and tissue to the list: bradshaw of the future: dachshund and tissue
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Junior sampson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    246
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    sampson
    you do yourself a disservice as an anthropologist when you think in terms of
    The act of shamanism and deliberate fraud in the world's largest religion is Cultural Anthropology,
    "...deliberate fraud"-----is an umbrella concept that abrogates further investigation.
    I would recommend that you eschew such delineations.
    Assume a neutral viewpoint if you wish to investigate/understand the tendencies of the subject behaviours.

    Alternately broaden the use of the term to the greater society
    eg: claiming that the USA is a democracy is a deliberate fraud
    then look for other deliberate frauds within the culture, and find the link between used car salesmen, advertising, politics,
    then look to the links within the culture that would tend toward accepting and furthering "deliberate frauds"

    and, now we are approaching cultural anthropology.
    I posted a link with several contradictions of the claimed miracle, directly from the people involved. Most important, it is illogical and impossible, and puts a stain on all Sainthood. Thanks, but I will stick with my post. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence....... Hitchens
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Isn't the role of a science like anthropology to observe, record, analyse, and measure human behaviours but not to make value judgements?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    I'm slightly confused by the direction this thread has been progressing.

    Is the question that is the thread title suppose to be a rhetorical question with the hopes that it persuades readers that anthropology is a "legit" science, or is this a continuation to appeal that the OP from the "Joke of the century popes and saints" thread ought to be recognized as an attempt at starting a discussion from an anthropological approach?

    Because if it is the latter, I'll say right now that it it will fail simply because of how the other thread was approached in the OP.
    Cogito Ergo Sum likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Forum Junior sampson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    246
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Isn't the role of a science like anthropology to observe, record, analyse, and measure human behaviours but not to make value judgements?
    IMO, when you opine based on more than ample evidence, knowledge, logic, and reason, it is a conclusion, not merely a judgment.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    12,029
    Quote Originally Posted by sampson View Post
    and puts a stain on all Sainthood.
    Huh?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sampson View Post
    and puts a stain on all Sainthood.
    Huh?
    Yes, I'm surprised as well. I didn't expect sampson to believe in sainthood. And thought he would have been pleased to see it "stained".

    Maybe it was a typo: puts a stained hood on all saints.
    LuciDreaming and babe like this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Forum Junior sampson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    246
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sampson View Post
    and puts a stain on all Sainthood.
    Huh?
    Yes, I'm surprised as well. I didn't expect sampson to believe in sainthood. And thought he would have been pleased to see it "stained".

    Maybe it was a typo: puts a stained hood on all saints.
    No typo. Pleased to see it stained? Really? hmm... I was thinking at the time about all the claims by catholics and the vatican of their great historical contributions to Science mentioning this saint and that saint, and how they built Universities and promoted learning, etc., and now..... they present to the world their method of promoting themselves. Excuse me while I make a judgment......Hilarious ROFL. My judgment is really based on the "NO REACTION" from the mainstream catholics, none , nada, that I am aware of. They should be outraged, and they are not. It is even defended on a Science Forum and I become the target for bringing it to your attention. Startling
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by sampson View Post
    It is even defended on a Science Forum and I become the target for bringing it to your attention. Startling
    Moderator Warning: Your posts in this thread have two undesirable attributes -
    1) You appear to be erecting strawmen that you then aggressively attack in a manner that seems designed to be provocative. This is unacceptable.
    Stop it now.
    2) You opened this thread, supposedly, to discuss the scientific content of anthropology. An attack on the creation of saints in the RC church has only the most peripheral of relationships to that topic, and no relationship at all in the way in which you introduced it.
    Stay on topic.

    More specifically, no one has defended the RC actions in regard to sainthood for the recent pope, so your claim is either ill-informed or deliberately deceitful. No one has targeted you for bringing it to the membership's attention.

    Your presence on the forum is welcome, but please follow forum guidelines and good forum etiquette.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 5
    Last Post: June 8th, 2011, 02:57 AM
  2. New Anthropology forum - ForumBiodiversity.com
    By Biodiversity in forum Links
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: October 26th, 2009, 10:46 PM
  3. This Week in Science - Online Weekly Science Radio Show
    By Marshall Clark in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: July 14th, 2005, 03:07 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •