16Likes
July 9th, 2013, 02:02 PM
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.Originally Posted by sampson
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.
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.Still trying to bitch about Catholicism.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.
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.
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.
What?
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.
Yawn..
Quantifiable? Testable? Falsifiable? Nope.
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.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.
1. I don't know who "self proclaimed Scientist" is supposed to refer to.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.
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.1. I don't know who "self proclaimed Scientist" is supposed to refer to.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.
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.
Anthropology was always a gut major. Anthro, for when you just can't handle math.
From the UCLA catalog for the Dept. of Anthropology:
It doesn't really get within spitting distance of science.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.
I remember now, our last conversation was like this. You make vague unsupported assertions and refuse to explain what you are talking about.
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".
Where exactly did you mention "(50 or more)sub disciplines of Physical and Biological Anthropology"?, and led you to the multiple (50 or more)sub disciplines of Physical and Biological Anthropology
You started it. For some reason.I have no more time for your pp contest.
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.
No different than it is with Anthropology.What would Science be like without Anthropology?
Science.
A bouquet of flowers without lilium bulbiferums; is still a bouquet of flowers.
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).Once you acknowledge the accepted definition of Anthropology, your question is moot.
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?
"What would Science be like without Anthropology?"
Anthropologyless.
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 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.
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.
Oh, I think I might have totally misunderstood you. Are you suggesting that biology, say, is simply a sub-discipline of anthropology?
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?
You can dare say it, but it certainly doesn't make it correct. Unless you want to include basket weaving as a science.Dare I say that anthropology lies at the core of all science?
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.
and, oddly enough, it once was.
No it wasn't.
Mike, you don't have a clue as to what constitutes science.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.
No one said it was a waste of time. Just that it wasn't a science.
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.
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?
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?Mike, you don't have a clue as to what constitutes science.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.
The necessary steps in any craft. To call it science is nonsense.experimentation
observation
refinement of technique
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.What do you do for a living? I'm sure you're out there fixing all of the world's problems.
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?
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.
Ah, working with computers, how original.
Hahahaha...I could actually get a job and didn't have to spend my time bitching about how unfair life was to me
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!
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.
OK, expand
how then does science differ from that
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.
It is related. He attacked my profession and I'm defending it.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.
Is your profession in the social science of anthropology?
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.
atlatl
seems to have been used on all continents(and australia)
must be a very old invention
Yes, I'm an Anthropologist.Is your profession in the social science of anthropology?
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.Yes, I'm an Anthropologist.
We use the same methodology that Alex mentioned above.
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.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.
However, what I think you are trying to say is that bitching about the pope is anthropology. It's not.
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?
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?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.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.
However, what I think you are trying to say is that bitching about the pope is anthropology. It's not.
often debatedtruth surrounding their religion
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.
Lack of understanding social structure and social rules within a defined social group.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?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.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.
However, what I think you are trying to say is that bitching about the pope is anthropology. It's not.
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.
Giving your opinion does not constitute anthropology. What hypothesis were you proposing or what scientific theory were you discussing?
Yes, and you are adding to the list of topics without science content. Are you proud of that?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.
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.Why is Mikepotter84 suspended?
[QUOTE=Harold14370;438988]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.
Can you clarify what you mean by this. Are you suggesting that biology, say, is simply a sub-discipline of anthropology?
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.
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.Can you clarify what you mean by this. Are you suggesting that biology, say, is simply a sub-discipline of anthropology?
OK. It's just that your use of "umbrella term" was potentially misleading.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.Can you clarify what you mean by this. Are you suggesting that biology, say, is simply a sub-discipline of anthropology?
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
You seem to be confusing trial and error (and the development of technology) with science.
Today's piece of trivia: text, texture, textile and technology share a common etymology.What if I weave sticks together to form a vessel
(probably from PIE root *tek- "shape, make"; cf. Sanskrit taksan "carpenter," Latin texere "to weave")
sampson
you do yourself a disservice as an anthropologist when you think in terms of
"...deliberate fraud"-----is an umbrella concept that abrogates further investigation.The act of shamanism and deliberate fraud in the world's largest religion is Cultural Anthropology,
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.
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"
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.
We can add dachshund and tissue to the list: bradshaw of the future: dachshund and tissuethanks for the "trivia"
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
Isn't the role of a science like anthropology to observe, record, analyse, and measure human behaviours but not to make value judgements?
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.
IMO, when you opine based on more than ample evidence, knowledge, logic, and reason, it is a conclusion, not merely a judgment.
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".Huh?
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. StartlingYes, 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".Huh?
Maybe it was a typo: puts a stained hood on all saints.
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.
| « The Psychology of Prison Rape | Trying to understand the mind of a scamer/imposter (victim here) » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
