Fri, 24 Jan 1997 08:41:12 -0600 wrote:
> I said "wholly owned subsidiary". Anthropologists take theior
> Politically Correct orders from sociologists.

Where does _this_ come from?? The two disciplines have quite different
backgrounds and drastically different outlooks and research techniques;
I have very nice colleagues, but at this point I'm still trying to figure
out what they do, for God's sake. I go to the AAAs and SAAs, the anthro and
archaeology meetings; anthropologists do not go to the ASAs, the sociology

> Please TRY to read what I say, I said SOCIAL SCIENCE.

Nope, you said "...Anything advocated by social science that claims
to be Scientific..." Central to biological considerations of
population difference in the social science that I deal with --
andthropology and its sub-discipline archaeology -- is genetics. Full stop.

> You seem to be making my point again.

Not particularly. The popularity of any particular scientific theory
has very little to do with its truth content. If anything, popular
acceptance of a theory over significant periods of time may indicate
a theory that is relatively robust.

> So tell me some polticial stuff advocated by social scientists down
> that WEREN'T disasters when they got into the real world.

I think we've already gone through this. Racial equality, de-colonization,
toleration of individual difference, equality for females -- projects not
completed yet, but successes.


Scott MacEachern
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bowdoin College
Brunswick, ME 04011
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====----------------------- Search, Read, Post to Usenet