Re: WHITAKER'S LAWS OF SOCIAL SCIENCE
Bob Whitaker (email@example.com)
Tue, 28 Jan 1997 20:30:54 -0500
> firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> > As a good PC, you can't tell the difference between successes and your
> > own moral judgements. In answer to my question about successes, you
> > gave me a restatement of your faith.
> > Nothing you academic bureaucrats adocate ever WORKS.
> "Successes..." Well, that should be fun. I make the moral judgement
> that slavery is a Bad Thing; therefore, the end of slavery was a success.
> I make the moral judgement that Jim Crow laws were a Bad Thing;
> therefore, the extension of civil rights to African-Americans was a
> success. Now, in Bobby's World, those may not be looked upon as
> successes, but I can't do anything about that, can I? Most of society
> appears to be on my side on this one.
Gosh, I didn't know social scientists abolished slavery! Wow!
> > I can't believe you're provincial enough to think professional slang
> > impresses anybody.
> Well, I had work to do and didn't want to take the time to translate
> all this stuff into itty-bitty words for you.
Horsshit, you were trying to impress people. That's pathetic.
My apologies. Here
> are a few, so you're not too confused:
> faunal analysis: we look at bones we find on sites now.
> lithic analysis: we look at stones we find on sites now.
> gender studies: we think about women in the past now.
> ethnoarchaeology: we watch people make stuff now.
> settlement studies: we look away from sites now.
> processualism: we think about science now.
> post-processualism: we think about history now.
> There are a couple of two-syllable words there, but I couldn't do
> anything about that. Blame the English language -- you often seem to
> have something against it.
> > Professional slang does not substitute for reality. Your "modern
> > anthropologists have proven all races are equal in innate abilities" was
> > pure carp.
> Nope, sorry Bobby, it's _your_ ideas that are fishy on that topic, not
> mine. You are simply not equipped to argue this one. And 'professional
> slang' is simply a way of expressing complicated (although not
> necessarily complex) issues concisely.
I'm a trained economist, but I really can't imagine using economic
tersms to try to impress somebody. Like I say, that's truly pathetic.
You must be used to dealing with people who are very easily impressed.
> > But not ours.
> Just out of curiousity, Bobby, who is 'ours'? You seem to be a bit
> old for those Clearasil Demons at National Vanguard. KKK, maybe?
> Or just those old-timey folks at Southern Renaissance, or whatever
> it's called?
> Scott MacEachern
> Department of Sociology and Anthropology
> Bowdoin College
> Brunswick, ME 04011
> -------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet