Re: We anthropological "obscurantists"
Bruce D. Scott (bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de)
8 May 1995 18:04:19 GMT
Phil Nicholls (pn8886@thor.albany.edu) wrote:
: In article <685@landmark.iinet.net.au>,
: Gil Hardwick <gil@landmark.iinet.net.au> wrote:
: [snip]
: >I cannot speak for other anthropologists. My position as previously
: >stated is that aspects of human biology and physiology are already
: >well covered in biology and medicine. Other aspects of the human
: >condition are covered by agriculture, architecture, and so on and so
: >forth. You name it.
: Some aspects of human biology, physiology and evolution are indeed
: covered by medical and biological research. However, there are some
: areas that these disciplines do not cover. How does culture affect
: biology and, of course, how does biology affect culture.
And how both interact with the environment, being constrained by it and
modifying it.
: I also
: find that doctors and physilogists are more interested in the
: mechanics of the human body and less interested in its evolution.
Too true. I asked a doctor about this, and the answer was that not enough
is known about the human organism as a holistic system. He said that the
particular system (cardiovascular) was functioning properly but could not
say how it is influenced or is influencing other systems, given the
diagnostics that he has. (This is why the physiology of stress is so
little understood.) Understanding how these systems evolved in concert
with each other will depend on (some) better diagnostics and in turn make
(other) better diagnostics possible.
: Why are human blood groups distributed like they are? How did
: humans come to be bipedal?
: In my opinion, these are anthropological questions. The present
: is structured by the past, after all.
Agreed.
--
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik odorless and transparent
bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de -- W Gibson
|