Re: IS ANTHROPOLOGY A SCIENCE?

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: SS51000: "Pluck and Culture Change"
• Previous message: Ronald Kephart: "Knowledge of self and other"
• Maybe in reply to: Robert Snower: "IS ANTHROPOLOGY A SCIENCE?"

Fred... now what are you trying to do? Start a furious battle among
different folks of scientific fervor?? Shame, but okay, i bite. I suggest
we try a little experiment. Let's have anyone interested in the ol' "Is it
Science?" question make a semantic list for the term "Science". I'll bet
alot of people won't have the same little semantic bubbles & this will show
why we can't agree as to whether "anthro = scientific". I'll start! Anyone
who wants, please add/take away from my initial list.

*science* = replicable, reliable, observable, testable, refutable, logical,
significantly stated, human-made, culturally constructed, a way of mapping
the world, a tool, [what else?] - Jana's List

I assert that each of these characteristics (yes, even "replicable") can
USUALLY be found in anthropological research.

At 08:53 AM 4/24/96 -0500, you wrote:
>If anthropologists use the scientific method to test and refut their
>hypotheses then they most certainly are scientists. Of course, it is much
>more difficult when you can not always repeat your experiments in lab
>conditions. I don't think that takes away from our basic epistemology which
>make us scientists.
>
>Fred
>

• Next message: SS51000: "Pluck and Culture Change"
• Previous message: Ronald Kephart: "Knowledge of self and other"
• Maybe in reply to: Robert Snower: "IS ANTHROPOLOGY A SCIENCE?"