Re: significant topics

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Nick Corduan: "Re: Worry"
• Previous message: Nick Corduan: "Re: RJ's Law"

Well, as you all know, I am quite for on-topic discussions, so I am happy to
take advantge of this invitation. :)

Just to be polite, I'll try and discuss one of the suggested topics on the
list . . .

. . . Well, actually, I'll just take one of the themes and run with it a bit.
<g>

OK, here's the question before us: Is anthropology science?

I'm not offering an opinion at this moment, though you can be sure that I
will weigh in at any given time with a rabid post or two on the topic; I
will, however, present the basic sides of the issue, as I see them.

YES, ANTHROPOLOGY IS A SCIENCE. If it weren't, it would not be useful.
Only if it is seen as a science can real meaning and information be
gathered. Only is it is treated as a science can real solutions to the
problems be arrived at. And *because* it is a science, it must be taken
seriously, with a firm methodology and an objective approach.

NO, ANTHROPOLOY IS NOT A SCIENCE -- at least not in the same sense as the
natural sciences are. When you're dealing with humans, nothing is fully
predictable and objectivity must be thrown out the window. Humans are not
particles, and cannot be treated as such; they must be taken as individuals
with personalities. Humans should not be *treated* as particles; that is
callous, cold, and goes against the principles of being a part of the Family
of Humanity.

Well? Comments? Questions? Arguments? Flames?

Nick---

--

Nick Corduan                 "...there is as much dignity in tilling

     at                       a field as in writing a poem."

(nickc@iquest.net)                           --Booker T. Washington

• Next message: Nick Corduan: "Re: Worry"
• Previous message: Nick Corduan: "Re: RJ's Law"