?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Anthropologist Community
Not an Anthropologist any more 
10th-Dec-2010 06:36 am
zoo, summer fun, birds

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/10/science/10anthropology.html?_r=1&hpw
THEY DROPPED SCIENCE FROM ANTHROPOLOGY?!!!!! Seriously? WTF?!!!!! 
Comments 
10th-Dec-2010 11:57 am (UTC)
SO where does that leave medical anthropology? GOOD KRISSSST! thats science!

words fail me at this moment..seriously Im in shock.

thank you for posting this.
10th-Dec-2010 02:26 pm (UTC)
Um isn't medical anthropology pretty much a specific branch of sociocultural anthropology? It deals with medicine in a social context, not biology as such.
10th-Dec-2010 02:54 pm (UTC)
Nope. Medical Anthropology deals with environmental impact on diet and health. I studied under Professor Geraldine Moreno Black who'd taught biological & nutritional anthropology as well as human ecology.

if this isn't science then?
10th-Dec-2010 03:26 pm (UTC)
The poster above is right in that it can also deal with cultural perceptions of medicine and health.
10th-Dec-2010 03:42 pm (UTC)
ok

but the point of this post is that science is dropped from anthropology.

Im still shocked over that.

10th-Dec-2010 12:09 pm (UTC)
it's a scathe:(
thank for posting.
10th-Dec-2010 01:13 pm (UTC)
Is this from an "onion" type source? If so, it's not nearly as funny, and not nearly as relevant. I'm totally disgusted.
10th-Dec-2010 02:00 pm (UTC)
No, it's REAL.
10th-Dec-2010 02:18 pm (UTC)
I know...I looked it up. I'm totally disgusted.
10th-Dec-2010 01:14 pm (UTC)
Meh. It's just a word. No?
10th-Dec-2010 02:34 pm (UTC)
Yes, and as such has meaning.
10th-Dec-2010 04:10 pm (UTC)
Well, I'm glad we cleared that up. :P
10th-Dec-2010 08:37 pm (UTC)
Clear as hazy smog! :D
10th-Dec-2010 01:24 pm (UTC)
That is such a illogical move on their part. How could anyone not deem many aspects of anthropology a science?! Well, at least I now know why that was a major question on my final exam this semester.
10th-Dec-2010 01:38 pm (UTC)
The AAA explanation (sort of) is here: http://www.aaanet.org/about/Governance/Long_range_plan.cfm

And then there are a couple blog comments on it:

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/11/30/anthroscience

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/fetishes-i-dont-get/201011/no-science-please-were-anthropologists


The Society of Anthropological Sciences has written a formal response/complaint with the AAA and AAA members are encourage to voice their opinion as well. Also, let's not forget that anthropology has four fields so removing science is just one more slap in the face to archaeologists and physical anthropologists.
10th-Dec-2010 02:03 pm (UTC)
Of course I have to laugh just a little because the pragmatic significance of this is, well, pretty much nothing. No one will change what they do, how they do it or how they teach about it, and "science" in this context is not some sort of ingredient you sprinkle in your research but is the larger orientation within which research happens. And this is true for all subdisciplines (we're all systematic and we're all empirical). I'm not defending the AAA (mostly, I don't know enough about it, but terminological "value-voter issues" bother me in principle) but they are right in that statement of theirs about the power of symbols...
10th-Dec-2010 02:48 pm (UTC)
This could well have a huge impact on how Anthro and archeo are treated in some university curriculums as well as on publishing the finds of physical anthro/archeo in certain journals. The mission statement of the perceived "head of the order" (at least in the US), the AAA, may well have impact on how the study of Anthro/Archeo is perceived.
10th-Dec-2010 06:56 pm (UTC)
Oh, agreed. It's about representation but not "content."
10th-Dec-2010 02:13 pm (UTC)
What the HELL. This is absurd, and it's only exacerbating the longstanding attitude that humanity can't be studied scientifically because we're somehow special and different from other animals. Having dedicated my anthropological career to a scientific understanding of our kind, I'm deeply disturbed.

Edited at 2010-12-10 02:14 pm (UTC)
13th-Dec-2010 03:04 am (UTC)
Or worse, that they're right when it's said that all is opinion and therefore can't possibly be a "hard" science because it's not verifiable anyway.
13th-Dec-2010 03:17 am (UTC)
No. They're not right about that. Humans are animals like any other; we can be studied objectively. It's not easy, but it can be done, and frankly, it's been far too longstanding a conceit of the cultural side of the discipline to maintain that humans can't be empirically studied. Both hard and soft science approaches are necessary to a true understanding of the human condition, and trying to excise one approach or the other entirely from our research is like saying we;re going to try to study mathematics, but leave out subtraction.
10th-Dec-2010 02:48 pm (UTC)
Apparently it had to do with "inclusion" of anthropologists who don't do scientific stuff, but I think it was a bad move because it really doesn't come off that way, it comes off as excluding those who do. Apparently it's still described as a science in the AAA statement of purpose though.
(Deleted comment)
10th-Dec-2010 06:32 pm (UTC)
I literally LOL'd. Though woe betide anyone caught trying to cuddle any of my artifacts...

- archaeology student
10th-Dec-2010 03:14 pm (UTC)
ok, WTF..... that's all I can say in my sick state.
10th-Dec-2010 04:28 pm (UTC)
Yeah, heard about this a week or so ago. They were trying to be more inclusive but really all it has done is piss everyone off and alienate physical anthropologists.

The fail, it hurts.
10th-Dec-2010 05:03 pm (UTC)
ouch! one of my professors this semester said that anthropology is the most scientific branch of the humanities and the most human branch of the sciences.
(Deleted comment)
10th-Dec-2010 06:57 pm (UTC)
That is something I have seen alternatively attributed to Kroeber and to Wolf, and it is indeed a very nice way to put it.
13th-Dec-2010 07:48 am (UTC)
that's very true.
10th-Dec-2010 06:24 pm (UTC)
What the hell do they call all that stuff I learned in college?! If anthropology isn't a science, I demand they change the title of my degree to something that is because I studied to be a scientist and worked my ass off for it.
10th-Dec-2010 08:29 pm (UTC)
I do agree that science is not all anthropology is, but- well.
If it's not a science why do we record all that data and do all those statistics to support our hypotheses?
Why do the other scientists use our work, and why do we use theirs to enhance our scientific understanding, if it's not supposed to be science? Long-term, that's a fairly damaging plan, and I expect they'll rethink it when they get over what appears to be a simple fit of mega-pique!
11th-Dec-2010 01:30 am (UTC)
What is this I don't even
12th-Dec-2010 02:19 am (UTC)
I am a cultural anthropologist by training and I feel insulted by this, both on behalf of the more "sciencey" types and because I feel it diminishes us as a whole. The article has caused me to rant at my husband for nearly 30 minutes about the general stupidly of humanity and taking how theories too far makes me want to hit my head against a wall.

I am so glad I stopped after my MsC and left academia.
13th-Dec-2010 02:31 am (UTC)
HA HA! This is awesome. So a bunch of anthropologists not understanding their own inner culture. Bravo! Man, I hope the field appreciates the irony.
13th-Dec-2010 03:04 pm (UTC)
Is it ironic that I want to do a semiotic analysis of this new understanding of the word "science"?
13th-Dec-2010 08:41 pm (UTC)
Well, what do you think this new understanding exactly is?
This page was loaded Sep 20th 2017, 4:03 am GMT.