Where would you place anthropology on the index of "exact" sciences?

[sbrothy]

I'm about to make a bunch of comments on a (rather old issue of an) anthropological essay which is apparently issued by The Univeristy of Copenhagen. My beef with it is personal, and what really annoys me about it is it's patronizing tone. I'd rather not go into too much detail as I'm sure that would probably lead to more warnings and I can't really afford more of them. I've been lucky to have been able to talk myself out of some of them in the past (as I've learned the rules in detail. :) ) but I'd rather not annoy Murphy or or even Destiny herself being a smart...

I'd put anthropology somewhere around sociology or perhaps even ethnography. (Mentioning phrenology might be a little too abrasive). What annoys me about these people and their papers is their arrogance and my suspicion that some of their articles and/or conclusions reach into the last real newspaper we have in Denmark, namely: Weekend Avisen. It is issued on paper once a week and costs around $25. OK that isn't quite fair. We also still have Kristeligt Dagblad (Daily Christian Monitor?), but these 2 papers are the only ones with editorials with any real gumption as far as I can see. I's pretty sad.

I really have no idea where I was going with this. Feel free to ignore me.

 

[phinds]

Giving a link to a non-English language article and expecting us to comment on it is ... well, silly.

 

[sbrothy]

Giving a link to a non-English language article and expecting us to comment on it is ... well, silly.

Yes... Hence my last comment. Sorry about that. But I had so much inertia I couldn't stop.

 

[phinds]

But I had so much inertia I couldn't stop.

OK, I can emphasize with that. Once you feel the need to rant about something, it can be hard to stop.

SO ... what is it exactly that bothers you? Is it anthropology as a science or is it some particular anthropologists?

 

[sbrothy]

OK, I can emphasize with that. Once you feel the need to rant about something, it can be hard to stop.

SO ... what is it exactly that bothers you? Is it anthropology as a science or is it some particular anthropologists?

It's particular piece from 2015 which is having a renaissance due to some social (well yeah anthropological) issues coming back to haunt a certain demographic.

I'll be back if I really do something about it. I'm utterly alone with this though so it might amount to nothing at all.

 

[sbrothy]

It's particular piece from 2015 which is having a renaissance due to some social (well yeah anthropological) issues coming back to haunt a certain demographic.

I'll be back if I really do something about it. I'm utterly alone with this though so it might amount to nothing at all.

I mean I'm utterly alone in being able to comment on it. not being bothered by it.

 

[phinds]

I mean I'm utterly alone in being able to comment on it. not being bothered by it.

Not sure what that means. Do you mean you think you are the only one who has this particular concern? Why can you not comment on it. Forum rules ?

 

[sbrothy]

Not sure what that means. Do you mean you think you are the only one who has this particular concern? Why can you not comment on it. Forum rules ?

It's a long explanation. I have my own website up and running now. It was supposed to be my peronal box of LEGOs but once you have a soapbox you know....

Lets it rest for now. We'' see how far I get. Then I'll be back.

 

[gleem]

Not knowing and understanding the methods of any scientific inquiry makes evaluating conclusions rather useless. The reporting of results in the general new media is often worthless for serious consideration of the results.

 

[sbrothy]

I'm still not at a place where I'm willing to explain further. It'll end up being a link to my own site so I won't break any rules (apart from linking to my own site that is). The topic is drug-related. I'm guessing you managed to infer as much from my vagueness. It's also personal but grounded in scientific publications. I have a personal axe I to grind though. Then again: this is not really the place no matter the amount of of scientific papers I link to.

I just wanted to point out a rather funny fact:

After I made some fun about the sliding "scientific" scale of anthropology vs. ethnography, reading a little further into the paper that had me riled up I encountered the following heading:

"The Ethnographic Material"

---- https://www.researchgate.net/public...e_og_andre_modsaetninger_i_det_danske_program

(We're Not Running an Amusementpark here. Treatment vs enjoyment and other conflicts in the Danish Program [for Diacetylmorphine Substitution Treatment].

So yes, anthropology and ethnography seems to go hand in hand. No surprise there, but especially ethnography has a bad reputation of being part of the "white man's burden".

An no. I still don't know exactly where I'm going with this....

 

[Klystron]

So yes, anthropology and ethnography seems to go hand in hand. No surprise there, but especially ethnography has a bad reputation ...

My anthropology professors distinguished between physical and cultural anthropology.

Physical anthropology relies on hard data from numerous sources located where humans and related species lived, ate, died and became buried, Physical anthropologists exhume old bones and artifacts, plot the remains of settlements and campsites while studying the matrix left behind.

Cultural anthropologists study human interactions and customs, using language as a principle tool. Language study requires ethnographers and some linguists to live among the people whose languages they seek to document and learn, along with common activities and beliefs.

This necessity of living among study subjects, with some better known ethnographers becoming assimilated in the subject cultures, leads to disapprobation of embedded researchers to the point of hatred and opposition. Noted ethnologist, author and linguist Richard Francis Burton provides a flamboyant example of this contretemps.

Yet the cultural scientists appear pinnacles of rectitude and scholastic agreement compared to the arguments and controversy surrounding seemingly innocent discoveries and publication of bone fragments and pottery shards. Not knowing the OP's principle gripe, though one can imagine, anthropology attracts argument as a strong magnetic field attracts iron filings.

 

[Bystander]

Physical anthro, equals a paleo-specialty, i.e, hard; other modifiers? https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/display/document/obo-9780199766567/obo-9780199766567-0166.xml

 

[Bystander]

Yet the cultural scientists appear pinnacles of rectitude and scholastic agreement compared to the arguments and controversy surrounding seemingly innocent discoveries and publication of bone fragments and pottery shards. Not knowing the OP's principle gripe, though one can imagine, anthropology attracts argument as a strong magnetic field attracts iron filings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Leakey

There DO appear to be ... difficulties?

 

[sbrothy]

[...]
This necessity of living among study subjects, with some better known ethnographers becoming assimilated in the subject cultures, leads to disapprobation of embedded researchers to the point of hatred and opposition. Noted ethnologist, author and linguist Richard Francis Burton provides a flamboyant example of this contretemps.
[...]

A productive man indeed. I read a particularly gruesome one recently which, needless to say, I can't find. I almost immediately passed it on, as it was that...enlightening (Good would have been the wrong word here I think.). It was part of the ongoing story about African hunter/gatherers being forced to "farm" in areas where it's painstakingly obvious that it's impossible. Also needless to say the results are beyond ugly; genocidal even.

I also recently read the story of an escapee from a North Korean KZ-camp and - although a chilly read - it had nothing on suffering on the first.