science of "science"

[Victor Steinbok]

The meaning of "science" has narrowed over the centuries, particularly
shrinking toward the experimental natural sciences in the last two
hundred years. It's taken a long time, but not every one took it well.

I missed this initially, but, apparently, the American Anthropological
Association caused a bit of a scandal when it decided (at the
Association's November 20 meeting) to take the word "science" out of its
"long-range goals" (the mission document). In a brief introduction to
the new version, the AAA Executive Board explained,

http://goo.gl/z1qxR
> Our AAA long-range plan needed updating in order to address the
> changing composition of the profession and the needs of the AAA
> membership. At its November 20 meeting in New Orleans, the Executive
> Board specified, concretized, and enlarged its operational roadmap for
> investing the Association’s resources towards a sustainable future.
> Section leadership was consulted prior to the New Orleans Annual
> Meeting, and the Executive Board acted. Then immediately after the
> highly attended 2010 AAA Meetings in New Orleans, some criticisms of
> the plan were circulated electronically that had not been sent our way
> prior to the Meetings. Among them were thoughtful responses from
> several quarters, many queries about hearsay, and some suggestions for
> improvement or change. These responses, however, were amped up by blog
> headline editors earlier this week: "Anthropology Without Science,"
> and "No Science Please. We’re Anthropologists." We believe that the
> source of the problem speaks to the power of symbols: we replaced the
> term "science" in the preface of this planning document by a more
> specific (and inclusive) list of research domains, while explicitly
> acknowledging that the Association’s central focus is to promote the
> production, circulation, and application of anthropological research
> findings.

It appears that to the AAA Executive Board, the word science has
completely lost its general meaning and has narrowed down to just one of
the many definitions to be found in a dictionary (in this case, OED):

> 5.b. In modern use, often treated as synonymous with 'Natural and
> Physical Science', and thus restricted to those branches of study that
> relate to the phenomena of the material universe and their laws,
> sometimes with implied exclusion of pure mathematics. This is now the
> dominant sense in ordinary use. Also attrib., as in science-class,
> science-master, science-teacher, science-teaching.

At least, this is the way their new mission statement has been widely
interpreted. The ironic twist here is that the change was made in an
attempt to placate the more "scientifically" inclined of the membership.
In particular, a rival association that has "science" in its name, was
not kind in its response. (From the first of the two blogs cited
above--the rest of the quotes are taken from that post.)

http://goo.gl/QnwCG
> The Society for Anthropological Sciences, which is a smaller and more
> recently formed group than the larger, older and broader association,
> embraces and promotes empirical research. It condemned the move by the
> century-old, 10,000-member American Anthropological Association,
> Peregrine wrote.

It seems the conflict between cultural anthropologists (who run the
joint) and the rest of the field has come to a head. But the Executive
Board has protested against the accusations.

> The association said that the long-range plan's change in language
> reflected a simple wordsmithing choice more than a true shift in
> purpose. The removal of any mention of science from the plan's mission
> statement applies only to the long-range plan -- and not to the
> organization itself or its larger direction, said Damon Dozier, a
> spokesman for the association. "We have no interest in taking science
> out of the discipline," he said. "It’s not as if the anthropology
> community is turning its back on science."
> Dozier added that the alterations to the plan, though already adopted
> by the executive board of the association, are part of an ongoing
> dialogue and will be subject to revision. "This isn’t something that’s
> written in stone," he said. "This long-range plan is something that
> will be tweaked over time."

Apparently, they are also trying to redefine the meaning of "dialog",
which now means, "Ask for comments (and ignore them) after you've made
the change you thought to be necessary." But the board does have a
point--the old mission statement meant "science" in the broader sense,
which, apparently, was not satisfactory to some of the newer branches
that involved considerable investment in data-driven protocols that
closely resembled natural sciences.

> Hames and Cashdan echoed an argument that was articulated more
> provocatively in a recent blog post in Psychology Today by Alice
> Dreger, who holds a doctorate in the history and philosophy of
> science, and who distinguished between "fluff-head cultural
> anthropological types who think science is just another way of
> knowing" and those who pay closer attention to hard data -- and follow
> that data wherever they lead. To one group, objective truth as
> revealed by science is an ideal to pursue, while to the other, that
> notion poses problems because it embodies Westernized and colonial
> ideals. "Our only strength is that we use the scientific method and
> try to get things right rather than act as a vocal, emotional
> do-gooder group who'll use any argument," said Hames. "We can use
> science to understand culture."

In any case, it is clear that the dispute is not only about the meaning
of "science", but also over its symbolic significance as a cultural
artifact in its own right. One would have thought, anthropologists would
be sensitive to this sort of thing... C. P. Snow is turning over in his
grave.

VS-)

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org