Have people seen the science debate?

[Kerim Friedman]

Some links to recent posts on neuroanthropology:

http://blogs.plos.org/neuroanthropology/2010/12/11/what-is-anthropology-the-aaa-statement/


http://blogs.plos.org/neuroanthropology/2010/12/01/anthropology-science-and-public-understanding/

Cheers,

Kerim

On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 1:12 PM, Loralee Donath <donathl at carcosa.net> wrote:

> All,
>
> I thought the proposed change in the wording was more precise and
> avoided the nebulous question of what "science" means, who it includes.
>
> In the NY Times article my favorite quote is by Dr. Peregrine (and stop
> me if you think that you've heard this one before...), “Much of this is
> like creationism in that it is based on the rejection of rational
> argument and thought.”
>
> Wow.
>
> As a person who studies the social/discursive construction of scientific
> authority (among other things) in engineering culture, I was surprised
> to be compared to a creationist who rejects rational argument and
> thought. (Hey Mr. Peregrine! My best scores on the GRE were in the
> analytical section!) Feminist and other critics of rational argument and
> thought might also be surprised to be compared to creationists. Really,
> I shouldn't be surprised that "this"... (what? methods, knowledge,
> stance toward AAA policy?) is dismissed by Peregrine. A friend
> critiquing Pinker's new book recently referred to (cultural anth?)
> findings as "hocus pocus."
>
> My approach is not like creationism, but it is probably also not like
> Peregrine's in that I don't brand my knowledge creation in terms of
> deductive logic and masked subjectivity. Maybe something to learn from
> the debate is that the scientific method as a dominant ideology seems to
> make other approaches to knowledge construction mysterious, perhaps
> complicated and suspect. We would do well to make our methods more
> visible to "the public" and to train our students to market them as part
> of students' professional vision.
>
> On first reading about the controversy on the listserv, I found myself
> asking what is meant by "science," and what/who might be included in
> that grouping. Does it just include approaches that follow the
> scientific method? But "science" often indexes 'rigorous inquiry', as
> though any pursuit that doesn't qualify as "scientific" (read:
> scientific method) is not considered rigorous. Can we go the other way
> and consider any approach that is rigorous=scientific? (Perhaps
> 'rigorous' could be used in the statement wording). Sometimes we assert
> just that, but when privilege is threatened, as it seems to be in this
> debate, the historically privileged drown out that assertion with cries
> about how they are persecuted from a seat of power.
>
> I would particularly like to hear insights on the debate from feminists
> scholars and experts on discourse & science...
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Lori Donath
>
> On Fri, 2010-12-10 at 19:53 -0700, Leila Monaghan wrote:
> > Hi, have you seen the NYT piece on anthropology and science, reflecting a
> > debate you probably read about from Virginia Dominguez?  Any one have any
> > comments on it?
> >
> > all best,
> >
> > Leila
> >
> >
> >
> > Anthropology a Science? Statement Deepens a RiftBy NICHOLAS
> > WADE<
> http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/w/nicholas_wade/index.html?inline=nyt-per
> >Published:
> > December 9, 2010
> >
> >    - RECOMMEND
> >    - TWITTER
> >    - E-MAIL<
> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/10/science/10anthropology.html?src=me&ref=general
> >
> >    - PRINT<
> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/10/science/10anthropology.html?ref=general&src=me&pagewanted=print
> ><
> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/10/science/10anthropology.html?ref=general&src=me&pagewanted=all
> >
> >    - REPRINTS<
> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/10/science/10anthropology.html?src=me&ref=general#
> >
> >    - SHARE<
> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/10/science/10anthropology.html?src=me&ref=general#
> >
> >
> > <
> http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&opzn&page=www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/science&pos=Frame4A&sn2=113f6237/87dccffd&sn1=70d5b1bc/4d05d10c&camp=foxsearch2010_emailtools_1225563c_nyt5&ad=127Hours_120x60_Now&goto=www%2Efoxsearchlight%2Ecom%2F127hours
> >
> >
> > Anthropologists have been thrown into turmoil about the nature and future
> of
> > their profession after a decision by the American Anthropological
> > Association at its recent annual meeting to strip the word “science” from
> a
> > statement of its long-range
> > plan.<http://www.aaanet.org/about/Governance/Long_range_plan.cfm>
> > RSS Feed
> > [image: RSS] Get Science News From The New York Times
> > »<http://www.nytimes.com/services/xml/rss/nyt/Science.xml>
> >
> > The decision has reopened a long-simmering tension between researchers in
> > science-based anthropological disciplines — including archaeologists,
> > physical anthropologists and some cultural anthropologists — and members
> of
> > the profession who study race, ethnicity and gender and see themselves as
> > advocates for native peoples or human rights.
> >
> > During the last 10 years the two factions have been through a phase of
> > bitter tribal warfare after the more politically active group attacked
> work
> > on the Yanomamo people of Venezuela and Brazil by Napoleon Chagnon, a
> > science-oriented anthropologist, and James Neel, a medical geneticist who
> > died in 2000. With the wounds of this
> > conflict<http://www.sciencemag.org/content/326/5959/1466.summary>
> > still
> > fresh, many science-based anthropologists were dismayed to learn last
> month
> > that the long-range plan of the association would no longer be to advance
> > anthropology as a science but rather to focus on “public understanding.”
> >
> > Until now, the association’s long-range plan was “to advance anthropology
> as
> > the science that studies humankind in all its aspects.” The executive
> board
> > revised this last month to say, “The purposes of the association shall be
> to
> > advance public understanding of humankind in all its aspects.” This is
> > followed by a list of anthropological subdisciplines that includes
> political
> > research.
> >
> > The word “science” has been excised from two other places in the revised
> > statement.
> >
> > The association’s president, Virginia Dominguez of the University of
> > Illinois<
> http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/u/university_of_illinois/index.html?inline=nyt-org
> >,
> > said in an e-mail that the word had been dropped because the board sought
> to
> > include anthropologists who do not locate their work within the sciences,
> as
> > well as those who do. She said the new statement could be modified if the
> > board received any good suggestions for doing so.
> >
> > The new long-range plan differs from the association’s “statement of
> > purpose,” which remains unchanged, Dr. Dominguez said. That statement
> still
> > describes anthropology as a science.
> >
> > Peter Peregrine, president of the Society for Anthropological Sciences,
> an
> > affiliate of the American Anthropological Association, wrote in an e-mail
> to
> > members <http://www.unl.edu/rhames/AAA/AAA-LRP.pdf> that the proposed
> > changes would undermine American anthropology, and he urged members to
> make
> > their views known.
> >
> > Dr. Peregrine, who is at Lawrence University in Wisconsin, said in an
> > interview that the dropping of the references to science “just blows the
> top
> > off” the tensions between the two factions. “Even if the board goes back
> to
> > the old wording, the cat’s out of the bag and is running around clawing
> up
> > the furniture,” he said.
> >
> > He attributed what he viewed as an attack on science to two influences
> > within anthropology. One is that of so-called critical anthropologists,
> who
> > see anthropology as an arm of colonialism and therefore something that
> > should be done away with. The other is the postmodernist critique of the
> > authority of science. “Much of this is like creationism in that it is
> based
> > on the rejection of rational argument and thought,” he said.
> >
> > Dr. Dominguez denied that critical anthropologists or postmodernist
> thinking
> > had influenced the new statement. She said in an e-mail that she was
> aware
> > that science-oriented anthropologists had from time to time expressed
> worry
> > about and disapproval of their nonscientific colleagues. “Marginalization
> is
> > never a welcome experience,” she said.
> >
>



-- 

*P. Kerim Friedman 傅可恩 <http://kerim.oxus.net/>*
*
*

Assistant Professor
Department of Indigenous Cultures
College of Indigenous Studies
National DongHwa University, TAIWAN
助理教授國立東華大學民族文化學系