Have people seen the science debate?

[Kerim Friedman]

>
> Some links to recent posts on the neuroanthropology blog:

>
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
>
>
>


-- 


*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