American Anthropological Association
Long-Term Plan: revision in 2010
• OLD VERSION: “The purposes of the Association shall be
to advance anthropology as the science that studies
humankind in all its aspects, through archaeological,
biological, ethnological, and linguistic research; and to
further the professional interests of American
anthropologists; including the dissemination of
anthropological knowledge and its use to solve human
problems.”
• NEW VERSION: “The purposes of the Association shall be
to advance public understanding of humankind in all its
aspects. This includes, but is not limited to,
archaeological, biological, social, cultural, economic,
political, historical, medical, visual, and linguistic
anthropological research.”
Science or Not Science?
• What could be the grounds upon which some
practitioners of a discipline might not want to
describe their subject as “science”?
• Which of these grounds might be applicable in the
case of anthropology?
Commentary
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Some Responses from Anthropologists
“[some] have argued that the discipline as a whole has become dominated by cultural
anthropologists”
“the dispute has brought to light how little common ground is shared by anthropologists
who span a wide array of sub-specialties”
“some anthropologists might mine the language and analytical tools favored by such
humanities as literary criticism, while others may be more likely to deploy statistical
methodology as befits social science. Still others might rely on the biological metrics,
hard data and scientific method used by natural scientists”
“[a distinction has been made] 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”
“the association's mission statement had become a concern because it maintained the
colonizing, privileging, superior positionality of anthropology that continues to plague
the discipline”
“scrubbing science from the plan's mission statement would allow anthropologists to
better incorporate and appreciate the ways of knowing practiced by the people that
scholars study and work with closely”
“some argued that being an anthropologist, by necessity, meant that one had to
advocate on behalf of one's subjects”
Source: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/11/30/anthroscience
Economics: “scientific facts”
Guy Sorman’s list
1.
The market economy is the most efficient of all economic
systems
2. Free trade helps economic development
3. Good institutions help development
4. The best measure of a good economy is its growth
5. Creative destruction is the engine of economic growth
6. Monetary stability, too, is necessary for growth; inflation is
always harmful
7. Unemployment among unskilled workers is largely
determined by how much labour costs
8. While the welfare state is necessary in some form, it isn’t
always effective
9. The creation of complex financial markets has brought
about economic progress
10. Competition is usually desirable
Source: http://www.city-journal.org/2008/18_3_economics.html
Economics
David Suzuki’s claims
• “is fundamentally disconnected from the real world;
destructive”
• “is not a science but economists try to maintain that
it is”
• “uses mathematics to give the appearance of being
scientific”
• “dismisses essential aspects of the environmental
and biological processes as externalities”
Source:
http://www.youtube.com/movie/surviving
-progress
A Rejoinder to Suzuki
“The idea that economists do not care about
externalities is a strange one, given how
prominently they are featured in economics
textbooks. An externality is, simply put, a spillover
effect. It is the unintended costs or benefits from a
transaction or decision experienced by third parties
(that is, they were external to the decision). It does
not mean phenomena that are external to economic
modelling or things outside the interest of
economists. Since, as Dr. Suzuki points out, the
world is full of externalities, the concept is crucial in
economic research.”
Source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/
economy-lab/david-suzuki-needs-an-economics-refresher-course/article4602350/
Physics
Lee Smolin’s observations on science in general and string theory in
particular
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Theory and experiment must proceed hand in hand to develop
understanding, and this is not happening any more in theoretical
physics
There has been a loss of audacity and free thinking since the time of
Einstein
Disagreement, controversy is central to science, and there is a
premature consensus in this field
Scientific method is about the conversion of disagreement into
consensus, but only through weight of evidence
String theory as an attempt at unification in physics
String theory not convincing because (a) it does not make precise
predictions; not falsifiable, and (b) it does not flow coherently from a
simple principle to explain an array of phenomena
Source:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_FG
8kRVWkQ
Question for Discussion…
What is it about theories in the
human sciences and natural
sciences that makes them
convincing?