Talk:Anthropology
Anthropology not science[edit]
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/10/science/10anthropology.html?_r=1
I propose all references to anthropology being science be removed from this article and replaced with junk science or psuedoscience, since this is what anthropology is.Web (talk) 06:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- OMGZ! Cell Ladablar (talk) 07:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- They've finally confessed that their practice is advocacy and not falsifiable science. Well, most of them. The debate about this is great, the consensus among people opposed to this is that regardless if they return the wording, the cat's out of the bag, half or more of anthropologists consider science to be a "privileged Western system of knowledge, not innately superior to others."
- If no one removes the lies from the anthropology article in the next few days I will do it myself. This wiki is supposed to take a scientific point of view, and cultural anthropology is not science. It is a group of immature liberals trying to classify their worldview as science, so the rest of us have to accept it.Web (talk) 07:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- Have you got evidence of some kind of consensus about that in anthropological circles? Care to show it here? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 07:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- Might make a great article of its own? Cell Ladablar (talk) 07:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- Have you got evidence of some kind of consensus about that in anthropological circles? Care to show it here? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 07:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- If no one removes the lies from the anthropology article in the next few days I will do it myself. This wiki is supposed to take a scientific point of view, and cultural anthropology is not science. It is a group of immature liberals trying to classify their worldview as science, so the rest of us have to accept it.Web (talk) 07:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
It is indeed sad that anthropology has been so skewed by cultural relativsim as to make it often (but NOT always nor inherently) pseudoscientific. As an undergraduate anthropology major myself and self-taught (amateur) linguist, I am sick of anthropologists never wanting to evaluate, praise or criticize any culture. A real anthropologist, as in, a scientific anthropologist, would analyze all cultures they were studying or working on, as well as their own, from a scientific point of view, not a "well, their culture says shamanism is better than a vaccine for polio, so who are we to push scientific biases on them?". That said, I have had a real anthropologist (in the cultural field) as a proffessor, and their are real anthropologists, like Napoleon Chagnon, so I would hesitate to desmiss the entire field pseudoscientific.Kuo27 (talk) 01:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)