earthbound01

I've been mulling over this anthropology is/n't a science thing for a few days. I've been trying to find anyone who agrees with what the AAA did, and until this blog I hadn't had any luck. Happily, the writer of this blog explains a position that I had found puzzling; they contend that anthropology doesn't need to be a science to be accurate, that history isn't a science but isn't nonsense either. I'll admit I identify strongly with science, but on reflection it isn't because I feel like the scientific method is the only way to advance knowledge; it is because I think creationism is Christian Lysenkoism, and allowing the religious perspectives an equal weight to science does a disservice to the education of our children and the future of our nation (a whole seperate discussion I'll be happy to argue about ad nauseum if you like). So I'll freely admit that one doesn't have to be a scientist to be a reasonable, good person.
Consequently, if a given anthropologist is not a scienctist that doesn't necessarily mean they are a wishy-washy postmodernist. They could just be a person who likes learning and writing about the lives & beliefs of a set of people, which is absolutely fine. If that anthropologist doesn't want to be saddled with the obligation to generalize between cultures about humanity in general, that's fine. I might quibble that a good definition of science should be broad enough to include the facts of history, (as we should be able to turn to science as a good way to determine the veracity of claims about history) so they would be doing science anyway.
I also understand it is good to know that the people one is studying have different ways of knowing, and it is important to respect their beliefs about themselves, as well as important to understand any questions one asks are framed by one's own sense of history, culture, and differences in perceived power. Again though, a sufficiently robust definition of science shouldn't really have trouble integrating facts from other epistemologies. Science has had competing theories and paradigms before.
The real trouble is that knowledge is a kind of dead end without some theory or narrative to give the events meaning. We can know all kinds of what amounts to geographic facts and numbers (square mileage of territories, tons of food produced, average age of populations) and more subjective things (variations of creation myths distributed over a given area.) We can even have really thick descriptions about events or facets of a culture. And it's good, but wouldn't it be better to think about how to apply that in a way to learn more people in general?
And I know the non-scientific anthropologists (anti-positivist? What's the polite way to refer to the other camp?) have their own narratives, but I don't know what they are. (I've heard names like Foucault and Derrida, but I'm not really sure how to approach the body of academic post-modernism) I understand that they are critical of imperialism and racism, and act as advocates for people they study, but that doesn't really describe their approach to knowledge gathering, or what they intend to do with the knowledge they get.
Anyway, Meow.
Here's hoping your day is awesome. :)