by Massimo Pigliucci
Next week Julia and I will be taping two episodes of the Rationally Speaking podcast, so we are inviting comments on both topics simultaneously.
To begin with, we are about to hit episode number 26, which means that we have been podcasting already for one year! Time really flies when you are having fun. Still, that got our producer, Benny Pollak, to think of the arbitrariness of anniversaries, both those that mark events of personal significance and those that have a wider societal impact. I mean, why exactly is episode 26 so important? Why not celebrate when we hit a nice round number, say 30? Or a prime number, like 29? Or the approximate square root of a prime number? Okay, okay, you get the point. Interestingly, that episode will be taped on the Perihelinox, a “holiday” Benny made up based on the day the earth is closest to the sun (around January 3rd). To help us discuss anniversaries and their history, we will chat with our guest, Prof. Timothy Alborn, a historian at the City University of New York—Lehman College (and, incidentally, my boss).
The other episode we will be taping deals with the recent controversy concerning the scientific status of anthropology. An article by Nicholas Wade in the New York Times reported that the American Anthropological Association had decided “to strip the word ‘science’ from a statement of its long-range plan.” (See also this response in the NYT, penned by Tom Boellstorff, the current editor of American Anthropologist, the journal of the AAA.) To some extent, this reflects the long standing division between physical and cultural anthropology, the first one often associated with science departments, the latter with the humanities. In this particular instance, the revised statement says that “the purposes of the association shall be to advance public understanding of humankind in all its aspects,” a wording that opens the possibility for cultural anthropologists to engage in public advocacy on behalf of cultures they are studying, like the Yanomamo of Venezuela. So, what kind of discipline is anthropology, after all? And, more broadly, should scientists cross the line from research into public advocacy? If you think the answer to that question is easy, just consider the controversies concerning both climate change and the teaching of evolution in public schools...
What then would be the purpose of scientific research if not at some point to step across the line of controversy?
ReplyDeleteArbitrary indeed considering that science has revealed that since the sun is moving around the center of the galaxy and the galaxy itself is moving, we will never ever be in exactly the same place again.
ReplyDeleteThis "controversy" in anthropology is not new (see a great blog post over at Savage Minds on this topic: http://savageminds.org/2010/12/24/a-changeling-discipline/ ). In fact, it's been an on-going subject of debate and thought in anthropology for a long, long time. I find it kind of odd that someone who criticizes others for talking about philosophy without being familiar with the literature could turn around and do the same with anthropology. Every question you've posed regarding anthropology in the paragraph above has been discussed and debated in the anthropological literature (and continues to be).
ReplyDeleteAnthropologists should definitely cross the line into public advocacy. As outsiders (mostly) of the cultures we study, we are in a unique position to be able to explain to other outsiders just what might be going on. I can think of a number of medical anthropologists in particular whose work is by its very nature activist/advocacy. Many physical anthropologists (primatologists in particular) definitely cross into public advocacy in the form of conservation and policy.
So, should we take all of our research data and go up into the Ivory Tower? Do we not owe something in return to our informants who help us achieve our career and academic goals? And why do we need a neat little bounded discipline to label anthropology with?
"And why do we need a neat little bounded discipline to label anthropology with?"
ReplyDeleteYou don't like strict definitions? What would you suggest?
I didn't say I don't like strict definitions. I said I don't think it's necessary to confine anthropology with concrete boundaries, be they "science" or "humanities" or "social science." It can be all and none of those things, can it not?
ReplyDelete"I said I don't think it's necessary to confine anthropology with concrete boundaries, be they "science" or "humanities" or "social science.""
ReplyDeleteIsn't that just a different way of saying you don't want to strictly define Anthropology as "science" or "humanities" or "social science?"
Yes, but your original statement was a broad "you don't like strict definitions," which I never said. I thought you were inferring something general from my position on anthropology.
ReplyDeleteMy question still stands, though. Why do you need to fit it into one of those categories?
"To some extent, this reflects the long standing division between physical and cultural anthropology, the first one often associated with science departments, the latter with the humanities."
ReplyDeleteWell, no actually often in the same departments. And archaeology that attempts to be cultural anthropology of the past, and is more scientifically orientated and one of the very active subdisciplines of anthropology. And I do have to say in all due respect to Massimo, he doesn't seem to be in the loop on the social sciences. But I am sure he is a very busy man. :)
Will,
ReplyDeleteWhether anthropology is a scientific discipline or not matters for reasons epistemic. That is, if anthropology is a 'science,' then the wider epistemic community is more likely to grant the various conclusions and inferences drawn from the relevant body of data higher degrees of reliability. If anthropology is not a 'science,' then the wider epistemic community is less likely to grant said conclusions and inferences higher degrees of reliability.
(As an extreme, albeit clear, example, consider astrology and astronomy. When astrologers make predictions concerning a possible human extinction event, the wider epistemic community is less likely to take them seriously. On the other hand, when astronomers make predictions concerning (29075) 1950 DA, e.g., the wider epistemic community tends to take them seriously.)
Do the findings of non-scientific disciplines mean less than the findings of scientific disciplines? Who do they mean less to and why?
ReplyDeleteAnthropology uses both scientific and non-scientific methodologies. To label it as a "scientific discipline" leaves out a lot of the work done in anthropology, and to label it "non-scientific" also leaves out a lot of the work done. Who is the "wider epistemic community"? Why do we privilege "their" views of knowledge? Further, is it not the job of anthropologists to show how our work (scientific and non-scientific) is meaningful and reliable (granted, that's something we often fail at communicating to more general audiences).
Lastly, it seems to me that you're confusing non-science with pseudoscience (at least your analogy does. Astrology is a pseudoscience, not a non-science).
By A's reckoning, the epistemic community could move Astrology to the Arts and Humanities category.
ReplyDeleteWill,
ReplyDeleteCould you give an example or two of non-scientific methodologies used in Anthropology that yield reliable knowledge?
I think the point "A" is trying to make is that reliability across cultural boundaries is one of the hallmarks of scientific knowledge claims: regardless of your cultural "reality" Newtonian mechanics works.
Thanks,
DS
Interpretive/symbolic anthropology tends towards the non-scientific methodological area. The work of Clifford Geertz, Victor Turner, and Mary Douglas come to mind. Some more scientifically-oriented anthropologists consider their work to be complete non-science. Of course, to me, it's not so easy. But I'd place interpretive anthropology closer to the non-science methods category.
ReplyDeleteBut my questions still remain unanswered. Who decides what is "reliable" knowledge? How is knowledge of Newtonian mechanics more or less reliable to an indigenous group in Amazonia (for example)? Further, how reliable are scientific methodologies when they lead to outsiders implementing policies that are detrimental (I can think of case studies of WHO workers in Ebola outbreaks in parts of Africa specifically). Is it not worthwhile to get at local understandings of problems so that culturally sensitive *AND* scientifically-sound solutions can be reached? Or, shall we just privilege scientific methods and ignore local knowledge all together because it is deemed "unreliable"?
Baron P,
ReplyDeleteIn saying the above I did not intend to offer a sine qua non which demarcates science from non-science (to include pseudo-science, in this case). The issue which I intended to address and which I intended my example to highlight was the necessity of making distinctions between science and non-science. (Actually, one reason why such a distinction is necessary; there are more.)
Will,
The meaning and value to which individuals give the findings of non-scientific disciplines varies according to individuals value preferences. Thus, one may if one wishes impute greater meaning or value to the findings of, say, contemporary feminist literary analysis than to the findings of high-pressure physics. However, this point seems to me a non sequitur, for the issue at hand is the empirical reliability and explanatory utility of the findings. In other words, do the the findings admit to a high probability of being true and do they organize, simplify, predict, and explain in a coherent fashion the patterns of sensory experience.
Of course, the extent to which the findings of any discipline satisfy the criteria of reliability and explanatory utility primarily depends upon the subject matter under investigation and the various methods used to gather data and make inferences therefrom. Setting aside the subject matter, which at times prohibits the use of certain methods and thus reduces the reliability of its findings and limits the types of inferences which can be made from them, insofar as anthropology employs established methods (methods which we have come to call 'scientific') that conduce to reliability and explanatory utility, then we may consider anthropology scientific.
I should like to emphasize that you should not construe the above to mean that non-scientific anthropology is without value and / or meaning. Also, you should not construe the above to mean that non-scientific anthropology should be bereft of funding. The meaning, value, and funding of non-scientific anthropology depends upon the preferences and goals of numerous individuals.
As for your question of who constitutes the epistemic community, there are a few answers available to me. We may construe the epistemic community narrowly (the community of scientists in a particular discipline), broadly (the larger community of educated individuals within society), or as an admixture of the two (scientists, philosophers, and other intellectuals with particular research interests in the particular scientific disciplines). Personally, I think all three have their applicability.
How do you separate out the disciplines, in some hierarchical order perhaps of truth values, and not include in that assessment the values inherent in their purposes?
ReplyDeleteA,
ReplyDelete"the issue at hand is the empirical reliability and explanatory utility of the findings"
It is? I thought the issue at hand was whether or not anthropology is science. My answer is: it depends; or, yes and no. When challenged on that, I asked why is it important to fit it neatly into "yes" or "no." The conversation has meandered into issues of "reliability" and "utility," but you can't dismiss my questions as non-sequitors because they are vital to getting at what you mean by "reliable" and why that definition of reliable is or should be privileged over others. You did, after all, bring up reliability as being important to the overall question of whether or not anthropology is a science, so I don't see how my questioning of what you mean by that is a non-sequitor.
At this point, I'm kind of at a loss for where this conversation is heading. It's clear to me, as an anthropologist, that my field utilizes both scientific and non-scientific methods, its subjects cross disciplines, and it can be difficult to define (trust me, when people ask me what anthropology is, it can be hard to explain). I'm not entirely sure why people outside of anthropology are so fascinated by this "controversy" that really isn't a controversy, but a long-standing debate within the discipline. I honestly think it's making a mountain out of an ant hill.
And I'm referring to purposes served in terms of the benefits granted to the overall society - educational and much more - not just in the self-service of the so called epistemic community.
ReplyDeleteWill,
ReplyDeleteIn what sense is the work of Geertz, Turner and Douglas reliable? Is it repeatable? Could someone else replicate their interpretations? Those are examples of people who produced works that are certainly considered Anthropology by most folk, but I'm less sure that what they produced could be considered knowledge in a meaningful sense. But they all tell a good story.
"Who decides what is "reliable" knowledge?"
Does the knowledge work for anyone? Newtonian mechanics works (for stuff our size, mass and speed) regardless of cultural upbringing: a rock dropped from the top of a cliff strikes the ground with the same force for me as it does for anyone else. Newtonian mechanics can predict that force whether I believe in the Newtonian model or not. The generalities described and predicted by Newtonian mechanics are imposed on and constrain Amazonian indigenous people whether they realize it or not.
"Further, how reliable are scientific methodologies when they lead to outsiders implementing policies that are detrimental (I can think of case studies of WHO workers in Ebola outbreaks in parts of Africa specifically)"
I think you need to separate science from policy. Science may inform policy, but science in principle will only tell you what "is," not what to do. Further (without knowing the specifics), "science" will have learned from whatever went wrong in your African ebola case study and will adjust accordingly. You can rely on science to change if warranted.
"Or, shall we just privilege scientific methods and ignore local knowledge all together because it is deemed "unreliable"?"
Scientific methods can help determine if local knowledge is reliable across cultural boundaries: that really is the goal of the scientific endeavor.
What do you call "alternative (or indigenous) medicine" that has been shown to be reliable scientifically?
"...as an anthropologist, that my field utilizes both scientific and non-scientific methods..."
ReplyDeleteTo what end? What kind of knowledge are you trying to produce as an Anthropologist? Knowledge that is generalizable across cultures and accessible to everyone? I'm not sure what you mean by "knowledge" if not.
I am pursuing a graduate degree in Anthropology and these questions really do perplex me: What is the purpose of Anthropology if not to produce generalizable knowledge? Of what empirical (as opposed to political) use is Anthropology to anyone if it doesn't produce this kind of knowledge?
I think this is a controversy within Anthropology simply put, because there is a faction that wants and strives to produce (reasonably) objective knowledge about humanity, and another that feels that objective knowledge is impossible and therefore doesn't even try. One is antithetical to the other, and I think there will be schism, but which side will continue to be called Anthropology I don't know.
It is important to know that the term "anthropology" embodies loosley realted fields that all they share is the notion of field work. Within anthropology you have cultural anthropology (or ethnology) which traditionally have been the dominant in the field and is the less scientific. You all got archeoloogy, physicl and biological anthropology and linguistic anthropology that are much more scientific for the most part. Sometimes, it's easier to a bio-anthro to talk with a biologist than to a fellow cultural anthropologist.
ReplyDeleteDogscratcher,
ReplyDeleteI've been asking for definitions of reliable, and never really gotten one until your post. That's not at all how I was thinking of "reliable" (reproducible/repeatable), and I'm fcurious as to why that is considered a defining characteristic of reliable in your opinion?
I suppose the work of those people could be considered "repeatable" if others come to the same conclusions? I'm not sure, maybe it's not repeatable. Again, I'm confused as to why that's important? I'm kind of shocked that you would dismiss their work as "just a good story" considering their influences on cultural anthropology. In fact, I'm curious if you've actually ever read their work (especially Turner and Douglas).
Whether or not anthropological knowledge is/should be generalizeable, I suppose, is a matter of opinion. Some would argue that much knowledge produced by cultural anthropology is not able to be generalized across cultures. To me, whether or not it is generalizeable doesn't diminish the reliability or the value of that knowledge. I also think of knowledge more broadly than whether or not something can be tested empirically (as I hope you do as well?).
Re: science and policy: My point was that science doesn't *always* tell us "what is" and that the idea that if something is scientific then it's "true" can be dangerous when that knowledge is used to inform policy. Separating the two, you're right that is important. But it's also important to know that sometimes the policy is based on what science says is "true" and local knowledge/understandings may not be any less "true" just because they can't put it in the language of science. (See Hewlett and Hewlett, "Ebola, Culture, and Politics: The Anthropology of an Emerging Disease". Great book and this is what I was thinking about when I brought up the subject.)
I suppose I fall more in line with people who think that, at least in cultural anthropology, it's difficult to produce objective knowledge about human cultures, much less generalize that knowledge cross-culturally. That doesn't mean, however, that I don't value scientific approaches in cultural anthropology (I actually think Marvin Harris had some great ideas). I'm just more weary of specifically defining anthropology as this or that because of it's broad coverage. I don't share your pessimistic view of the future of discipline, however, but maybe that's just because I don't see any of friction in my department between the subfields.
gil,
ReplyDeleteI'm curious, what is it about archaeology that is more scientific than cultural anthropology?
"...why that (reproducible/repeatable) is considered a defining characteristic of reliable in your opinion?"
ReplyDeleteThose characteristics make a piece of knowledge accessible and dependable to anyone. How do you characterize "reliable?"
"...I'm curious if you've actually ever read their work (especially Turner and Douglas)."
I've admittedly only read a little of all three (including Geertz) in an Anth Theory class several years ago, and the Balinese cockfight is the only one of the three that has stuck with me at all. Also, I didn't say "just a good story," I said, "But they all tell a good story," which I think is true.
When I say Anthropological knowledge should be "generalizable," I mean that if I make a knowledge statement about something, it should be true for anyone regardless of cultural background (this is the kind of knowledge we should strive for). If something is only true "for me," that doesn't meet (for me) the standard of what is "knowledge," and instead is in the realm of belief.
I will read the Hewlett and Hewlett book: it sounds very interesting from the Amazon review (I got my BA at WSU).
"...it's difficult to produce objective knowledge about human cultures, much less generalize that knowledge cross-culturally."
I agree it is difficult, but I think we should try, and I think most (I'd say all, but I really don't know all) cultures have what I would consider to be valuable knowledge, but in my opinion what makes it valuable is that that knowledge is true for anyone (at least in similar circumstances).
In the department where I am, there is unfortunately some animosity between the sub-disciplines, and much animosity towards more scientifically oriented schools (like WSU).
Cheers,
DS