Anthropology is not a science, according to the American Anthropological Association

**~~Eldritch~~** · 11-30-2010, 08:14 PM

Is anthropology a science?

Don’t ask the American Anthropological Association (AAA), which recently voted to strike the word “science” from its long-term mission statement.

At the society’s annual meeting in New Orleans two weeks ago, the AAA’s executive board voted to change its long term goal statement from: “The purposes of the Association shall be to advance anthropology as the science that studies humankind in all its aspects” to: “The purposes of the Association shall be to advance public understanding of humankind in all its aspects.”

Three other mentions of science were removed from the three-paragraph statement, while teaching and promoting public understanding were emphasized.

The changes have drawn the condemnation of data-collecting anthropologists, including the Society for Anthropological Science, which is a subsection of the AAA.

At the Chronicle of Higher Education, Peter Wood, president of the National Association of Scholars and an anthropologist, says the change represents longstanding tension over whether human culture should be studied using a data-driven scientific approach, or with a more interpretative perspective that's characterisic of humanities scholarship.

My own view of anthropology is that it is a hybrid discipline. Its main scholarly tradition is rooted in science, or at least the aspiration for science. If those roots wither or are cut off, anthropology will lose any real claim to serious intellectual attention and perhaps even its identity as a discipline.

At Psychology Today, Alice Dregger singles out “fluff-head cultural anthropological types who think science is just another way of knowing.” [

]

Not all cultural anthropologists are fluff-heads, of course. You can usually tell the ones who are fluff-heads by their constant need to look like superheroes for oppressed peoples, and you can tell the non-fluff-heads by their attention to data. But the non-fluff-head cultural anthropologists are feeling utterly beleaguered in this environment that actively denigrates science and consistently promotes activism over data collection and scientific theorizing.

Damon Dozier, a spokesman for the AAA, tells Inside Higher Ed that the mission statement changes are not a fait accompli and that they represent changes in words, not values. "We have no interest in taking science out of the discipline," he says. "It’s not as if the anthropology community is turning its back on science."

Link.

Comments?

**aherne** · 12-01-2010, 07:34 AM

Anthropology is of course a valid science. It is just that Jews hate it because it conflicts with their racemixing agenda. If races exist, then it makes sense preserving them.

Racial anthropology is just one of the many facets useful to determine a family tree for the human animal.

**Fintorah** · 12-01-2010, 08:25 AM

Originally Posted by aherne

Anthropology is of course a valid science. It is just that Jews hate it because it conflicts with their racemixing agenda. If races exist, then it makes sense preserving them.

Racial anthropology is just one of the many facets useful to determine a family tree for the human animal.

In the liberal education system, "anthropology" becomes synonymous with "cultural anthropology". If you've ever taken a cultural anthropology class, you'd start to seriously question what you're saying. Even the textbooks for most cultural anthropology classes are what Loki would call "fluff-headed", so I'm confused as to why the Association would choose to delegitimize it when it would probably better fit their agenda to do the opposite.

Case in point, from my cultural anthropology textbook:

biological race: The harmful illusion that humans can be subdivided into discrete groups (races) on the basis of physical attributes. It has no scientific basis whatsoever.

Then we proceed to watch terribly pro-minority and anti-European propaganda, learning the rich history of how we "destroyed" all of the perfectly functioning cultures out there.

**Юbermensch** · 12-01-2010, 08:54 AM

Which kind of all anthropologies are they talking about? There's physical, social, cultural anthropology. During the 20th century many American anthropologists (cultural/social) attempted to make out of Anthropology a precise science like mathematics. If people from this association follow these ideals it's normal for them to refuse to accept Anthropology as a science in it's present form. The same goes for physical anthropology - it's NOT a precise science although it uses mathematics to some level.

**Wölfin** · 12-01-2010, 08:58 AM

I believe they are referring to "Anthropology" as an umbrella term for all the sub disciplines.

--

My comments? I have none. I'm speechless.

**~~Austin~~** · 12-01-2010, 09:23 AM

I realized in university that the notion of equality and education cannot mutually exist as they are inherently at odds. I watched highly educated, smart people lie and dumb down their own fields for the sake of some biased sense of mandated equality which doesn't exist in the first place.

Science is cold and raw and that does not fit well at all with a multicultural worldview. One has to be compromised in order for the other to succeed and in most cases it is science that will be compromised, at least publicly for the masses. This is why I love the internet as it is the only place where you can see what both proverbial ideological masters would have you not see in respect to race and science.

**Metanthropos** · 12-01-2010, 09:26 AM

Nice swastika by the way.

**Psychonaut** · 12-01-2010, 09:29 AM

Originally Posted by Юbermensch

The same goes for physical anthropology - it's NOT a precise science although it uses mathematics to some level.

If this statement were true, then forensic anthropology would not be such a mainstay of investigatory police work. The predictions made by forensic anthropologists are precise enough to be admissible as evidence in courts in most civilized countries. What about it do you find imprecise or unscientific?