| |
 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Archaeology Forum » And now for something completely different... |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Tedd Jacobs |
 Posted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 3:59 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Tom McDonald" wrote...
[quote:8b819777de]At the risk of being hooted off the ng, I would like to announce that I
have now gotten a copy of Marvin Harris's 'The Rise of Anthropological
Theory', and will be interested to discuss it with anyone
[/quote:8b819777de]
aye! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Tom McDonald |
| Posted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 4:26 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Tedd Jacobs wrote:
[quote:0ab471de51]"Tom McDonald" wrote...
At the risk of being hooted off the ng, I would like to announce that I
have now gotten a copy of Marvin Harris's 'The Rise of Anthropological
Theory', and will be interested to discuss it with anyone
aye!
[/quote:0ab471de51]
Then let me start by giving the first paragraph of the Introduction as
a teaser and a taste:
"Anthropology began as the science of history. Inspired by the triumphs
of the scientific method in the physical and organic domains,
nineteenth-century anthropologists believed that sociocultural
pehonomena were governed by discoverable lawful principles. This
conviction joined their interests with the aspiration of a still
earlier period, extending back before the social sciences had been
named, to the epochal stirrings of the eighteenth-century Enlightenment
and the vision of a universal history of mankind. Whatever the
weaknesses of the theories propounded by the early anthropologists
under the sway of nineteenth-century scientism, we must concede that
the issues addressed -- origins and causes -- gave their writings an
enduring significance. Commencing with the twentieth century, however,
and continuing through until the early forties, efforts were made to
alter the strategic premise upon which the scientism of anthropological
theory depended. Almost simultaneously, there arose in England, France,
Germany and the United States, schools of anthropology that in one way
or another rejected the scientific mandate. It came to be widely
believed that anthropology could never discover the origins of
institutions or explain their causes. In the United States, the
dominant school flatly asserted that there were no historical laws and
that there could not be a science of history."
While he is going to be pretty hard on many anthropologists, and other
related thinkers, he is not unaware of the value of the critiqued
folks' work. He wants to understand what went before, and to propose
cultural materialism (as distinct from dialectical materialism) as a
unifying concept similar to natural selection in evolutionary biology.
He also says he is looking at the intellectual climate at various times
as it affected anthropological theory, so he isn't limiting his work to
anthropologists alone.
It is really, really going to be helpful to have the book. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| prd |
| Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2006 11:18 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In sci.archaeology message news:edu4fp01g7@enews2.newsguy.com by "Tedd
Jacobs" <TJacobs@mail.boisestate.edu> . . . :
[quote:9482c206cb]these
views contributed to, and built upon the sciences of biology, geology,
psycology, economics, and the philosophies and histories. any
perspective can be called a cult.
[/quote:9482c206cb]
Science evolved from religion and religion evolved from cultic beleifs.
But I prefer the misuse of the word "cliche" behavior since in describes
stereotypical behaviors or beliefs common to particular groups. Within
any disciplines there are typically two or more cliches, one group
will go to a certain meeting, the other group to another. They tend to
polarize beliefs rather looking for common ground, and they tend
to exhibit a common attack scheme on their opponents.
A political example is that republicans try to paint 'liberal' as
a bad word and then paste it on the democrats. This defies actually
the political history of the United States, from a global perspective
has been one of the most liberal in history. But they make use of the
fact that within those the cliche to the party there is a general
ignorance of the history of american political system in a global
context, it is in fact the republicans who have the liberal point of
view. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| prd |
| Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2006 10:36 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In sci.archaeology message
news:tep6g2tj5i8e2vljrk4sa5a5t6t8mpk353@4ax.com by Eric Stevens
<eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> . . . :
[quote:2a88266cd4]Science evolved from the desire to know more and the desire to be able
to argue about that knowledge from a foundation of facts.
[/quote:2a88266cd4]
Modern science as you know it evolved from religion and mythology.
[quote:2a88266cd4]The scientific method is built into some brains.
[/quote:2a88266cd4]
Yes but religion and myth is built into the culture and
is promoted by the childlike understanding humans had of
their material worlds. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter Alaca |
| Posted: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:05 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Tedd Jacobs wrote: news:ee26go02hvt@enews2.newsguy.com
[quote:352a16dbb2]"Peter Alaca" wrote...
Tedd Jacobs wrote:
[...]
the following step however will be to do an overview of archaeology
once we finish this in order to establish a connection, lest we get
those who protest because we are not discussion archaeology or (as
we are already seeing) believe we should start with an introduction
to archaeology.
In the light of the protetst(s) that is perhaps a better
idea indeed, and than later place it in the context
of (American) anthropology. But if you guys are
better in the mood and prepared for TRoAT, I have
no problems with that.
lets crawl before we walk. while an approach to archaeology at first
may seem more practical, it is the theoretical foundations of
anthropology that lay the foreground to scientific discovery that
design the reasearch methods used for archaeology.
as an aside, it becomes frustraiting after a short time that those
who are not practiced in archaeology (or anthopology as a history)
are becoming increasingly decisive in their objections.
[/quote:352a16dbb2]
Yes, but luckily 'those' cannot decide what is happening
and I suppose the protesting stops as soon as the thread
starts.
--
p.a. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| prd |
| Posted: Sun Sep 10, 2006 10:35 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In sci.archaeology message
news:fog9g2deinj23fqucv2t58teosc4g76ttv@4ax.com by Eric Stevens
<eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> . . . :
[quote:94a3e94ab5]I was really responding to prd who had earlier said "Science evolved
from religion and religion evolved from cultic beleifs". I think it is
a stretch to claim that (eg) Aristotle would never have started
chopping logic without a kick-start from theology.
[/quote:94a3e94ab5]
You don't get it, almost every philosopher gets a kick start
from religion. Almost no-one is born in an atheist household.
Ancient greece was not a secular society even if it was a
democracy, there were slaves, there were all kinds of public
religious practices going on all the time all over the place.
Protitutes had temples, if you wanted to get laid. You
had temples for maritime workers, need to hire a ship,
civil process in ancient greece were decorated with religion.
You may engage in a passive revolt in your teens but that still
does not isolate the individual from the beliefs of their
parents.
Was it Homer that wrote the "Iliad and the Odyssey"? Did he not
give fair mention to the god Poseidon? Your great thinkers were
using religion as a story telling device also.
http://library.thinkquest.org/19300/data/Odyssey/virtodyssey1.htm |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Eric Stevens |
| Posted: Mon Sep 11, 2006 1:40 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 02:46:47 GMT, prd <X_header@address.net> wrote:
[quote:365ab14be9]In sci.archaeology message
news:fog9g2deinj23fqucv2t58teosc4g76ttv@4ax.com by Eric Stevens
eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> . . . :
I was really responding to prd who had earlier said "Science evolved
from religion and religion evolved from cultic beleifs". I think it is
a stretch to claim that (eg) Aristotle would never have started
chopping logic without a kick-start from theology.
You don't get it, almost every philosopher gets a kick start
from religion.
[/quote:365ab14be9]
That's only if they have nothing else to think about.
[quote:365ab14be9]Almost no-one is born in an atheist household.
[/quote:365ab14be9]
Almost no one is born in a house without toilet facilities. These are
a well known source of philosophical inspiration. See
http://staff.fcps.net/aaford/art/images/rodin/thinker.jpg
[quote:365ab14be9]Ancient greece was not a secular society even if it was a
democracy, there were slaves, there were all kinds of public
religious practices going on all the time all over the place.
Protitutes had temples, if you wanted to get laid. You
had temples for maritime workers, need to hire a ship,
civil process in ancient greece were decorated with religion.
You may engage in a passive revolt in your teens but that still
does not isolate the individual from the beliefs of their
parents.
Was it Homer that wrote the "Iliad and the Odyssey"? Did he not
give fair mention to the god Poseidon? Your great thinkers were
using religion as a story telling device also.
http://library.thinkquest.org/19300/data/Odyssey/virtodyssey1.htm
All of which is a very woolly justification for the claim that science[/quote:365ab14be9]
came out of religion.
Eric Stevens |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Eric Stevens |
| Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:33 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 20:48:32 -0500, "deowll" <deowll@bellsouth.net>
wrote:
[quote:801613df04]
"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
news:9e09g2lnor68nlp7a1f7cqneo7rbpftjn5@4ax.com...
On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 15:13:47 GMT, prd <X_header@address.net> wrote:
[/quote:801613df04]
---- snip -----
[quote:801613df04]Mendel - Father of genetics
A priest - and he lied about his work.
To whom? Most of his work was burned by his successor. The man never
expected anyone to bother to read his notes. To be as fair as possible
nobody cared anything about it until some considerable time after his death.
It was freaky that he happened on the one plant in his garden that would
allow him get anything half way right after a tremendous amount of time and
labor and anyone with three brain cells knows his results were at best
approximate leaving him stuck with rounding off.
Do as well and maybe people will remember you and gripe about you lack of
integrity. At the moment we both we both stand to be forgotten much sooner.
[/quote:801613df04]
I can only refer you to
http://www.nih.gov/about/director/ebiomed/mendel.htm
--- snip ----
Eric Stevens |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat Nov 21, 2009 2:53 pm
|
|