tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4499379648649775762.post5703758164435488423..comments2022-03-29T05:37:50.690-07:00Comments on The Age of Intuition: Anthropologists: Lost in a Post Scientism WorldL Moorehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05594113850737174795noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4499379648649775762.post-23867391125083837052011-11-04T21:12:04.563-07:002011-11-04T21:12:04.563-07:00I don't have an answer as to why Anthropologis...I don't have an answer as to why Anthropologists are not better recognized by the public. The same is true of others such as geologists or biologists. Maybe as scientism died out so did the interest in knowing about scientists.L Moorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05594113850737174795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4499379648649775762.post-11595974465069357032011-11-04T16:47:25.445-07:002011-11-04T16:47:25.445-07:00It's two years later but I just stumbled upon ...It's two years later but I just stumbled upon this blog. Question: Does anyone outside of anthropology ever ask for and anthropologist's opinion? On anything? I think that most people who could name an anthropologist would name Margaret Mead. A lot of people are interested in the Maya or Neanderthals, but they are not the least bit interested in anything in the table of contents of the latest American Anthropologist ( and I have no hint as to what might be there). Anthropology can organize academic lynch mobs to castrate Napolean Chagnon or lobotomize E. O. Wilson. but that doesn't solve the problem of the complete irrelevancy of anthropology. Why is the moat popular anthropologist not an anthropologist (that would be Jared Diamond)?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4499379648649775762.post-60341018191714339282010-12-06T20:14:50.191-08:002010-12-06T20:14:50.191-08:00Paul, I posted another essay in reply to your comm...Paul, I posted another essay in reply to your comment.L Moorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05594113850737174795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4499379648649775762.post-11470081049244157982010-12-06T13:22:18.834-08:002010-12-06T13:22:18.834-08:00Before you start talking about the "law of gr...Before you start talking about the "law of gravity" and the "theory of evolution", you should read this:<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact<br /><br />And this:<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution#Status_as_a_theory<br /><br />From those links:<br /><br />Critics of evolution frequently assert that evolution is "just a theory", with the intent of emphasizing evolution's unproven nature, or of characterizing it as a matter of opinion rather than of fact or evidence. This reflects a misunderstanding of the meaning of theory in a scientific context: whereas in colloquial speech a theory is a conjecture or guess, in science a theory is simply an explanation or model of the world that makes testable predictions.<br /><br />...<br /><br /><br />From a scientific standpoint, therefore, evolution may be called a "fact" for the same reason that gravity can: under the scientific definition, evolution is an observable process that occurs whenever a population of organisms genetically changes over time. Under the colloquial definition, the theory of evolution can also be called a fact, referring to this theory's well-established nature. Thus, evolution is widely considered both a theory and a fact by scientists.Paul Prescodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15412258048017521995noreply@blogger.com