Pretentious Crap

[nomadthethird]

Oh dear. We have returned to the madness.

The only thing I'd like to add is that: the claims of science need to be questioned. Not from any kind of mad, fundamentalist faith perspective, but rather from the point of view that the kind of theoretical knowledge which (techno-)science offers is in many ways incomplete, and in certain ways quite superficial. The definition of anthropology as a science is problematic, despite what Levi-Strauss thought he could do with the logic of communication.

Oh it is?

roffle

 

[nomadthethird]

comparing primate behaviro to insects is far fetched. they're not really our "cousins" are they? the idea that centralized government, or any government at all, is somehow "natural" because it exists in ant society is absurd -- there are also many characteristics of ant society which do not exist in ours, what about those?

How about comparing humans to other primates who live in hierarchical societies where status is very important?

 

[nomadthethird]

Looks like this PDF has a virus.

 

[vimothy]

I nominate: David Keenan. I like his writing, but I often find, when I get a record he's reviewed, that I like the record a lot less than the review.

 

[josef k.]

Oh it is?

roffle

You disagree? Or are you having one of your funny turns again?

 

[zhao]

the claims of science need to be questioned.[/I] Not from any kind of mad, fundamentalist faith perspective, but rather from the point of view that the kind of theoretical knowledge which (techno-)science offers is in many ways incomplete, and in certain ways quite superficial. The definition of anthropology as a science is problematic, despite what Levi-Strauss thought he could do with the logic of communication.

this is entirely in keeping with the Critiques of Science thread.

the conceit and bloated sense of self importance of every age through out the history of civilization is absolute, each regarding themselves as the epitome of righteousness, as the know-it-all scion of history; and only in hindsight do subsequent generations realize how absurd and ridiculous the previous belief systems really were.

we are no different.

and to think that we are is symptomatic of the very conceit that i'm talking about.

logic, rationality, the scientific method... it takes impressive short sightedness and willful ignorance to not realize that this entire system of knowledge occurs within the context of ideology (which in our age is invisible); and that all of it is motivated and tainted by particular socio-economic-political forces of the day.

to willfully ignore the massive factor of social bias and adhere to a myopic dogma of orthodox Science, like the most extreme of Evolutionary Anthropologists do, is not only shockingly naive, but also dangerous: it is no accident that the Nazis had a biological explanation for everything, would undoubtedly side with the Evolutionary Anthropology "movement", and cite Science as the Grand Narrative to support whatever sick and fucked up shit they felt like doing.

 

[zhao]

Looks like this PDF has a virus.

just downloaded again and opened with no problems on my mac. you on PC right? don't know what differences that might make.

but it's only a chapter guide. if you want the entire series it is available on torrent somewhere i'm sure (is where i got it).

 

[swears]

to willfully ignore the massive factor of social bias and adhere to a myopic dogma of orthodox Science, like the most extreme of Evolutionary Anthropologists do, is not only shockingly naive, but also dangerous: it is no accident that the Nazis had a biological explanation for everything, would undoubtedly side with the Evolutionary Anthropology "movement", and cite Science as the Grand Narrative to support whatever sick and fucked up shit they felt like doing.

This is a ridiculous strawman. Who or what is "orthodox Science", ffs? Scientists are constantly challenging and discrediting each others views within their own discipline and between disciplines. Any scientist or anyone interested in the scientific method at all will tell you that we have a limited grasp of the world around us and are constantly struggling towards answers that we may or may not find.

The Nazis didn't have "a biological explanation" for any of their beliefs. They used psuedo-science to back up their racial mysticism when it suited them. Nazi race "scientists" were not exactly exemplars of the scientific method!

You seem to have no qualms in using empirical evidence to back up your own claims and worldview on this thread, yet moan about how empiricism and science are limited and unchallenged orthodoxies when others do so.

To be honest, do you know enough about either social or evolutionary anthropology to be making claims about either of them?

When I look at the world today, scientists are the last people I fear.

 

[droid]

When I look at the world today, scientists are the last people I fear.

Dr. Death

 

[swears]

Dr. Death

South Africa's ruling class were the real villians there, he couldn't have operated without their support and ideaology. Yes, sometimes scientists are enlisted for evil ends... but so are all types of professional. Maybe we should be suspicious of caretakers because one emptied Hitler's bin?

 

[IdleRich]

Good post Swears. In the broadest terms science is surely just people trying their best to understand the world/universe etc by looking at it, which may not be perfect but it's probably the best thing we've got. It's totally open to admissions of failure or error and I think it's a very long time since people have claimed that science as it is now has all the answers or even ever will have all the answers.
I think that to say something like "science and or logic says I'm wrong but all of science and logic will most probably turn out to be wrong one day so I might be right" is a fairly weak argument to be honest.

 

[droid]

South Africa's ruling class were the real villians there, he couldn't have operated without their support and ideaology. Yes, sometimes scientists are enlisted for evil ends... but so are all types of professional. Maybe we should be suspicious of caretakers because one emptied Hitler's bin?

Political ideology will never go away. The point is that the work of scientists has far more potential to cause death and destruction than the work of say... caretakers. I don't see many janitors working on race specific viruses, anti-personnel bombs or microwave weapons.

Anyway. I was taking the piss.

 

[zhao]

no one is AGAINST science or scientists or the scientific method.

i am interested in offering a CRITIQUE of science as a narrative and as a system of knowledge.

I am interested in demonstrating the big ways in which its proposed objectivity can be, and almost always is, compromised by social forces.

a critique such as this is in the interest of spreading awareness of the subtle yet powerful ways science can be biased and swayed by the mood of the day, with the ultimate aim of making science MORE objective.

the Nazi example is a good one: it shows that science, just like religion, can be, and almost always is, used by dominant ideology to further its cause and justify its actions. you think Mao or Stalin didn't wave the scientific flag, while repeating mantras about progress, while committing crimes against humanity?

oh, so the Nazi's were "pseudo science", versus the "real science" of capitalism? this distinction is a naive one. Capitalism uses pseudo Darwinian theory all the time to justify its dog-eat-dog world view, not to mention use pseudo "natural selection" to sell products. and it is naive to think this new wave of "Neo Darwinism" or whatever it's called is not in the same way influenced by ideological forces the same as "Eugenics" was back in the 40s.

people always cite the self critical "safety valve" of the scientific community. and of course that is a great thing. but what i'm saying is that it is nothing close to a guarantee of "objectivity".

i've used this before but think about any institution of scientific learning: budget is limited, out of hundreds of possible areas of study to focus on, only one gets the go-ahead. what informs decisions like this which are made every day? politics. economics. ideology.

 

[swears]

oh, so the Nazi's were "pseudo science", versus the "real science" of capitalism? this distinction is a naive one. Capitalism uses pseudo Darwinian theory all the time to justify its dog-eat-dog world view, not to mention use pseudo "natural selection" to sell products. and it is naive to think this new wave of "Neo Darwinism" or whatever it's called is not in the same way influenced by ideological forces the same as "Eugenics" was back in the 40s.

Yeah, cuz right wing American pro-capitalists just LOVE the theory of evolution, amirite? People will twist whatever facts they can to suit their purposes, regardless.

"i am interested in offering a CRITIQUE of science as a narrative and as a system of knowledge."

OK then. But have you got anything better for that than comparing someone who thinks evolution has shaped human behaviour to a Nazi who tortured Jews because they thought God made the "aryan race" superior?

"and it is naive to think this new wave of "Neo Darwinism" or whatever it's called is not in the same way influenced by ideological forces the same as "Eugenics" was back in the 40s. "

"Neo Darwinism"? What are you, a creationist? There is no "neo" darwinism. The theory of evolution has been around for 150 years, there is nothing "neo" about it.

 

[zhao]

swears, you are missing the point. entirely.

 

[nomadthethird]

There's nobody who is more critical of science than scientists.

I've never once met a scientist who discounts the importance of culture as a lived experience that has very real consequences and effects. I'm sure there are some scientific fundamentalists who expect everyone to give up their personal traditional beliefs for science (it'd be nice), but they have so little traction or clout in this society that it's almost sad and unfair. They are a small drop in a sea of loud, special interest groups whose views get privileged in our society far beyond what seems reasonable to me, especially given how far we've come using science.

You want to critique science, yet you're typing on a computer right now and talking to people you'd otherwise have had no acceess to whatsoever? It just seems like such an empty rhetorical gesture at this point.

As far as I'm concerned, the social sciences offer an excellent counter-balance to the cold factual approach of the hard sciences and seem to do well in giving equal consideration to cultural concerns.

Having a problem with science, aside from the ways science have become Big Business, makes absolutely no sense to me.

 

[nomadthethird]

You disagree? Or are you having one of your funny turns again?

Anthropology is a social science.

 

[nomadthethird]

Political ideology will never go away. The point is that the work of scientists has far more potential to cause death and destruction than the work of say... caretakers. I don't see many janitors working on race specific viruses, anti-personnel bombs or microwave weapons.

Anyway. I was taking the piss.

Yeah, "caretakers" who use medical developments to ease the suffering of others.

 

[josef k.]

In the broadest terms science is surely just people trying their best to understand the world/universe etc by looking at it, which may not be perfect but it's probably the best thing we've got.

Science is conducted through institutional protocols which work to determine the scope of its enterprise. This doesn't discredit science, but it does stress that science is a practice which occurs inside certain conditions, and politics, which are not necessarily devoted to trying to understand the world better, but rather to other things - for instance, such as navigating institutional protocols. Bruno Latour is excellent on this point.

As a side note - Nomad - it would be better if you restrained yourself from multiple knee-jerk postings, and instead stopped, thought for a while, and delivered only one response.

 

[nomadthethird]

It would be better if you actually read authors before you pretended to know about them, Josef K. That is not what Bruno Latour says, anywhere. What you are saying is entirely trite and cliched and we all know that yes, things are always already political. Thanks, Sherlock.

I'd also love it if you used less stilted, prosaic language.

But hey, we can't always get what we want!