By SPOCKSKYWALKER
Added: Sat, 11 Dec 2010 06:57:10 UTC

Hello everyone. I'm not exactly new here, I lurk and have posted about 2 comments of my own, but this is the first time I've tried to start a discussion.

The main reason I'm posting this article is because today I came across an article on the New York Times website which stated the AAA has changed its long term plan from advancing “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.”

I find this troubling because when I was at university (I only recently graduated) in addition to earning a Bachelor of Science in my major I also minored in anthropology. My first exposure to the discipline was a cultural anthropology course that was filled with a lot of postmodern readings and strange lectures that nearly sent me screaming from the classroom. But I decided to give anthropology another chance and took an introduction to biological anthropology. This course turned out to be fascinating. I loved learning about the study of fossils and human evolution. Two of my favorite classes, human population biology and evolutionary medicine, were actually in the anthropology department. With this announcement I'm concerned the perspective that science isn't important or isn't the best "way of knowing" is going to completely undermine legitimate anthropological research.

Anyways, here is a link to the article and I'm very curious to know what you all think.

Anthropology a Science? Statement Deepens a Rift

TAGGED: REASON, SCIENCE