With regards to the second question as to what anthropologists should be doing or be able to do in order for them to call themselves scientists, I believe that their work on human culture must rely heavily on observation, experimentation, collection and analysis of data and an ability to objectively analysis and interpret such data.

Also, it the objectivity of science that makes it what it is and one of the reasons why I believe we took pains to understand the potholes in sense perception during the first semester. Therefore, the anthropologists referred to in question 3, who “see themselves as advocates for native peoples or human rights,” cannot be called scientist since advocates in general are people who take on very partisan roles. These people’s work is obviously characterised by a strong opinion about how important and right their stance is on the two issues and will therefore not be open –minded enough to consider that there might be cases in which some human rights cannot and must not be applied. Yet a scientist must be objective and open-minded at all times so that he/she might observe what is fundamentally to be observed.

Lastly, the exact thought as to why these people are so passionate about their work either being referred to as a science or not kept running through my mind. Is it because such people believe that being tagged along with scientists will give them a certain exotic flavour or earn them the respect that Einstein and Newton were awarded? I couldn’t help feeling that these people were responding to a very human tendency to be grouped alongside the “erudite” or “intellectuals,” forgetting that every body of knowledge carries its own lustre and prestige, even if the world is yet to acknowledge this fact.

Thanks for this interesting contribution, Abigail. Unfortunately, no-one has kicked the conversation on from what you wrote. Let me try to simplify further by putting forward some very crude points of view, so that (I hope) others can take issue with them...

1) Science is a body of knowledge with a well-defined subject area - ie the natural world. Humans, and their cultures, are part of this natural world, and therefore knowledge in this area is part of science.

2) Science is a body of knowledge with a well-defined subject area - ie the natural world. Humans, and their cultures, are quite different to anything else we know about in the natural world, and so knowledge in this area is distinct from science.

3) Science is a rigorous academic way of thinking that can be applied no matter what the subject area might be, so the study of humans and their cultures can be just as scientific as the study of anything else.

4) There are many (or at least several) rigorous academic ways of thinking that can be applied to various subject areas, but science is the best one, and therefore it is the best approach to the study of humans and their cultures (and everything else).

5) Science demands that scientists are objective and disinterested (not uninterested!) about what they study. It is impossible for us as humans to study ourselves (other humans) in an objective and disinterested way, so the study of humans and their cultures cannot be scientific.

Hi everyone - now surely there must be SOMETHING here with which you agree or disagree. So let's hear about it...

Firstly, to answer Mr.Kitching's question as to why people are fascinated about the word "science," I think it is because of the prestige that has been associated with science. Perhaps in the late 20s science was just a word but now "science" seems to mean everything for so many people that the different descriptions of many great men in a few years may be unified as one fundamental law.

To the question of Anthropology being a science or not, I believe that it is a science because if we are to term the body of knowledge in anthropology to be about only human culture, then we can clearly state that anthropologists are scientists as humans and culture are an aspect of the natural world.

On the other hand, if we are to consider the other aspects of anthropology then as Abigail said scientists need to consider more experiments, observations, confirming hypothesis and refuting the ones that are unnecessary so that just like science, Anthropology will grow.

Anthropology, in my opinion is a science. You see ,it is quite sad that most people forget that science is two pronged. We have the natural sciences and the social sciences. Abigail, advocacy is only a part of the whole anthropology package. Besides, it is even an uncommon and usually untapped part of anthropology and please bear in mind that advocacy is not siamese with subjectivity.The fact that some anthropologists are advocates does not mean they are not objective.

You also said that 'With regards to the second question as to what anthropologists should be doing or be able to do in order for them to call themselves scientists, I believe that their work on human culture must rely heavily on observation, experimentation, collection and analysis of data and an ability to objectively analysis and interpret such data.'

will you therefore say that people like Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who were famous social scientists are not qualified to be placed under the umbrella of scientists because they did not use a microscope, a long white lab coat and do not read fat books in a laboratory? Certainly not!

Anthropology is a science and anthropologists are saying it is so because that is what it really is- A social science which concurrently is a natural science(to an extent).

Firstly, I do not see why fitting subjects under the umbrella of science should be a problem. Yes, there should be characterisations which must inform the placing of subjects into certain categories however for science, their restrictions are too tight. Anthropology may not have all the characteristics of a science, but it does have some - hypotheses, observation, testability etc.

And by the way, why bother what subject goes into which category, knowledge is knowledge and we must accept it as it comes not try and criticise it and waste all our time trying to figure out what kind of knowledge should go under science!

Crystal, i am actually amazed you think categorizing subjects is a bother. We have physics, chemistry, psychology,sociology and the other trail of subjects because people took pains to categorize them and thanks to this, you are pursuing the IB subjects you love. Imagine us all doing a subject which is basically a lump of all others....the Economics you hate so much..that chemistry you want to dodge..think about it.

Knowledge is knowledge but the knowledge we have now is what YOU see and appreciate because of Categorization.Categorizing subjects helps A LOT!!! Thanks to categorization, we know that anthropology is made up of archaeology, anatomy and other human sciences because of CATEGORIZATION!Science is about order(even though it may sometimes appear messed up!)

Categorization!!! This is really necessary!! All things cannot be put in a big lump....If that was to be the case everyone will be confused.... Even though some subjects overlap, it is VERY VERY important to categorize the the subjects. This makes it easier to understand and clearer to make associations for the different aspects of that disciple.

Hence, saying categorising should not be a bother is like saying that all animals in the zoo should be left to wonder about or we as humans should all be called by a one unique name.

Consider the mess and confusion this will create!!!!

Crystal, i agree with Efua and Marilyn because, honestly if knowledge was not categorised, ther would be a lot of confusion. However, i do agree with you that knowledge is knowledge and that we should accept it but do you not think that obtaining knowledge is much easier when it is categorised than if it were all jumbled or mixed up?

I also think that anthropology is a science because it is definately categorised under social sciences. However, if sciences can be described as a way of thinking, then anthropology is definately a science but i do not think it is necessary for them to consider themselves as scientists just because they think they are anthropologists and that they are advocates for native peoples or human rights! Really is it necesssary?

I am late, but better late than never.

In my opinion, Anthropology is a science-indisputable. There's no two ways about it and I feel the reason that it's classification as non-scientific has evoked so much contention and controversy lies in the a common human tendency to adjust the interpretation of the word SCIENCE to suit our preferences. The moment we do so as human beings, we change the meaning of everything else.
So what makes a field of study a SCIENCE, if I should so say?
SCIENCE:
-systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
-
Knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through the scientific method and concerned with the physical world and its phenomena.

These are all standard definitions of science, from which she should base our judgment and comments on the science of Anthropology. Instead, we as human beings have limited the definition of science to laboratory experiments, chemical reactions, physics theories and laws, and the study of living organism- we limit the definition of science to the three fields of science we are familiar with as science. But in truth, the job description of the anthropologists is indeed applicable to all aspects of the definition of science. Gathering of ‘human data’ such as different cultural traits an features that cause a variation, observation of characteristic traits etc, experimentation, analysis-all of which define a science.
Maybe the controversy lies in what we are working with. Is it the mere fact that humans are the subject of investigation that we cannot accept it as a science, because by convention science deals with physical things? And if so, do not humans form a part of the natural world; capable of being studied as a field of knowledge on its own?

I think the root of the problem lies in ourselves. Our upbringing has drawn a clear line between our narrow definitions of science from the very beginning such that we cannot even see beyond the natural sciences as science. It has become an accepted truth or truth by convention such that we cast out other sciences subject such as history, economics as a different body of knowledge altogether as opposed to a social science.
The term science should not have been dropped completely, but merely qualified as a social science.

In spite of the many arguments for the placement of anthropology as a science, I still beg to differ, especially in relation to the anthropology which looks to advocate for things. I believe that in order for a person to advocate for something, the person must believe that thing, and will defend it to the very end if need be; in essence whatever it is must be that person’s truth. Hence, Efua to say that advocacy is not Siamese with subjectivity for me is very debatable. These “anthropological advocates” (if I may call them so) do not even view themselves as scientists, (at least that’s what I get from the article).

With regards to social sciences, as far as I know social sciences do rely on such things as experimentation, observation, collection of data, analysing and predicting. Social scientists just don’t sit in labs is all. No economist for example will come out with a policy without observing, collecting data and analysing it, and ECONOMICS IS A SOCIAL SCIENCE (so that should tell us something about social sciences). Hence I honestly do not think anthropology even falls into the bracket of social sciences for it to be considered a science at all, because honestly when we analyse anthropological data what can we do about it apart from documenting existing facts.

Can we honestly predict the next serial killer just from studying human culture? Certainly not! We cannot place generalizations on individuals of the human race because through anthropology we have learnt this or that about their culture. It’s like saying that I should be able to plant Yam, harvest and cook it on the same day because “anthropological studies” have shown that people from the Volta Region are well versed in the art of Juju/Voodoo/Witchcraft (call it what you may).

Very encouraging seeing some insightful discussion going on here. I have one question: Aren’t there people who go to some African jungle and observe and document what chimpanzee do all their lives and be called scientists? Why is the anthropologist who observes what members of a community do and how they behave and analyze the significance of their actions to themselves is not a scientist? By the way, some of you said anthropologists do experiment. Do they really? Can you give examples?

This is a very interesting discussion going on here. I have to say I agree with Abigail though. She's raised some very interesting points.
To Mr. Kidane's post: I beleive humans are too large and diverse a group to study them as a science. When someone observes chimpanzees, they are able to notice very similar characteristics amongst all chimpanzees. They are classified as having very similar characteristics thus they can be studied as a science.
Even in this case, these studies have to be studying a particular scientific concept before it should be regarded as a science. You can't just study how many times they eat in a day or the weather they eat with their left or right limbs and classify it as science; just like youcant study cultures and beliefs and call it science.
In general, the lack of consistency and the great diversity in humans doesn't allow it to be classified as a science. All systems have this diversity but the science is not in that.

Great discussion going on now.

Next week we are going to start examining the subjects that are often called the HUMAN SCIENCES, and it will be vital to try to make comparisons with the NATURAL SCIENCES that have been the focus for our discussions for the past three weeks.

Let me ask what might look like a rather cryptic question:

What is the difference between a blink and a wink?

Now can anyone connect an answer to this question with a comparison between the natural sciences (like biology) and the human sciences (like psychology)?

A blink is involuntary whilst a blink is voluntary and purposeful. Natural sciences for me are like a blink, something that we come across not through any intentional means. With natural sciences observations are made coincidentally by people and this further leads them to the extensive experimentation that constitutes natural sciences. A blink is similar, we don't intend for it to happen but then it happens and then we find out more about it.

A wink on the other hand is similar to the human sciences because human scientists set out to find out about something in the world in which they live. There is a purpose for indulging in human sciences from the very onset. Psychologists for instances don't just stumble upon the conclusions they make about their patients. They set out to discover those conclusions from the very start.

That is a very interesting question Mr. Kitching. I think the difference between a wink and a blink is that a wink is a gesture that is done to show a sign or an emotion which may have many connotations. Connotations such as telling someone that a deal has been done or simply thanking someone. Winking is normally done deliberately by people which varies depending on their behaviors. For instance a Casanova may wink fifteen times in a day because he wants to seduce many women while the average man may wink once or none at all in day. This shows how people's behaviors vary due to psychological hocus-pocus. Theirs minds tell them what to do though some biological happenings may occur.

Blinking on the other hand is impromptu. This is the biological aspect of this whole action. This very natural just like winking only that blinking is influenced through biological means while winking is through one's mind. Simply saying that winking is mostly deliberate while blinking is spontaneous.

So you say:

Blinking is involuntary; winking is voluntary
Blinking is spontaneous; winking is deliberate

All right. Now:

Imaginary Event: Nicole came into the TOK classroom and rapidly shut and opened her eye.

Description 1: Nicole blinked.
Description 2: Nicole winked.

Which description do you think gives us more reliable knowledge? Why?

Well it depends if it was one eye she rapidly shut or both eyes. If it was one eye she winked seeing as winking is done with just one eye and blinking with both.and so with one eye the most accurate description would be she winked.- Tembi

Fair point! But setting this aside (assume you were standing to one side of her), what would be your answer to my question?

Firstly, I agree with Abigail's comparison with blinking and natural science & winking and human science. But Is there a difference between something being called and "science" and something that "applies science"? If so, do you think that people may call or refer to anthropology as a science because it applies scientific methods? or probably anthropology as a whole is not a science but areas like forensic anthropology makes it a science.

TO answer Mr. Kitching's Question:
As stated earlier, blinking is an involuntary action and winking is a voluntary action, so one is able to control it. Assuming I was standing to one side of Nicole, my answer would depend on the how long her eyes were closed. If she was winking, it is most likely that her eyes will be closed longer as opposed to her blinking. Also, her facial expression will determine if she was winking or blinking. If Nicole was winking (which is intentional) it would immediately followed by a smile or a smirk or some "facial attitude."

OK Hikari - I see what you are doing - you are trying to see if we can take into account further observations/empirical evidence that might be available.

But my question is a little different. To clarify, I am asking - if you observed her from one side, entering the classroom - and you were given two options and only two, to answer as follows:

"Nicole blinked."
"Nicole winked."

... then which of these two answers, without doing any further investigation, would be more reliable knowledge? In another manner of speaking - which would be the "safer bet", and why?

Blinked, because we tend to do that more often and more naturally. But I dont see the link with the the sciences.

I really, like the connection Abigail made with the natural science. Really cool connection. Well, To Mr. Kitching'a question,it will really be difficult to say. But I will probably say blinking because as already mentioned it is an involuntary action which is done unconciously nd very often withoutpeople even noticing sometimes. You are probably blinking right now as you read this post!!! So it is possible to infer that
"Nicole blinked."
instead of
"Nicole winked."
(Yet, considering these thoughts, there will still be a doubt as to if He was really blinking or winking?)

OK, let me put some flesh on this.

A blink is a physiological event connected with something in the environment (dust, etc.) and is a reflex action. Reflexes are about stimulus and response, cause and effect:

Stimulus/cause: dust contacting the conjunctiva
Response/effect: eyelid closes and opens rapidly

A wink could be a response to any number of things - a greeting, a recognition of a shared secret, seeing someone you find attractive, etc. In order to be sure about the cause of the wink, we would need a wider scope of investigation - to include understanding the personal relationships between individuals, the current mental states of participants, etc. And then, of course, the wink may well have consequences - it is a form of communication that can could change how people feel about each other, may be interpreted as an invitation, an insult, etc.

A blink is a legitimate object of study in the natural sciences, but a wink is not.

But in the human sciences, there is an important question. Should human scientists try to investigate matters that involve mental states, intentions, feelings, motivations, etc., or is that too ambitious a task to address in a scientific manner? Can these sorts of things be investigated scientifically? Some people have said "no" - in order to remain truly scientific, we should confine ourselves to trying to relate behaviour to external events, effects to causes, responses to stimuli. Once we try to get inside other people's heads, we are merely speculating, and this is not science.

So what do you think is the legitimate subject matter of the human sciences - winks, or just blinks?

In response to the question about the girl, I think, undisputabley we can conclude that she winked. Why?
As Mr. Kitching said a blink is an automatic response to a stimulus in the natural environment, hence for one to conclude that a motion is a blink, we would need to identify a stimulus.
The scenario given, however, does not make mention of any stimulus whatsoever. This is not to say that there wasn't a stimulus. But if there is a stimulus, so long as it has not been made mention of we cannot conclude that she blinked. This leaves us to the alternative- a wink, which was defined as a voluntary (self-initiated) response to a stimulus. In the scenario given above, the girl appears to have "rapidly shut and opened her eyes" in response to no mentionable syllabus. Therefore by reasoning, she winked.

The legitimate subject matter of human sciences is WINKS.
Winks are voluntary responses to a 'human stimulus'. They fit the core of human sciences because of it's direct connection between the human aspect of this world.Why should human scientist elude the mind? In fact, todays learning taught us that PSYCHOLOGY (the study of the mind) is the central Human science. This is simply to say that all human behavior is affected(the extent can be variable)by the mind.

I do agree with what Phoebe is saying. The scenario actually did not mention any stimulus. Like she said, we do not know if the stimulus was human or natural. However if i definitely had to make a choice, i would pick a wink. Meaning I have to be rational. If we take into consideration the location, which is a classroom, there is probably a concentration of human stimulus. The wink may probably be a response to an action by a friend (human stimulus) of the girl. This choice was made due to the fact that the only additional information was the setting. So i had to judiciously use it. However if the state of the classroom was mentioned, (eg. It was dusty) the possibility of it being a blink would be higher. This has to do more with reasoning. And YES i must support what Phoebe said about this being psychology, making it a human science.

Hi

Phoebe, I'm afraid I disagree with your 'indisputable' conclusion. Contrary to you I believe that a blink is in fact the safer bet. Think about it - how many times have you winked today? You must remember, it's a fairly deliberate act. Now, how many times did you wink today? No, I'll narrow it down for you - how many times since you started reading my post have you blinked? See, what I mean? Blinking is so involuntary and so frequent, it's practically as natural as breathing. Barring significant outer stimulus you need to blink at least just to keep your eyes moist. (Biology buffs please correct me if I'm wrong.) The frequency of blinking by far outweighs that of winking making it the safer bet - it's inevitable. And what about those of us that can't wink? Blink is definitely surer.

Doesn't thinking in terms of blinks alone render the field of psychology null and void?

There is a danger that we become too obsessed with the vignette about the blink and wink - don't take it too literally! It's a common problem - the more closely we examine a particular example, the more its peculiarities can distract us from the more general point that the example is supposed to illuminate...

It was intended as a striking illustration of a much more profound issue which concerns the scope of knowledge in the human sciences - please refer back to my previous post.

In a nuthell, science is supposed to provide a role for observation, empirical evidence, sense perception - but if we shift from talking about physical things thst are directly observable to mental things that are not, can we still do science?

To develop Rachel's question, should psychology be treated as just a branch of biology?

I agree with Rachel that the human Sciences can be referred to by blink and also side with Martey and Phoebe that it can be referred to as a wink.
To some extent the Human Sciences can be referred to as blink. this is because as defined, they are physiological events connected with something in the environment. this is widely observed in Archaeology where they study fossil in order to determine the age and practices. the fossils have a connection with the environment in that they aid in the Nitrogen cycle (Biology).
To a significantly large extent it can be described as a wink because it involves the study of human behavior of particular individuals. This is very evident in psychology where studies of the individuals is based on their response to various situations. for example when you meet a number of people on the road and each time you ask the location of some building far away. They will give answers based on what strikes them and this is what strikes them and can be used to talk about their behavior.

i simple agree with matey and phoebs because ...blinking is an involuntary action as we all agree and we do this every second of ourlives that we dont even think about.surely, if it was a blink we would hardly notice it. however, because it was a wink(which must have been triggered by an external stimulus)and since it is a voluntary activity which people hardly do on a normal bases, it stands out and thus, be noticed. isn't it true that we tend to notice odd things in our society than normal ones. would we have really noticed if it was a blink?

Nice point Mabel, yet allow me to be the controversial person my brother thought me to be and say that if indeed the analogy of the “blink” is fundamental to human sciences then we might as well throw human sciences into the dustbin and allow individuals to study it for recreational purposes only.

Human sciences strive to delve into the minds of people, to understand them better and draw conclusions about them, but is this really possible? Can human scientists claim that before they draw any one conclusion in their studies they have thoroughly examined the genuine mental state of every single being on the planet? Of course not!

The safer bet, in our scientific quest of knowledge comes from the blink, the natural sciences, which barring our biological limitations, give much more substantial information from which more probable generalizations can be made.

I completely agree with Abigail. we cant be studying winks. That would be a big waste of time and resources.

If a human science does not allow for links to be made between bilogical changes and their manifestations in the mind or in emotions (stimulus and response) then its study should be abolished. ( unless a person with enough resources really wants to know somehting about someone.) Lack of evidence of a response to a stimulus introduces too many variables that we have to base the whole study on "Ceteris Paribus." (No hatin' on econs).

But I believe that human scientists should focus on finding the links between blinks and winks instead of trying to find all the different reasons why people wink. It's too much time spent on finding out too little.