|
Home
| |
[ BibArch Home ] [ Up ]
The scientific model has its own set of inherent weaknesses and
a set of postmodern critics. Scientists assume that the universe and reality
exist in the here and now and these can be known through application of the
scientific method. This limits science to the natural world and excludes matters
of religious faith. Jews and Christians argue that there exist other ways of
coming to know such as divine revelation.
Moreover, biases
and acquisitiveness influence the objective application of the scientific method since science and
scientists exist as part of the culture in which scientists work. Some of these
identifiable biases in scientific objectivity include:
-
Gender-based inferences about males and females arising
from an androcentric bias inherent in male-dominated archaeology (Conkey
1991, Conkey
and Williams 1993).
-
The distance to be bridged between evidence and
hypothesis warrants questioning since the assumption of cross-species
conformity and the adoption of animal modeling is highly questionable when
applied to early human beings (Longino and Doell
1983).
-
Self-fulfilled prophecy dealing with data and its
collection i.e., the relationship between the observer and the people to be
studied (Conkey
and Williams 1993).
-
Politically constituted nature of knowledge and its
historical embellishments (di Leonardo
1991).
-
The "content-stripping" attributes of the
scientific research paradigm lying in the assumption that general laws must
be "context independent, free of specific constraints of any particular
context and therefore applicable to all" although human action and
experience remain context-dependent (Mishler
1979:2).
-
Concealment, manipulation, and
falsification of research data to reach desired or preconceived conclusions
for personal ends (usually to achieve or maintain monetary support, donors
agendas, and
academic prestige), political change, and/or economic goals (such as the
redistribution of wealth from the prosperous to the impoverished as
evidenced in the global warming scam advanced by Marxists, socialists and
political progressives).
-
Other factors a researcher brings to the research
situation, i.e., intellectual and emotional baggage. Concerning a shift in
applied anthropology practice von Willigen writes "certain
anthropologists came to feel that social scientists cannot separate their
work from real-world values, and that to do so creates a dangerous illusion
of true objectivity" (von Willigen
1993:28).
While one would hope that such biases would have minimal impact
they are far more pervasive than scientists would like to admit. For a good
contemporary example read Funders, Politics and Bias by Hershel Shanks in the
Jan/Feb 2009 issue of the Biblical Archaeology Review 36.1.
Nevertheless, such biases do not exist at such a
level nor reach such a magnitude as to warrant the rejection of the scientific
method as some postmodernist thinkers seek. The scientific method has
shown itself to be the most effective means for coming to know when utilized by
ethical, objective, non-politicized scientists (i.e., they have no "ism"
underlying their work). Remember, science has nothing to prove and science is
not a weapon for political hacks to espouse their ideologies. When scientists
tinker with the data to reach their personal and social objectives they do not
practice science but rather fraudulent pseudoscience with all the class of mafia
dons.
|
Page last
edited:
12/19/09 11:30 PM |
|
