From: gil@tillage.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
Subject: Cultural bias in taxonomy
Distribution: world
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 93 03:13:08 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <C185ML.2MC@brunel.ac.uk> mt90dac@brunel.ac.uk writes:

 > The theoretical constructs of scientific endeavour are models subject to
 > criticism and development.  Who would have thought it.  Wait till I tell
 > the scientific world this!

I do wish someone would!

 > The point is a very old one, though.  Read Plato's 'Republic' for
 > The Parable of the Cave, a good description of the likely effects of
 > trying to change someone's ideas when those ideas have surrounded them
 > from birth.  This is about two and a half millenia old.

Yes, appears more like it. I wonder if you would care also to cite the
difference of opinion between Plato and his classmate Aristotle while
you are at it, or indeed their respective departures from their old
teacher Socrates.

Or maybe you can add Buddha, or Lao Tzu, to your list.

 > This is the problem though.  We are *all* cocooned in our biases.
 > Practically everyone today has the choice of several cultures to belong
 > to, and we tend to settle into one and go to sleep.  In theory, we should
 > keep ourselves honest by reminding each other that there is more than one
 > point of view.

We have been confronted with this odd idea at this end as well, yet
proposed within the very same context in which complaints about lack
of substantial debate have been made. Now isn't it so interesting that
the former is commonly held by those with tenure, and the latter made
by students?

Curiouser and curiouser!

 > Sadly, what tends to happen all too often is that we shake our heads and
 > and say 'poor fools, they actually believe...', smugly assuring ourselves
 > that we see things so much more clearly.

Oh, you forgot to mention the other problem of people with biases so
prone to shoving them at everyone else, then complain about denial of
rights when those others say, "What up, there is more to this than you
suggest. How about presenting your field data, and discussing it in a
little more depth?"

It's marvellous how frequently the word "irrelevant" is heard, even
among economists (or perhaps *especially* economists) making long-range
forecasts (or is that planning how much of the tax dollar is to be *re-
distributed* among us proles after all the tenured salaries have been
taken into account) when presented with data from the social sciences.

They literally say, frantically and with as much flustered annoyance as
they can muster, "Don't worry about THAT!"

 > On cultural bias in modern taxonomy, this is very old wisdom.  It has been 
 > discussed, to my knowledge, for decades.  With what would you replace it?  

Given the limited options you offer, my own bias of course!

 > BTW, I remember one interesting study was made of names for the flora 
 > and fauna of Papua New Guinea.  It turned out that there was very little 
 > inconsistency between the local and Linnaean classifications.  Can 
 > anyone recall the reference, please?

This was cited here recently too, and I would really like someone to
begin a substantial discussion on the results of this "research".

 > You can't. Scary, isn't it?  Think about that at your next anthropology
 > lecture.

No you can't; that's right. You have no brains at all, and are scared
and superstitious like the rest of us. When you grow up hopefully you
will realise that all we can do is reside in God's divine grace, that
your torment will cease and you will come to live in the house of the
Lord for ever and ever, amen.

 > Remember that science is a cultural activity.  It has to be, it's
 > performed by humans.  Read anything by Steven Jay Gould on this.  
 > 'The Mismeasure of Man' is a good place to start.

Maybe the following would be better, since you claim to be a second
year student;

        Hempel C.G.  1965
        Aspects of Scientific Explanation
        New York: The Free Press

        Kidder L.H. and Judd C.M.  1987
        Research Methods in Social Relations
        New York: CBS Publishing
also
        Lumsden J.  1974
        Elementary Statistical Method
        Crawley: UWA Press
        (or similar)

 > I certainly think we need to dwell upon the differences between 
 > similar cultures and species.  Ask yourself how the differences 
 > can be accounted for and you are well on the way to new insights.

"Dwell upon" appears unfortunate. Perhaps "Consider in a discipline
and consistent way" would be more appropriate.

 > >Where should one go to find culturally un-biased accounts?
 >  
 > No human has ever written a culturally unbiased account of anything.
 > That includes anthropologists.

Yet we try to join others in discussion, and by doing so explore and
compare the extent of our biases that a reasonable reliability and
validity to our work might be established.

Gil