Chapter 1: Of Politics and Paradigms © 2014 Mark Moberg

The mission of contemporary anthropology is highly contested: is it a science that explains cultural practices, producing generalizations about human behavior, or a humanity that interprets culture in terms of symbols whose meaning may vary with the social position, identity, and class membership of the observer? The former we will call the “scientific” position; the latter we refer to as “postmodernist.” Foundations of science established in 1600s as empiricism: all truthful knowledge originates in observation; science is privileged over other ways of knowing. Empiricism assumes objectivity on the part of scientific observers; replicability in that different observers will arrive at similar conclusions; induction in that observations are made with no preconceived notions about a phenomenon; and progress, in that scientists build upon the findings of their predecessors. David Hume: induction is impossible in practice—there are far more aspects to any phenomenon than scientists are able to observe; objectivity is impossible as different observers often disagree about the nature and meaning of their data. Karl Popper acknowledged these criticisms, and addressed them via logical positivism, in which theory guides scientific observation and interpretation. © 2014 Mark Moberg

From a range of conflicting theories, how do we determine which is right? Popper likened science to natural selection, in which erroneous views are rejected (falsified) by contrary evidence, leaving one provisionally accepted as truthful as long as it remains unfalsified. Thomas Kuhn: do scientists actually reject their working theories on the basis of contrary evidence, as Popper claims? They more often interpret such evidence as compatible with their theory: at most this leads to its revision rather than outright refutation. All theories are derived from underlying paradigms; unstated “world views” that set the standards for scientific investigation. (Exp. Social evolution is a paradigm that has given rise to various theories of how societies change.) Kuhn revisits the question of objectivity in arguing that scientists adhere to paradigms as much for personal or political reasons as their desire to explain the world. They are reluctant to abandon their working theories even in the face of contrary evidence. Historical change in science is revolutionary, in that one paradigm overthrows a previous paradigm, rather than building upon it. © 2014 Mark Moberg