|
Derek, once upon a time I had an interest in anthropology myself, and as you may know, Kant thought that Ethics was the precursor to a philosophical anthropology, and relished tales of primitive peoples in far away places...however, I finally realized that I did not expect to learn anything important from anthropology, and I lost interest. Not too long after, various scandals began to surface, of the fakery with the supposed pristine Philippine aborigines, of the dubiety of Margaret Meads research, and whatever residual interest I may have had was pretty much extinguished. But I never cared much for archeology, and the discussion of the origins of the Amerindians is a good case in point. The data is so fragmentary, and the prospect of resolution so bleak, that it is hard to care...And it is hard to know what we would gain by the resolution, except the satisfaction of raw curiosity. If science is more about laws and processes than about brute facts, it is arguable that little of importance is at stake in the determination. In any case, I thought that I would make the observations. I have no objection to people entertaining themselves with such things, it is harmless, and better for you than getting stoned, but it is a mistake to take it seriously.... |
