Science and Anthropology: An Introduction

1
Science and AnthropologyAn Introduction
Lake Tahoe Community College Fall 2002
2
The Four Fields of Anth.
3
The Four Fields of Anth.
4

• The Scientific Method

Science is a cycle of asking questions, finding
patterns, generating hypotheses, making
predictions, and conducting experiments or making
observations to support or refute those
predictions (Michael Alan Park, Introducing
Anthropology, McGraw-Hill, 2003, p. 21)
Belief differs from science in that it is taken
on faith, cannot be disproved, relies on answers
that cannot be tested, provide stable bases for
our behaviors, offer explanations for what is
beyond or out there (existential questions).
5

• The Scientific Method

So, What Does That Mean?
Unfortunately, misunderstandings of science and
belief have led to many misconceptions
X
X
(1) Science is better than belief
(2) Belief is better than science
X
(3) Science is evil having produced harm in the
world.
X
(4) Belief is unbelievable
6

• The Scientific Method

Understanding the Scientific Method
A number of theorists in the History and
Philosophy of Science have suggested that we
consider the processual nature of the scientific
method
7

• The Scientific Approach

The film What Killed the Mega-Beasts provides an
introduction to the nature of scientific inquiry,
hypothesis-testing and research methods. As we
discovered, three competing theories seemed to be
plausible explanations as to the mammals demise.
Here is one conceptualization of the scientific
method
8
(No Transcript)
9
The scientific method is akin to a cycle which
involves a number of processes. The most basic
step involves asking the questions we wish to
answer or describing the observed facts we wish
to explain. We look for patterns, connections,
and associations, allowing for possible
explanations or hypotheses. We attempt to
formulate a general explanatory principle that
will account for the specific pieces of data we
have observed and we wish to explain (induction,
or moving from specific observations to general
explanations).
10

• X

Next, we attempt to either support or refute our
hypothesis by testing it. We can then suggest
that specific data would be found if a hypothesis
were true (deduction or moving from the general
to the specific). This leads to future
predictions of phenomena and new observations,
experiments and data. The process then repeats.
When this process allows us to generate an
integrated body of ideas forming a general
concept that coordinates, explains and interprets
a wide range of factual patterns in a given area,
we call this theory.
11

• Belief Systems
• Belief Systemsideas that are taken on faith and
  cannot be tested. Karl Popper suggested that
  science is an engagement in falsificationscientis
  ts never really prove their ideas, but they
  continually strive to prove that they are not
  wrong or cannot be refuted by another explanation.

12

• Questions
• What Kinds of Questions Do We Ask?
• The ontological questionwhat is the form and
  nature of reality and therefore what is there
  that can be known about it?
• The epistemological questionwhat is the nature
  of the relationship between the knower or
  would-be knower and what can be known?
• The methodological questionhow can the inquirer
  (would-be knower) go about finding out whatever
  he or she believes can be known?
• The everyday questionhow can I quickly find a
  beer?

13

• The Goals of Science/Its Community
• Science has three general goals
• (a) describe a phenomenon of interest
• (b) explain what causes it
• (c) predict what it causes
• falsification Karl Popper, things can never be
  proven, just refused or shown to be wrong

14

• scientific communitya collection of people and
  as set of norms, behaviors and attitudes that
  bind them together to sustain the scientific
  ethos
• norms of the scientific community (W. Lawrence
  Neumann, Social Research Methods, Cpt. 1)
• universalism
• organized skepticism
• communalism
• honesty

15

• Research
• Researcha way of going about finding answers to
  questions
• Alternatives to research (W. Lawrence Neumann,
  Social Research Methods, Cpt. 1)
• authority
• tradition
• common sense
• media myths
• personal experience

16

• Four errors we can make
• Overgeneralizationsome evidence and it is used
  to apply to all situations
• Selective Observationtake special notice of some
  people or events
• Premature Closurefeel that you dont need to
  listen because you have all of the answers
• Halo Effecthighly popular or prestigious people
  impact our understandings of the world

17

• Approaches
• Positivistic Approachesassume that there is one,
  ultimate essence or reality that can be known
• Interpretive Approachassumes that there are
  multiple truths and perspectives present in the
  world. Many can be understood or known, but no
  one takes precedent over others

18

• Research Process
• choose topic
• focus research question
• design study
• collect data
• analyze data
• interpret data
• inform others
• dataare the empirical evidence or information
  that one gathers carefully according to rules or
  procedures
• quantitative (expressed as numbers) or
• qualitative (expressed as words, pictures,
  objects, discourse)

19

• Research Methods (adapted from H. Russell
  Bernard)
• Variablesomething that can take more than one
  value values can be words or numbers
• Dimensions (of variables)
• unidimensional (height, weight, birth, order,
  age, marital status)relatively easy to measure
• multidimensional (stress, wealth, political
  orientation, wealth)more difficult to measure as
  you have to take more things into account
• Types of variables
• dichotomous variablesrace, gender (are complex
  yet appear to be simple)
• continuous variable (gradations)skin color

20

• conceptsmental creations (religious intensity,
  job dedication, etc.) all variables are concepts
• definitions
• conceptual definitions abstractions, articulated
  in words, that facilitate understanding
  (dictionary defs),
• operational definitions set of instructions on
  how to measure a variable that has been
  conceptually defined
• hypothesisproposed explanations for natural
  phenomena
• alternative hypothesis the monetary value of
  automobiles in the LTCC parking lot is greater
  than those at Raleys (trying to prove)
• null hypothesis the monetary value of
  automobiles in the LTCC parking lot is less than
  or equal to those at Raleys (opposite of what
  youre trying to prove)

21

• Measurement
• measurementdeciding which value to record
• measurement problemsIQ tests culturally-bound
  situations
• levels of measurement
• nominal variablesan exhaustive list of things,
  each of which is mutually exclusive (religion)
  it is qualitative (1 thing in one category)
• ordinal (rank) variablesalso exhaustive
  mutually exclusive, but the additional property
  of rank ordering (e.g. middle class,
  professorships) yet they do not tell you how
  much more, cant specify how far apart the
  attributes are from one another
• interval variablesabove properties but the
  distances between attributes is meaningful
  (weight, temperature)
• ratio variablesinterval variables with a zero
  point (age)

22

• validity
• instrument validityare the instruments for
  measurement valid?
• data validity are the findings and conclusions
  based on the data legitimate?
• finding validityare the explanations offered for
  the findings valid?
• Reliabilityrefers to whether or not you get the
  same answer by using an instrument to measure
  something more than once
• Precisionwhat level is desired? (i.e. bathroom
  scale)
• systematic biasif your scale were always off by
  5, you could then adjust to fix the bias)
• face validitylooking at the operational
  indicators of a concept and deciding whether or
  not, on the face of it, the indicators make sense
• criterion validitydata from an instrument that
  purportedly measures a construct are compared
  against some criterion that is already known or
  valid (i.e. a tape measure will tell you every
  time how to measure arm length, etc)
• The principle of parsimony (Ockhams razor)
  preference for simpler explanations in science
  (dont make things more complicated than they
  need to be)