What makes cultural anthropology a science?

[Kelp]

Physical anthropology seems to essentially be a form of biology, but what about cultural anthropology?

And for that matter, what makes it "better" than sociology (since that seems to be the source of a source of a lot of "machismo" on the anthropology side )?

Just wondering.

[shunyadragon]

Physical anthropology seems to essentially be a form of biology, but what about cultural anthropology?

And for that matter, what makes it "better" than sociology (since that seems to be the source of a source of a lot of "machismo" on the anthropology side )?

Just wondering.

Anthropology is one of my sub fields of school, and almost my major, but I went to environmental geology and soil science. In the field I did work with archeologists from the Core of Engineers for geologic and soils assessments of archeological sites in Appalachia.

Anthropology as a field is roughly divided into four disciplines: (1) Physical Anthropology (2) Archeology (3) Cultural and social anthropology (4) Linguistic Anthropology.

The differences with sociology are not clear, but usually sociology deals with the present or near present and recent trends, and cultural anthropology deals with the past and changes over time, based on its companion archeology and to some extent history.

The problems with all the fields of anthropology and sociology are the interpretations of the available data, which unfortunately varies greatly, but I believe over time things will sort themselves out.

[Kelp]

Thanks

[shunyadragon]

Thanks

I thought I might add a note that may confuse or clarify some of this. I n some universities Sociology and Cultural or Social Anthropology are sort of under one roof. I agree with this because there is not a clear difference.

[Kelp]

Makes sense, yeah. I was just wondering why they get called sciences. It doesn't seem like they have the features, like rigor, that are present in the hard sciences. The same reason that some scientists argue that psychology is not a science either.

Of course my knowledge of the hard sciences in that regard is admittedly limited too...

[shunyadragon]

Makes sense, yeah. I was just wondering why they get called sciences. It doesn't seem like they have the features, like rigor, that are present in the hard sciences. The same reason that some scientists argue that psychology is not a science either.

Of course my knowledge of the hard sciences in that regard is admittedly limited too...

There is a difference, these are often considered applied sciences. Knowledge is accumulated by objective means such as searching for and documenting primitive languages, and cultures. It is usually the interpretation of the results that has problems, like those made by Margaret Meade.

I believe the self-correcting nature of science still sorts out the chaff in anthropology, but The subjective aspects of many of the interpretation makes in a more difficult process. Religious and cultural bias has taken its toll too.

I think a good example is my studies in the jade culture of China. My personal specialty in anthropology that has aspects of linguistic, cultural and archeology. The academics of this area of study has been very poor and riddled with misinformation, and the interdisciplinary coordination was never there. The problem is in part the failure of good solid rock and mineral identification in the past.