Egads! new stuff....

Taking advantage of the full capabilities of Google Reader, it has become painfully clear that this blog can offer very little original content in the way of scientific discoveries, ideological controversy, or dazzling images that frequently decorate the portion of the blogosphere represented to the right of this post (sort of).

However, that's no reason to stop trying.

But certainly, in terms of format,

there may be some modifications.

Today, let's tackle a few bits of

controversy 

(pronounced with British syllabic emphasis, Attenborough style) 

from the "softer" science of anthropology/sociology. 

[yes, separate but overlapping fields]

Why those two fields? Well, a few of the topics deal with culture, so naturally, it falls into certain realms. What gives me the right to intrude into such academic territory? Not a damn thing, save curiosity and access to Google, but why limit discussions to ivory towers?

With that being said, 

i'll try to be mindful of 

the usual cliched bunk science 

that floats around far too often

Like "evolutionary psychology" theories that seem to
carry their merit in persuasiveness as opposed to empiricism:

Cue the following: "Evolutionary theory says”
Tsk, tsk Tim.
That should read "evolutionary theorists..."

Or, put in a slightly more serious tone

the work of  Jon Wilkins' webcomic character

Guillame (the adaptationist goat)

who has more explicitly pointed out problems with this approach.

A stupendous analysis of the fundamental controversy can be found both here and here

The second link, while admittedly more dense, is the most thorough elaboration I've yet come across.

Then, of course, 

we also have to be careful 

to avoid the faintest whiff of 

any scientific racism

(a hot and happening phenomena in the Victorian era).

The typical arguments (ran) run along the following lines

"We [observer group] note

a set of conspicuously absent features in

you [less "us-like” successful group]

and can only conclude that this absence

left you crippled in some critical way/and or elevates us to superiority”

Or, less abstractly and suitably scathingly:

"Well sir, we didn't notice the local tribe* performing any Shakespeare or Judeo-Christian rites, so naturally, we assumed they were only fit for plantation labor."

(It's a perversely well-rooted argument,

in that it crops up frequently

and resists attempts at eradication.)

Speaking of asterisks, this brings us to the next point.

While I'm vaguely familiarized with 

the idea of certain vocabulary 

in anthropology/etc being specifically defined

(think of words like tribe, group, etc),

satisfying the necessary pedanticism is counterproductive.

The goal is to start asking questions, not censor language prior to asking.

There is, of course, one important exception to 

this otherwise blatant disregard for academic nuances:

the idea of "race".

The views of the author, strictly for discussion purposes, are as follows:

"biological variation acknowledged, discontinuous cultural categories discarded".

With this absurdly long introduction out of the way,

the next posts can cut right into the thick of the ideas,

namely:

cultural relativism and diversity, ethics and paradoxes of globalization, 

and science-based rationalizations 

shoring up an ethnocentric condemnation 

of  certain Japanese gastronomical practices.

Join me next time,

in my endeavor to be a not-racist explorer

in these infinitely tricky questions.

Or...don't. 

It's your choice.