As promised, info on your bonus blog. Throughout the semester, we’ve talked quite a bit about science (the nature of science, the scientific method, etc.) – especially scientific inquiry within the field of archaeology and the lack thereof (and manipulation thereof) in pseudoarchaeology.
In this context, I want you to think about something which hit the anthropology world like a sledge hammer upside the head last month. During the annual meeting of the American Anthropological Association (which took place this last November), the AAA executive committee made significant changes to its long-range plan statement. In short, they voted to remove “science” as the primary qualifier for the field of anthropology (all four sub fields). As one would expect, this kicked up quite a firestorm within the discipline – as well as in the broader arena of academia. Since then, scientifically oriented anthropologists (mostly archaeologists and physical/biological anthropologists) have been voicing their extreme displeasure and frustration all over the web and social media platforms (just do a search for the hashtag #aaafail on Twitter and you’ll see what I mean). Many have argued that this move has dire consequences for the very nature of anthropology (as a unified discipline).
For more details (and you’ll need to read through the whole thing go get a good idea of what happened, the implications, and how people reacted), check out this link:
Here is the question for you guys – and the topic of your bonus blog (and its going to take some thoughtfulness). Does this move by the AAA have implications for those (in the discipline and outside of the discipline) who are interested in exploring and challenging pseudoarchaeology?
The bonus blog should be the regular length. The post itself is due next Tuesday (the 14th) before midnight. The response (which should be the regular length) is due by Friday the 17th (before midnight).