The Last Blog

Removing the word “science” in its entirety  from the anthropology long-range plan statement portrays the field in a different kind of light. Although there are some aspects that are like scientific it’s also a discipline that entails many scientific qualities. In regards to pseodoarchaeology people will be able to go about staking any claims they want in the name of Anthropology, even if there is no scientific evidence. People wanting to include pseudo archaeology as fact will have an easier time doing so because as it’s already a bunch of ideas that come about because of wild ideas and vivid imaginations. Before it was at least distinguishable from anthropology because the claims were scarce of hard evidence and real scientific methods. Anthropologists could always go against these pseudo ideas by challenging the fabric of the claims and debunking them with science, but with this new loss of the “science” weapon pseudo archaeologists can almost use that loss to prove their point by claiming that the whole field of anthropology is now lacking of science, so their ideas don’t need science to prove them either.  As the writer of the blog stated it isn’t the fact that they changed the beginning  of the long-range plan to understanding the humankind in all aspects, it’s the fact that afterwards it fails to include anthropology in any form of a scientific practice. This in itself takes away credibility from the field of anthropology and the important (and sometimes yes scientific) research that is being done in the field. Any of their findings is now in jeopardy of being compared to pseudo archaeology. Critics of pseudo archaeology now have to prove why the claims of pseudo archaeology differentiate from the claims of anthropology that is legit but not done in a scientific manner. Many critics of pseudo archaeology may become critics of anthropology because they see the similarity of how they both are (sometimes) missing science.