|
Post by topdog on Jun 3, 2005 13:05:35 GMT -5
Social sciences are a crock and not sciences. Anthropology is not a science and neither is race classification. Coon's ideas are no better or worse than the guff that is coming from those geneticists analysing Y chromosome or mtDNA haplogroups. You mark my words, the interpretations of those haplogroup results will be considered ridiculous and pseudoscientific just as Coon's ideas about Neanderthal admixture. The observed results of racial variation and the genetic results are valid, the interpretations of those same are ludicrous. There is no way that some of those things can be proven. The origin of the Dinarid type cannot be proven to be a mix of other caucasoid types. And where is the proof that the Corded ware people or the Danubian people were the precursors of the Nordid type? What is true is that there are Nordids, Mediterranids, Alpinids, Dinarids, UP types and mixed types but their origins are not simply due to Neolithics or Palaeolithics or recent blowins from West Asia or old bones of defunct people. No-one can prove the origins of those people. I know mtDNA and Y chromosome haplogroups have been used to try to do that, but frankly those that indicate that their results are proof of their hypotheses are skating on very thin ice. How can you say genetics is a crock and anthropology and race classification are not a science yet you are sure that Nordids, Dinarics, Up, Alpinids and Mediterranids exist? When you don't agree with something and I'm talking about *YOU* denial that anthropology is a science is what you resort to like another poster named Graeme Am I not right?
|
|
|
Post by Ponto Hardbottle on Jun 4, 2005 10:00:43 GMT -5
Charlie, higher studies have been divided into the sciences and the humanities since the start of the higher education system - a bloody long time ago. Long before my ancestors left NW Italy after the Catholic pogroms on my people, to live in Switzerland among the French Puritans. Archaeology, anthropology, linguistics, philosophy, theology are humanities and are usually part of an Arts degree. Sciences are physics, chemistry, biology, genetics, physiology and biochemistry. Those are studied specifically in Science degrees. I teach science to university standard, I take practical classes in science subjects. I can teach most sciences but I cannoy teach anthropology, I am not qualified in that field. You won't find anthropology as part of any reputable university Science faculty. It is always found in the Arts and Humanities faculty. That said, do not ever mention Graeme and my name again. I am my own person, do not know him and don't care about him. Got it. But since you don't like him, he must be one of God's chosen ones born with a soul. Genetics is not a crock, since I teach it regularly. The interpretation and conclusions made of genetic studies are crocks. Not one of those statements made in those discussions can be proven. No-one can prove R1a or I or R1b are from Palaeolithic caucasoid people. It is all assumptions based on finding certain frequencies in certain groups which have been assumed to be descended from Palaeolithic people. A self fulfilling prophesy. It is not proof. Anything stated by scientists that cannot be proven is a crock. Your belief that the bones of Badarians are of negroid people cannot be proven. Your Naqadans similarly cannot be proven to be negroid. Your Keita states many things if not everything he states, which cannot be proven. One thing about scientists is that they are sceptics. Reading something in a paper, like some successful fusion experiment, is not proof unless it can be done over and over again by many researchers using the same methods. Keita had no methodology that could be followed by anyone. He just had a bad mouth, an inferiority complex and an agenda. Race classification is not a science because it was mostly never formulated by scientists. The fact that there are differing classification systems proves it is not a science. Scientists usually standardise differing classifications as in the usage of SI units or the names of haplogroups. There is no standardisation in racial classication. As for Nordids, Mediterranids, Alpinids and so on, they are types of caucasoids found in many parts of Europe. Most caucasoids do not fall strictly into one or the other but are mixes of types. Anyone with eyeballs can see that. Similarly every West African negrid is not some clone of a type of West African negrid. What makes you think I accept the divisions within races as being anything more than loose and arbitrary. That said, I do accept that races exist despite thousands of years of indiscriminate lustful sex between them. The distinctions are still there. Coon's idea of pure Mediterranids in the Yemeni highlands or his Nordid types in NW Europe is just waffle. Statistics about height or hair color or eye color or skin tone are not waffle. His interpretations of those is waffle. All that stuff about Danubians and Corded Ware folks, just poppycock. The statistical data that is science. The waffle about Danubians that is anthropology, humanity drivel.
|
|
|
Post by Lycansupreme on Jun 6, 2005 11:00:47 GMT -5
Anthropology is one of those social sciences where bias, politics and personal opinions play a big hand in alot of theses. Coon was definitely a man of his time, and a forward thinking one at that...but still his theories are outdated and sometimes, plain racist. His observations on the European racial types, however, just proves that everyone should concentrate on his/her own race and subdivide it however he may deem fit. I actually envy his work on Europeans, the detail he goes into and the tons of sub-subdivisions he creates just shows how much he valued that bit of research. Similarly, to avoid bias and guarantee a level of scientific interest and "whats at stake here" African populations need an African anthropologist to observe the difference between different groups. I cannot see a European or in Coon's case a 20th century American anthropologist thinking its worth his time to go into concentrating on African racial sub-divisions. Very true, I'm find the so-called "research" on East and Southeast Asia to be shockingly bad in my oh-so humble opinion.
|
|