Монологи на английском языке с текстом и переводом. №61. Тема: Исследование антропологии.

You're probably all familiar with anthropology, although some of you may not have realized that it is considered both a social science, and a natural, or hard, science. Let's begin with a few definitions. We define anthropology as the careful and systematic study of humankind. Furthermore, it is considered a social science because it is systematic (which science is), and analyzes society (the social aspect).
1. Показать/скрыть перевод
It is also classified as a natural science because it investigates how humans act and have developed as biological organisms. Anthropology studies mankind and civilization. So anthropology is classified within both the school of humanities and the school of science. OK, so, anthropology and other hard sciences rely on hypotheses in their research. I think you all know what a hypothesis is, right? ... a tentative explanation about certain phenomena. For example, before we knew much about atoms, there were several hypotheses researchers had.
2. Показать/скрыть перевод
Different researchers tested their hypotheses to see if atoms followed the rules of their model. In this way, various hypotheses about atoms were either thrown out, or they became more widely accepted. Anthropology works the same way. Anthropologists make up theories and then make up ways to test those theories. So in this way, anthropology seems like a hard science. Does anybody know what a hypothesis becomes once it gains wide acceptance?
3. Показать/скрыть перевод
I hope most of you thought of the word "theory." Hypotheses that seem to work well through research become theories for a particular science. So that's another commonality between anthropology and hard sciences, both develop theories. Let's remember that the scientific approach is not without its difficulties. Both the "hard" science scholar and the anthropologist may have difficulties in being truly objective in their research.
4. Показать/скрыть перевод
As I mentioned before, both rely on hypotheses and theories, and these can both lead to bias. Since the anthropologist's hypotheses and theories generally center around specific cultures, he or she cannot help but be culture bound in the development of his or her hypotheses and theories. I've given you lots of information here, and I hope you are all still with me. I see a couple of confused looks. Let me see if I can make that last idea a bit more concrete.
5. Показать/скрыть перевод
Has everybody heard of the Mayans? Let's use them as an example. The Mayan civilization flourished between 250-900 AD. When modern Western scientists started studying Mayan ruins, they lacked objectivity. How so? One problem was understanding how such a well-developed, urban culture could develop without well-developed technology. By urban, I just mean that Mayans had something like cities. Anthropologists knew the Mayans used slash-and-burn agriculture.
6. Показать/скрыть перевод
They cut down and burned patches of forest to make land for crops. Other cultures using these methods today are not well developed, or at least not as developed as the Mayans. So researchers rejected the idea that Mayans could actually have had an urban-like civilization based on slash-and-burn farming techniques. Western ways of thinking blinded anthropologists to the possibility of how the Mayans could use slash-and-burn farming along with developing large urban centers.
7. Показать/скрыть перевод
Если вы заметили какие-либо ошибки на сайте или хотите что-либо посоветовать, поругать, похвалить пишите сюда: Вконтакте или
Rambler's Top100