Reply to comment

Seeing that I am majoring in the humanities it is probably not that hard to believe that I am not a big fan of the natural sciences. I often find that my thought processes are limited when it comes to reading scientific information. When presented with raw scientific data I don’t usually find myself having to deliberate or question the material I have been given. On most occasions I am presented with concrete information that contains a precise solution with no room for debate. With that said one can only imagine the relief I felt when we were given the task of reading Ortner’s articles. As a reader I am now free to have a discussion (not verbally of course but in my head) with the author of the text I am reading. Like most arguments that stem from a social science perspective I find that I can actively question the concepts that are brought forth in the text. All in all, despite my clear bias for the social sciences I do very much appreciate the substantial contributions that scientists have made. While I enjoy the process of critiquing I must say that it is nice to have scientific proof to support or even at times refute my arguments. As a philosophy student I find myself getting frustrated with the back-and-forth nature of philosophical arguments. Rarely do I find myself in an enlightened state in which I am presented with a clear-cut solution to a problem. I see the same thing happening with the social sciences. Going back to my experience as a reader I find myself overwhelmed with the task of mentally digesting most material written by social scientists. Often I have to remove myself from the text and only from there can I begin to dissect the arguments that have been thrown at me. Well, I guess that is the life of a student!