Reply to comment

I was quite intrigued by our class discussion on linear science versus loopy science.  From our class discussion, it seemed that our understanding of what science should be inched from the standard linear model (hypothesis → experiment → conclusion) to a loopy model (summary of observations → new observations → implications).  But what I find most interesting is that while the “hard” sciences may be increasingly looked at from the loopy science framework, it seems like the social sciences, like anthropology, are still trying to emulate the “hard” sciences by trying to fit into the linear science model.  
In class, we came to the conclusion that:
    
-empirical knowledge cannot be universal
-science is unable to establish truth
-there are an infinite amount of summaries for any given observation
-science cannot be completely objective, there is always some degree of subjectivity in science (the crack)

These are all tenets that the study of anthropology has adopted and thus early and modern anthropologists have naturally used the loopy science framework in their studies because it is the model that is most accommodating to their line of work.  Yet, the field of anthropology still feels the pressure to try to fit into the linear science model to help legitimize its work.  So what happens when the loopy science model does become the model that is presented to 1st graders in their science classes? Will anthropology realize that maybe they did have it right all along?