I know this has been cited as off topic, but:
David Brooks, author of the editorial, is an editor for the "Weekly
Standard," a paper founded by William Buckley, and usually an exponent
of Buckley's brand of patrician or condescending conservatism. The
point of this editorial is to co-opt Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. into
the service of a kind of national religion (along with Washington,
Lincoln, even FDR and JFK and so forth), as someone subject to this
because he is safely dead, and can no longer protest such (mis)uses of
his person, speeches or writings. As such, I don't think this is a
serious discussion of religion, or of the differences between religious
and secular viewpoints, or of anything else that really concerns
archaeology.
Except, of course, in the sense that any secular science, including
archaeology, is always available to be used in this manner. I sometimes
think that we open ourselves, our data and our discipline to this
possibility in direct proportion to our success in reaching the publics
who support us. We have general agreement that reaching the public is a
very desirable goal--any thoughts on the possible problems of achieving
that goal? Of inevitably losing control of information and
interpretation, once it is successfully popularized? Any experience in
trying to say: "Wait, wait, that's NOT what I said!"--?
D. Babson.
-----Original Message-----
From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
geoff carver
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 11:12 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: social sciences vs the bible?!
apologies for cross-posting, but...
one of the idiot editorialists at the NYTimes is writing about including
mention of "god" in the pledge of allegiance, but he makes comments
about "secular social sciences" which i thought need to be shared
"Whether you believe in God or not, the Bible and commentaries on the
Bible can be read as instructions about what human beings are like and
how they are likely to behave. Moreover, this biblical wisdom is deeper
and more accurate than the wisdom offered by the secular social
sciences, which often treat human beings as soulless utility-maximizers,
or as members of this or that demographic group or class.
"Whether the topic is welfare, education, the regulation of
biotechnology or even the war on terrorism, biblical wisdom may offer
something that secular thinking does not - not pat answers, but a way to
think about things."
the whole editorial is at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/23/opinion/23BROO.html?hp
is this just me, or is this surreal or what? am i mistaken, or don't
social sciences offer "a way to think about things"? but i like knowing
that we're obviously wasting our time (& lots of someone else's money),
since all we need to know about human behaviour is to be found in the
bible, and much more accurately than we've ever been able to attain with
our stats, theoretical modelling, etc. and the beauty is, he doesn't
have to offer any proof to his assertions! long live scholasticism!
geoff carver - SUNY buffalo
<mailto:[log in to unmask]> [log in to unmask]
http://www.thememoryhole.org/memoryblog/ <http://www.doyouknow.org/>
<http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/>
<http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/jpeg/PIA05380.jpg>
|
