it's not sub-scientific. it's just not scientific. completely different approach. you can't get a scientific proof from an anthropological approach. -- Barry Saunders ---- http://investigativeblog.net http://gatewatching.org http://youdecide2007.org ---- PhD Candidate // researcher http://creativeindustries.qut.edu.au http://eprints.qut.edu.au/view/person/Saunders,_Barry.html ph: 07 3138 0155 skype: barry_saunders CRICOS No. 00213J ________________________________________ From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Christian Nelson [xianknelson@mac.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 8:21 PM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-L] Religious Dimension of Sustainable Development I hope you'll pardon me if observe that your response is kind of funny--it finds anthropology "sub-scientific," something that a lot of anthropologists would find quite disrespectful, though you've objected to the implication that you are "sub-human." On Jan 8, 2008, at 4:56 AM, Barry Saunders wrote:
indeed, but i'm interested in the scientific proof. Anthropological evidence doesn't really count as 'scientific proof'.
No disrespect to anthropology intended though - I'm curious as to how anyone could scientifically test the hypothesis - particularly how they judge what a fulfilled human is.
The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/