Apologies for the two previous blank messages. For some reason, when I converted text from HTML to plain, it disappeared after I hit "send." At least that's how it appeared on my screen after sending (and seeing the blank postings). Anyway, here's what I sent: ************** It seems like this topic has been made relevant to this list, or least I'm enjoying reading about it. Although I'm not an anthropologist, it's clear that a growing number of anthropologists are contributing to the body of research knowledge about the Internet. Moreover, scholars from a variety of fields (anthropology, sociology, psychology, communication) have been pushing the boundaries of ethnographic methods by studying Internet use. I'm guessing that anthropologists and ethnographers from other fields would have a lot of interest in this topic, given its implications for research about such things as the impact of the Internet on immigration patterns, the Internet's role in the maintenance of disaporic communities, how religious and ethnic identities are sustained through the uses of the Internet, and much more. As for the disagreement at hand, about whether anthropology is a "science," I'm skeptical that there is a compelling argument for why it is not, but it's an interesting topic for respectful disagreement in any case. The assertion that anthropology is "not a science" (whatever that means) probably doesn't sit well with many anthropologists who study Internet use, or with other Internet researchers who employ methods that originated in anthropology, as well as with others on the list who'd simply like to be enlightened as to what the standards are that are used to judge whether their research is scientific. Many philosophers of science characterize scientific theories as highly formalized arguments, and the purpose of scientific inquiry as efforts not to prove that such arguments are right, but rather to systematically demonstrate weaknesses and limitations in claims to the contrary. Based on that presumption of the purpose of science, I think it would be easy enough to show that such contributions are made by anthropologists all the time. As to the fact that the objects and conditions of analysis that anthropologists choose to study are often not replicable and may not lend themselves easily to the statistical measurement of regularities and explained variance, this does not disqualify anthropology as "science," unless we are prepared to say the same about the work of many astronomers, geologists and other natural scientists. Andrew Calabrese School of Journalism and Mass Communication University of Colorado http://spot.colorado.edu/~calabres/ -----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Barry Saunders Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 7:10 AM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-L] Religious Dimension of Sustainable Development indeed. i'm not quite sure how the original post relates to this list, for that matter. /nipped -- 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 Alexis Turner [subbies@redheadedstepchild.org] Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 12:05 AM To: AIR-L Subject: Re: [Air-L] Religious Dimension of Sustainable Development While no doubt a fascinating topic of conversation, I am not able to see that this directly relates to Internet research and would like to politely suggest we nip this conversation in the bud immediately. There are more appropriate forums. -Alexis