tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2971081717687612908.post2293728045501670349..comments2024-03-28T11:48:17.788-07:00Comments on Publishing Archaeology: Jonathan Marks tells archaeologists to "put down those beers"Michael E. Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03942595266312225661noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2971081717687612908.post-49481518175140838992012-02-25T11:23:51.191-07:002012-02-25T11:23:51.191-07:00@Anonymous - Thanks for the pointer to a very usef...@Anonymous - Thanks for the pointer to a very useful and insightful review of one of Marks' books. As that review suggests, Marks' work is "seductive, witty, annoying." The review hits the weak point of his approach - he is too relativistic. Whereas Marks criticizes many scientists for their overly political interpretations and context, he seems blind to the same criticism of his own work. The book review by Cartmill is very good at exploring this issue.<br /><br />Marks seems (in more recent writing) to not understand that his anti-science stance (that is, his stance against politicized, racist, science) leaves him open to the creationists, postmodernists, and others who attack science on a more fundamental level.<br /><br />But if you keep this caveat in mind, it is always great fun, and insightful, to read Jon Marks.Michael E. Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03942595266312225661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2971081717687612908.post-18156413080083290382012-02-25T09:59:37.460-07:002012-02-25T09:59:37.460-07:00More on Marks.... This is from Matt Cartmill's...More on Marks.... This is from Matt Cartmill's recent review of <i>Why I Am Not a Scientist: Anthropology<br />and Modern Knowledge.</i> By Jonathan<br />Marks (2009) Berkeley: University<br />of California Press. <i>Evolutionary Anthropology</i> 19:271–272 (2010)<br /><br /><br /><br /><i><br />In the final analysis, Marks is<br />unlikely to win over any practicing<br />scientists to his way of looking at science.<br />Some of the ideas he espouses<br />deserve a better and more convincing<br />exposition. If you want to confront a<br />truly devastating attack on the idea<br />that increasing human knowledge is<br />a good thing, go back and read Kurt<br />Vonnegut’s novel Cat’s Cradle. And if<br />you want to see a judicious and persuasive<br />account of how the study of<br />evolution is entangled with norms<br />and values, try the philosopher Mary<br />Midgley’s book Evolution as a Religion.<br />In that book, Midgley criticizes<br />cultural relativists in words that<br />could have been written with Marks<br />in mind:<br />The weakness of their work is its<br />spasmodic exaggeration. They tend<br />to talk sometimes as though the<br />facts did not exist, as though<br />spotting a motive behind a<br />particular line of theory settled the<br />question of its correctness, or<br />somehow prevented that question<br />from ever arising. The weakness of<br />this kind of extreme relativism has<br />been shown in many ways, notably<br />and most simply through the<br />question of whether such theories<br />in the sociology of knowledge are<br />themselves ordinary scientific<br />theories, or are somehow exempt<br />from their own scrutiny.3:31<br />I doubt that science and Jonathan<br />Marks are going to get back together<br />anytime soon. Even if science<br />becomes a reformed character and<br />gives up all the genuinely vicious<br />habits that this book documents,<br />that still won’t be good enough for<br />Marks. He isn’t going to make up<br />with science until we scientists agree<br />to worship in his church, swear fealty<br />to Cultural Relativism, and bring<br />up the kids in the faith. I don’t think<br />we’re ever going to do that, and I<br />don’t see any reason why we should.<br /></i>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com