Anthropology from the problem of demarcation: Mario Bunge’s work
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15381/tesis.v15i21.23486Keywords:
Mario Bunge, anthropology, problem of demarcation, philosophy of social sciences, epistemologyAbstract
The problem of demarcation consists in formulating the criteria that distinguish scientific from non-scientific knowledge. Although this problem integrates multiple disciplines, the social sciences are the least discussed —among them, anthropology. However, the works of Mario Bunge are an exception. Although most of his work covers the physical and natural sciences, Bunge devoted multiple texts to the social sciences. In relation to anthropology, Bunge proposed a definition that highlights its main epistemological and methodological features, recognizing it as a “basic science”. This allowed him to develop the demarcation problem by filling his void with respect to anthropology. Analyzing the literature on both domains, this paper synthesizes the Bungean work on anthropology according to the problem of demarcation in order to build bridges between two fields of knowledge that deserve more exchange than they have had.
References
American Anthropological Association (2019). What is anthropology? https://www.americananthro.org/AdvanceYourCareer/Content.aspx?ItemNumber=2150
Ayer, A. (1959). Editor’s introduction, en A. Ayer (ed.) Logical positivism (pp. 3-28). USA: Free Press.
Begun, D. (Ed.). (2013). A companion to paleoanthropology. UK: Blackwell.
Benedict, R. (1959). Patterns of culture. USA: Houghton Mifflin.
Bernard, H. (2011). Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. UK: AltaMira Press.
Boas, F. (1911). The mind of primitive man. USA: Macmillan Company.
Boudry, M. (2022). Diagnosing pseudoscience – by getting rid of the demarcation problem. Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 53, 83-101.
Bunge, M. (1982). Demarcating science from pseudoscience. Fundamenta Scientiae, 3, 369-388.
Bunge, M. (1983a). Treatise on basic philosophy, Volume 5. Epistemology & methodology I: Exploring the world. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Bunge, M. (1983b). Treatise on basic philosophy, Volume 6. Epistemology & methodology II: Understanding the world. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Bunge, M. (1984). What is pseudoscience? Skeptical Inquirer, 9, 36-46.
Bunge, M. (1985a). Treatise on basic philosophy, Volume 7. Epistemology & Methodology III: Philosophy of science and technology, Part II Life science, social science and technology. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Bunge, M. (1985b). Seudociencia e ideología. Madrid: Alianza Editorial.
Bunge, M. (1991). What is science? Does it matter to distinguish it from pseudoscience? A reply to my commentators. New Ideas in Psychology, 9(2), 245-283.
Bunge, M. (1993). Sociología de la ciencia. Buenos Aires: Siglo XXI Editores.
Bunge, M. (1995). Sistemas sociales y filosofía. Buenos Aires: Editorial Sudamericana.
Bunge, M. (1996). Finding philosophy in social science. US: Yale University Press.
Bunge, M. (1999). Las ciencias sociales en discusión. Buenos Aires: Editorial Sudamer¬icana.
Bunge, M. (2000). La relación entre la sociología y la filosofía. Madrid: Editorial EDAF.
Carnap, R. (1959). The elimination of metaphysics through logical analysis of language, en A. Ayer (ed.), Logical positivism (pp. 60-81). USA: Free Press.
Carnap, R. (2005). The logical structure of the world and pseudoproblems in philosophy. USA: Open Court.
Currie, G., & Musgrave, A. (1985). (Eds.). Popper and the human sciences. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Derksen, A. (1993). The seven sins of pseudo-science. Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 24(1), 17-42.
Dutch, S. (1982). Notes on the nature of fringe science. Journal of Geological Education, 30, 6-13.
Ellen, R. (2010). Theories in anthropology and ‘anthropological theory’. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 16(2), 387-404.
Elster, J. (2013). La crisis de las ciencias sociales. Revista Argentina de Teoría Jurídica, 14, 1-20.
Fasce, A. (2017). What do we mean when we speak of pseudoscience? The development of a demarcation criterion based on the analysis of twenty-one previous attempts. Disputatio, 6(7), 459-488.
Fasce, A. (2018). El problema de la demarcación ciencia/pseudociencia desde una perspectiva cognitiva [tesis doctoral]. España: Universidad de Salamanca.
Fasce, A., & Picó, A. (2018). Conceptual foundations and validation of the pseudoscientific belief scale. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 33(4), 617-628.
Fearn, H. (2008). The great divide. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/features/the-great-divide/404341.article
Fernandez-Beanato, D. (2020). The multicriterial approach to the problem of demarcation. Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 51, 375-390.
Feyerabend, P. (1976). On the critique of scientific reason, en C. Howson (ed.), Method and appraisal in the physical sciences (pp. 309-339). NY: Cambridge University Press.
Feyerabend, P. (1996). Against method. NY: Verso.
Frederick, D. (2013). Popper, rationality and the possibility of social science. Theoria, 76, 61-75.
García, J. (1996). El legado de Karl R. Popper al realismo crítico en ciencias sociales. Ciencias Sociales, 72, 45-61.
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. USA: Basic Books.
Gingrich, A. (2015). Comparative method in anthropology, en J. Wright (ed.), Interna¬tional encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences, Vol. IV (pp. 411-414). UK: Elsevier.
Glymour, C., & Stalker, D. (1990). Winning through pseudoscience, en P. Grimm (ed.), Philosophy of science and the occult (pp. 92-103). Albany: State University of New York.
Gorton, W. (2006). Karl Popper and the social sciences. NY: State University of New York Press.
Grove, J. (1985). Rationality at risk: Science against pseudoscience. Minerva, 23, 216-240.
Hahn, H., Neurath, O., & Carnap, R. (1973). The scientific conception of the world: The Vienna circle, en M. Neurath y R. Cohen (Eds.), Otto Neurath: Empiricism and sociology. (pp. 299-318). Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
Hansson, S. (2013). Defining pseudoscience and science, en M. Pigliucci & M. Boudry (eds.), Philosophy of pseudoscience: Reconsidering the demarcation problem (pp. 61-77). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hansson, S. (2021). Science and pseudo-science, en E. Zalta (ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-science/
Harada, E. (2004). Karl Popper y el problema de la objetividad de las ciencias sociales. Magister, 120, 5-12.
Harris, M. (1987). Cultural anthropology. NY: Harper & Row.
Hendry, J. (1999). An introduction to social anthropology. NY: Palgrave.
Henrich, J., Heine, S., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behav-ioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2-3), 61-83.
Herskovits, M. (1948). Man and his works: The science of cultural anthropology. NY: Alfred A. Knopf.
Jarvie, I. (2016). Popper’s philosophy and the methodology of social science, en J. Shearmur & G. Stokes (Eds.), The Cambridge companion to Popper (pp. 284-317). NY: Cambridge University Press.
Kitcher, P. (1982). Abusing science: The case against creationism. USA: MIT Press.
Kottak, C. (2015). Cultural anthropology. NY: McGraw-Hill Education.
Kroeber, A. (1963). Anthropology. USA: Harbinger Books.
Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. USA: University of Chicago Press.
Kuper, A., & Marks, J. (2010). Anthropologists unite! Nature, 470, 166-168.
Lack, C., & Rousseau, J. (2016). Critical thinking, science, and pseudoscience: Why we can’t trust our brains. NY: Springer.
Lakatos, I. (1987). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes, en I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge (pp. 91-196). NY: Cambridge University Press.
Larsen, C. (Ed.). (2010). A companion to biological anthropology. UK: Blackwell.
Laudan L. (1983). The demise of the demarcation problem, en R. Cohen & L. Laudan (eds.), Physics, philosophy and psychoanalysis: Essays in Honor of Adolf Grünbaum (pp. 111-127). Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
Lehman, S. (2010). Introduction to evolutionary anthropology. Toronto: Pearson Cana¬da.
Lende, D., & Downey, G. (Eds.). (2012). The encultured brain: An introduction to neu-roanthropology. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Lilienfeld, S., Lynn, S., & Lohr, J. (Eds.). (2015). Science and pseudoscience in clinical psychology. NY: Guilford Press.
Linton, R. (1936). The study of man. USA: Appleton-Century.
Little, D. (2016). New directions in the philosophy of social science. USA: Rowman & Littlefield.
Mahner, M. (2007). Demarcating science from non-science, en T. Kuipers (ed.), Handbook of the philosophy of science: General philosophy of science (pp. 515-575). UK: Elsevier.
Mahner, M. (2013). Science and pseudoscience: How to demarcate after the (alleged) demise of the demarcation problem, en M. Pigliucci & M. Boudry (eds.), Philosophy of pseudoscience: Reconsidering the demarcation problem (pp. 29-43). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Malinowski, B. (1922). Argonauts of the Western Pacific. London: Routledge.
Malinowski, B. (1944). A scientific theory of culture and other essays. USA: University of North Carolina Press.
McIntyre, L., & Rosenberg, A. (Eds.). (2017). The Routledge companion to philosophy of social science. NY: Routledge.
Miller, B. (2017). Cultural anthropology. USA: Pearson.
Morales, S. (2021). 7 mitos epistemológicos de la antropología. Revista Epistemología, Psicología y Ciencias Sociales, 4, 89-103.
Nanda, S., & Warms, R. (2012). Culture counts: A concise introduction to cultural anthro-pology. USA: Cengage Learning.
Neurath, O. (1959). Sociology and physicalism, en A. Ayer (ed.) Logical positivism (pp. 282-317). USA: Free Press.
Neurath, O. (1970). Foundations of the social sciences, en O. Neurath, R. Carnap & C. Morris (eds.), Foundations of the unity of science: Toward an international encyclopedia of unified science (pp. 1-51). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Neurath, O. (1973). Empirical sociology, en M. Neurath & R. Cohen (Eds.), Otto Neurath: Empiricism and sociology. (pp. 319-421). Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
O’Meara, T. (1989). Anthropology as empirical science. American Anthropologist, 91(2), 354-369.
O’Rourke, D. (Ed.). (2019). A companion to anthropological genetics. UK: Blackwell.
Parvin, P. (2010). Karl Popper. NY: Continuum.
Peoples, J., & Bailey, G. (2012). Humanity: An introduction to cultural anthropology. USA: Cengage Learning.
Pigliucci, M., & Boudry, M. (Eds.). (2013). Philosophy of pseudoscience: Reconsidering the demarcation problem. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Popper, K. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. NY: Basic Books.
Popper, K. (1961). The poverty of historicism. USA: Harper & Row.
Popper, K. (1969). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. London: Routledge & Paul Kegan.
Popper, K. (1977). The logic of the social sciences, en T. Adorno, H. Albert, R. Dahrendorf, J. Habermas, H. Pilot & K. Popper, The positivist dispute in German sociology (pp. 87-104). London: Heinemann.
Radcliffe-Brown, A. (1951). The comparative method in social anthropology. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 81(1-2), 15-22.
Radcliffe-Brown, A. (1958). Method in social anthropology. USA: University of Chicago Press.
Radner, D., & Radner, M. (1982). Science and unreason. Belmont: Wadsworth.
Reynoso, C. (1995). El lado oscuro de la descripción densa. Revista de Antropología, 10(16), 17-43.
Romero, G. (2018). Scientific philosophy. Switzerland: Springer.
Rothbart, D. (1990). Demarcating genuine science from pseudoscience, en P. Grim (ed.), Philosophy of science and the occult (pp. 111-122). Albany: State University of New York Press.
Ruse, M. (1982). Creation-science is not science. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 7(40), 72-78.
Sánchez, J. (2014). Antropología. Madrid: Alianza Editorial.
Schick, T., & Vaughn, L. (2014). How to think about weird things: Critical thinking for a New Age. NY: McGraw-Hill.
Silva Santisteban, F. (2018). Antropología. Lima: Bibli¬oteca Universidad de Lima.
Simkin, C. (1993). Popper’s views on natural and social science. The Netherlands: Brill.
Stoneking, M. (2017). An introduction to molecular anthropology. New Jersey: Wiley.
Thagard, P. (1980). Resemblance, correlation and pseudo-science, en M. Hanen, M. Osler & R. Weyant (eds.), Science, pseudo-science and society (pp. 17-28). Ontario: W. Laurier University Press.
Thagard, P. (1993). Computational philosophy of science. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Thornton, S. (2018). Karl Popper, en E. Zalta (ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/
Torsello, D. (2015). Corruption as social exchange: The view from anthropology, en: P. Hardi, P. Heywood & D. Torsello (eds.), Debates of corruption and integrity: Perspectives from Europe and the US (pp. 159-183). UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Tuomela, R. (1985). Science, action and reality. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Tylor, E. (1871). Primitive culture. Volume I. London: John Murray.
Uebel, T. (2007). Philosophy of social science in early logical empiricism: The case of radical physicalism, en A. Richardson & T. Uebel (eds.), The Cambridge companion to logical empiricism (pp. 250-277). NY: Cambridge University Press.
Wade, N. (2010). Anthropology a science? Statement deepens a rift. https://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/10/science/10anthropology.html
White, L. (1949). The science of culture: A study of man and civilization. NY: Grove Press.
Wood, P. (2010). Anthropology association rejecting science? https://www.chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/anthropology-association-reject¬ing-science/27936
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Sergio Morales Inga
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
THE AUTHORS RETAIN THEIR RIGHTS:
(a) The authors retain their trademark and patent rights, and also on any process or procedure described in the article.
(b) The authors retain the right to share, copy, distribute, execute and publicly communicate the article published in Tesis (Lima) (in example, depositing the article in an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with recognition of its initial publication in the Tesis (Lima).
(c) The authors retain the right to make a later publication of their work, to use the article or any part of it (for example: a compilation of their works, notes for conferences, thesis, or for a book), provided that they indicate the source of publication (authors of the work, magazine, volume, number and date).
