User:Frenchman2/sandbox

History within anthropology
'''Different orientations and methods in the history of anthropology. '''

Anthropology, since its early ages, had the aim to be a discipline that studied humankind as a whole. However a duality between the social and life sciences can be observed throughout the history of anthropology. Indeed the Bartholins who were the first scholars to define it, described it in 1567 as a science which studies the humankind as a whole but separates the body (studied in Anatomy) from the soul (studied in Psychology).

Throughout history, a curiosity of discovering new peoples and civilizations existed. The literature of new discoveries, especially in the 15th and 16th century shows that humans have developed an interest in the study of other social groups. This could be associated as an early form of social anthropology.

The first anthropologists used to study human fist via an evolutionist approach; as many in most fields viewed progress as the aim of society. During the 19th century, this vision was of course reinforced by Darwin’s theory of evolution.

At the same time the second branch of anthropology developed itself, starting earlier in Germany and in parallel with sociology. New approaches were explored, with the aim of distinguishing themselves from the natural sciences; showing how the uniqueness of humankind could be studied.

The establishment of the Société d’Anthropologie de Paris in 1859 by the French physician and anatomist Paul Broca could be considered as the beginning of anthropology as a discipline. It could indeed be the first time that the study of anthropology included all of its branches. Since then, some could say that anthropology has continued to develop to be a more inclusive discipline as most university nowadays offer to study its different fields together. Today, as Franz Boas observes it, the main focus of anthropologist seems to be the mental and physical health of human beings.

Evidence within biology
Different methods in the two branches of biology.

Two branches can be seen in biology. The theoretical one and the experimental one. Thus, different methods exists to prove evidence in this field.

Theoretical biology is said to be very quantitative. The method of model building very useful in biology implies many quantitative approaches. Evidence is here found through logic.

Oppositely, in experimental biology, Marcel Weber argues that strong evidence is provided because a very large diversity of approaches are presented. This type of evidence can be seen as qualitative.

Link between the quantitative and the qualitative evidence that biology provides.

Stephen H. Jenkins argues that evidence can be seen both in comparative studies as well as in experiments. Both need observation. Therefore, one can argue that here, at least, evidence is based on observation.

For instance, a comparative studies shows that there is a high risk of toxicity for aquatic species for a high environmental concentrations of a specific chemical compound (bisphenol-A) can be harmful for aquatic communities. Here, repetitive observation brings evidence.

But furthermore, Jenkins says that observation implies data. The accumulation of empirical observation can form a data. Therefore the method of analysis here shifts from a qualitative one to a quantitative one. In this point of view, we could conclude saying that in biology, both methods are needed but one should be used before the other.

'''Biological and scientific evidence in public context. '''

Evidence in biology and more largely in science can be see at a different scale. Here, Jenkins talks about how scientific research is spread in the media and how it is difficult for the general public to find evidence in this unorganized spread of facts. He argues that even if all methods and assumptions used in a research project are not shared by the media, the general public can still find ways to try to question and interpret these research methods.

Truth in Politics
Politics could be defined as « the activities of the government, members of law-making organizations, or people who try to influence the way a country is governed ».

Politics epistemology seems to be social constructionism. Truth in politics can be sought through quantitative and qualitative methods: to construct data (from interviews for instance) or to understand social behaviors (from focus groups for instance).

A telephone survey of voters during the 2012 US presidential campaign has shown how partisanship information enhances self-efficacy theory. Random North Carolina voters were asked several questions about how they have been and are informed about the election. It shown that most of them sought for partisan information online; rather than simply reading or watching mainstream media. This confirms Albert Bandura’s self-efficacy theory. Following this argument, one can argue that individuals have the ability to find truth in politics on their own.

However, one might argue the opposite. Given the amount of fake news shared during a US presidential election, some say that people don’t behave in a way that enhances truth. A psychological study done by the Pro-Truth Pledge has tried to interfere in this process by giving 12 types of behaviors to signees of the research to adopt. After this, they were much more inclined than before for a seeking of truth. The study included random citizens as well as public figures. Therefore, truth isn't empirical. There are certain behaviours to adopt to find it.

These studies show how truth can be found in different ways; through qualitative as well as quantitative methods which are both related to the constructivist epistemology.

Finally, there is a strong debate on wether truth should be dissociated or not from politics. For Theresa Man Ling Lee, truth is today what is fought in wars. She takes the example of the Cold War which was in her opinion a dual between Marxism and Liberalism. But the issue here is that on both political sides the center of power retains the center of truth. Theresa Man Ling Lee puts forward Czech statesman Vaclav Havel argument that in politics the center of power cannot be the center of truth. Instead of deciding between Marxism or Liberalism, Theresa Man Ling Lee proposes the theory of post-modernism which enhances to have truth in politics as considered as subjective or contextual; not as centered and irremovable.

Power in Mathematics
Power as direct coercion in mathematics

For John Conway, there is a form of power offered to anyone in mathematics. He argues that ideas in mathematics are simple and that anyone could have discovered them. It is simply a matter of hazard. John Conway argues that these simple ideas can be used anywhere, in any other matter. This is a way in which anyone can handle power in mathematics. By giving freedom of thoughts to their rational mind, human beings can look for ways in which we can use mathematics in life. Here, we can refer to power as direct coercion, in the way that many forms of power can be used by anyone in any matter.

Power as strategy in mathematics

Mathematics holds a power in its structure of classification and characterization. Children have the ability to use this power in many ways. But usually it is the teachers who give them the structures when they could create their own. John Mason argues that we should give more emphasize to students to create these structures of classification and characterization as they have the capabilities to do so. There is indeed a considerable amount of ways of doing so. By doing so, learners will find their own way of doing and appreciating mathematics. This is another way in which anyone can handle power in his studies of mathematics. It can be referred to as an example of power as strategy. The ways in which we use classification and characterization can restrain our power of perspectives in mathematics.