Scientific Detachment and Anthropology

            Science is predicated on detachment. The scientist must remove himself from the equation in order to see facts and data as they are—in and of themselves. Science, like math, searches for indubitable certainty. Two plus two equals four.

            One of the greatest defects of modernity stems from Descartes’ attempt at a philosophical mathematics. Descartes told modernity—and like sheep we followed—that all fields of study could be known in the same way things are known in math or science. Hence we no longer study history; rather we study “social science.” We know longer study politics; rather “political science.” We now teach courses on the “science of religion.” This is a strange phenomenon indeed.

            “For the study of primitive race and religion stand apart in one important respect from all, or nearly all, the ordinary scientific studies. A man can understand astronomy only by being an astronomer; he can understand entomology only by being an entomologist; but he can understand a great deal about anthropology merely by being a man. He is himself the animal which he studies.” (GKC)

            The detachment that is necessary and helpful in the “hard” sciences can be a great detriment to the so called “soft” sciences. It is as if the anthropologist believes he must detach himself from humanity, or make himself inhuman in order to understand humanity. The saddest part of all is that we tend to believe what the anthropologists say.

            For example:

                        “The natives of MumboJumbo Land believe that the dead man can eat, and will require food upon his journey to the other world. This is attested by the fact that they put food in the grave.” (GKC)

            For the anthropologist, having detached himself from his humanity, this makes great sense. To the lay person, the ones who are still acquainted with what it is like to be a human this comes across as madness.

            This is similar to saying:

                        “The 21^st century Americans believed that a dead man could smell. This is attested by the fact that they always covered his grave with lilies, violets, or other flowers.”

            Now it might be the case that ancient men believed the dead could eat, but that is no more a fact than stating that we believe the dead can smell. Mankind does certain things because it is natural for them to do so. It is hard to explain the emotion that brings us to the conclusion that it is natural, but that does not mean it is not so. Most human emotions are irrational and hence can not be explained in scientific terminology.

            Kant showed us that we are restricted to the world of phenomena—we can not get to the noumena or the thing in itself because when we encounter reality it must always be filtered through categories (time, space, the human mind). We take this is a fact, yet we fail to apply its principles to field of anthropology. As soon as matter is perceived and passed through the human mind it is forever irreparably altered. It is spoiled. It is changed and now lacks a sort of objectivity and detachment which is needed for it to be studied as purely scientific data.

            Human emotions, many times being irrational by nature, can not be rationally or scientifically quantified. Maybe those in MumboJumbo land put food in the grave because food is one of the great joys of life. Maybe they did it to attract animals to the bodies in order that the souls of the deceased may live on in another creature. But maybe they did it because it just felt like the proper thing to do. It was natural—and what is natural to man is not the business of science.