Anthropology, Religion and Science

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

you gotta be kidding me.

stuff gets on national geographic cuz they're interesting.

And sometimes stuff gets on TV because you can slop through the science to make an interesting story for the viewing audience. Good science would not be interesting for the most part to a lay audience.

[woot]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

you gotta be kidding me.

stuff gets on national geographic cuz they're interesting.

Well I definitely do some ribbing, as it does certainly seem softer than biological, but compared with some of the psychology, sociology, and whatnot with which I'm familiar it doesn't really stand out as being soft. I'm supposed to take one cultural class but I'm procrastinating it. Maybe after I do I'll gain more respect.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by woot

Well I definitely do some ribbing, as it does certainly seem softer than biological, but compared with some of the psychology, sociology, and whatnot with which I'm familiar it doesn't really stand out as being soft.

In what industry does a biological anthropologist function? It sounds very esoteric and not too practical.

[woot]

Originally Posted by Archaea

In what industry does a biological anthropologist function? It sounds very esoteric and not too practical.

Uh... they can lecture in medical/dental schools on occasion, or specialize in forensics and work at a crime lab. They make good museum curators, I guess. Mostly it's not for making money. I'd wager that 90%+ of PhDs in the field just research/teach.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by woot

Uh... they can lecture in medical/dental schools on occasion, or specialize in forensics and work at a crime lab. They make good museum curators, I guess. Mostly it's not for making money. I'd wager that 90%+ of PhDs in the field just research/teach.

That's what's weird about much of the esoteric stuff, unless you work in a museum or at a university, not much real world application. It's often important to have people to research new techniques, as R&D is very expensive.

However, the liberal arts professors have the toughest time finding real world applications.

Psychologists, sociologists and the like can find useful applications.

[woot]

Originally Posted by Archaea

That's what's weird about much of the esoteric stuff, unless you work in a museum or at a university, not much real world application. It's often important to have people to research new techniques, as R&D is very expensive.

However, the liberal arts professors have the toughest time finding real world applications.

Psychologists, sociologists and the like can find useful applications.

It's true, and it's one of the more unfortunate aspects of it. Obviously I'm biased, but I think that science is where our best and brightest need to be, and often that's where they are, but many prefer to go into medicine, dentistry, business, law, some of the softer but more functional sciences, etc. as that's where the money is.

I gave up a very promising career in business, because I found that I was so bored doing it that I compensated by spending all my money on toys. Now I'm on the other end of the spectrum, where I love what I do, but wouldn't mind a few more toys. Luckily, my wife is continuing in the business so I might end up with the best of both worlds.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by woot

Luckily, my wife is continuing in the business so I might end up with the best of both worlds.

A kept man and a love slave?

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by woot

I haven't heard that at all. If anything there's jealousy that cultural anthopologists are constantly getting shows made on national geographic. Certainly there are harder and softer subdisciplines in every field, but cultural has some decently challenging stuff.

Anna Nichole Smith had a tv show too.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by woot

It's true, and it's one of the more unfortunate aspects of it. Obviously I'm biased, but I think that science is where our best and brightest need to be, and often that's where they are, but many prefer to go into medicine, dentistry, business, law, some of the softer but more functional sciences, etc. as that's where the money is.

I guess part of the question is whether people know what is good for them or not. There is money in those areas because the market place demands them. Then again, the market place also demands large quantities of high grade but reasonably priced weed.

This is why it is important for government to subsidize some of the science that the market won't recognize as valuable until it bears fruit much later. I have mixed feelings about whether we should subsidize arts and sciences that have no practical application.

Here is a poor example, but some times I think about Michael Quinn who probably knows as much as anyone about LDS History but can't get work because he is an apostate. On the one hand I think "what a waste of knowledge." On the other hand I think "learn to do something else and get a job."

I lean towards supporting these things with my tax dollars, but this necessarily means there is a lot I am supporting that I think has zero value, just so that a few things which I do think have value can also be supported.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I guess part of the question is whether people know what is good for them or not. There is money in those areas because the market place demands them. Then again, the market place also demands large quantities of high grade but reasonably priced weed.

This is why it is important for government to subsidize some of the science that the market won't recognize as valuable until it bears fruit much later. I have mixed feelings about whether we should subsidize arts and sciences that have no practical application.

Here is a poor example, but some times I think about Michael Quinn who probably knows as much as anyone about LDS History but can't get work because he is an apostate. On the one hand I think "what a waste of knowledge." On the other hand I think "learn to do something else and get a job."

I lean towards supporting these things with my tax dollars, but this necessarily means there is a lot I am supporting that I think has zero value, just so that a few things which I do think have value can also be supported.

It is a difficult balance to strike, supporting zero value elements in hopes that valued elements can slip through. I suppose the flip side of the argument is that valued elements will always find a way to be supported whereas the zero valued elements can pass away. There is no perfect answer, but with our high budget, perhaps we weed out nonessential, zero value elements for a while.