I wanted to follow up on this comment by Charlie, which, as I said yesterday, came at an odd moment--when I had posted an article that I think dealt with a serious subject. Perhaps because mart responded to it (also in a serious vein, I think) it reminded Charlie of less interesting repartee between mart, me, and others, and he chose this moment to comment on it.

I think that list members should accept that I will continue to say what I think on this list, mart will continue to express himself in his inimitable way, Robert will continue his campaign against every gene in sight, etc. But this list is what the members make of it, and in fact a lot of the posts, especially from Phil (despite my disagreements with him on many things, his posts are the backbone of the list) and even me who often posts articles without comment, are very useful and relevant. There is nothing to stop Charlie, a hero of the science for the people movement, from posting material of interest including about the struggles he is involved in, and yet we never hear from Charlie except very occasionally to complain about what others are posting; likewise from Carrol, who is just an old sourpuss anyway and unlikely to contribute anything useful it seems. Likewise from others who would have much to say, like Larry, and even the great majority of Herb's posts mainly consist of complaining about what I say on the list, which again is unfortunate as Herb is one of the most sensible and eloquent presences here.

Nearly all of the initial posts on this list come from me, Phil, Sam, Robert, and a couple of others (I'm not counting mart because he mostly responds to what others say.) Perhaps most list members just want a quiet life and just want to read articles or be kept informed thanks to the material posted by us few, but if so then it is inevitable that those who want to express their personal views here, even when they are "provocative" or annoying to many, will dominate. Again, I have no intention of stopping saying exactly what I think here; but I don't want to be one of the very few doing that, and the list would be much more interesting if more people would participate and take initiative.


On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 1:35 AM, Charles Schwartz <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
What I see on this list from mart and from Michael (B) is an unending stream of very personal babble. I don't want to deny them their necessary outlets, but I must ask, Why do I bother to read (any of) it?


mart wrote:
if one googles 'chris knight' (in wikipedia) he is the founder of a radical anthropology group (and i think also lost his academic position in the uk for some comments and role he had in g20 protests in the UK).  he also has a take on the evolutuion of language which is basically a big critique of chomsky (including chomsky's article with hauser in science).  i find it much more convincing than chomsky's approach (which seems all dressed up in hype with actual little rigor   much less reference to empirical data).  there free journal online has an interview wuith chomsky though i just skimmed it---and they go through their skepticism.
  s bowles (once a 'radical economist') and gintis also have gone through this kind of stuff.

--- On *Thu, 8/12/10, Michael Balter /<[log in to unmask]>/* wrote:

   From: Michael Balter <[log in to unmask]>
   Subject: engaged anthropology
   To: [log in to unmask]
   Date: Thursday, August 12, 2010, 2:19 PM

   List members might find this profile of U of Utah anthropologist
   Polly Wiessner of interest. She reflects an increasing trend in
   anthropology, sometimes called engaged anthropology, to become
   more closely involved with research subjects--indeed, to make them
   active collaborators--and to make their welfare paramount. This
   viewpoint, which rejects notions that active involvement with
   subjects compromises scientific objectivity, is also associated
   with an activist and advocacy role for anthropologists. The recent
   revolt in the American Anthropological Association against the use
   of anthropologists in Iraq and Afghanistan is an example of this
   attitude; and it represents, finally, the throwing off of the
   lingering effects of McCarthyism's devastating attack on the
   field. All these issues are discussed, albeit briefly, at the end
   of the piece.


   --     ******************************************
   Michael Balter
   Contributing Correspondent, Science
   Adjunct Professor of Journalism,
   New York University

   Email:  [log in to unmask]
   <[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[log in to unmask]>
   Web:    michaelbalter.com <http://michaelbalter.com/>    <http://journalism.nyu.edu/faculty/balter.html>


   "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask
   why the poor have no food, they call me a Communist." -- Hélder
   Pessoa Câmara

Michael Balter
Contributing Correspondent, Science
Adjunct Professor of Journalism,
New York University

Email:  [log in to unmask]
Web:    michaelbalter.com
NYU:    journalism.nyu.edu/faculty/balter.html

"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a Communist." -- Hélder Pessoa Câmara