interdiscipline arrogance

[jukeboxhound_backup]

I fear that my Anthropology of Religion class is rather more infuriating than educational.  Even given the bias of my having been (officially) in a single discipline for four years, these class discussions are wishy-washy nonsense with apparently little to do with logic or analysis and rife with the kinds of assumptions for which any half-decent philosophy professor would fail a student.  Granted, anthropology is a subject that by definition is more concerned with cultural evidence, not potentially biased judgment, but...seriously, logic shouldn't be anathema.  *violent twitch*

Comments

[pyrotechnik.livejournal.com]

I detected no dissing. ^^ i think if something makes no sense and there is no supportive evidence, it MUST be questioned (this is why I failed the God portion of my philosophy course, God cannot, apparently, be quantified). I'll accept the idea, provided you can give me cold, hard facts to back it up. Anthropology may be a soft science, but it is still a SCIENCE. This means "I think" and "I feel" and "I believe" don't matter unless you can back it up. And the Bible doesn't count, because in this case, it is simply a historical reference. So is the Koran, and the Torah, and any other spiritual book, text,or reference. The hard core religious folks have trouble with that one. ^^
*gets off soapbox*

[jukeboxhound.livejournal.com]

...*loves on you*

Ahaha, and the arguments around God were among the most interesting to me. I love differences like this. 8D