Jump to content

Talk:Biological anthropology: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Slrubenstein (talk | contribs)
30,655 edits
help!
+
 
(76 intermediate revisions by 39 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talk page}}
who identifies "cultural ecology" this way? All of the works I know of that use the term "cultural ecology" use it to refer to the work of Julian Steward and his students in the 1940s-1960s. (the research questions posited here seem very interesting, and also unsurprising either for physical anthropologists or cultural anthropologists. It is merely the appelation I question. What is described here sounds more like what I have heard called "human ecology.") SR
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|vital=yes|1=
----
{{WikiProject Maps |importance=low}}
The entry for [[primatology]] which links here claims that it is closely related to physical anthopology. Here primatology is claimed as a sub-disipline. It would be good to keep this in mind as the articles progress. [[User:Two16|Two16]]
{{WikiProject Anthropology|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Anatomy |importance=Low |field=meta}}
{{WikiProject Primates|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject History of Science|importance=Low}}
}}


== Citations list useful for updating this article and related articles ==
: Both are right, which is a comment on the scope of modern primatology. When primatology studies primates to discover how they are different from us, it's a subfield of anthropology. When primatology studies primates to discover how they are different from other "lower animals", it's a subfield of biology. This would go in the article but it may be hard to attribute.


You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of [[User:WeijiBaikeBianji/AnthropologyHumanBiologyRaceCitations | Anthropology and Human Biology Citations]], posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human genetics and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library system at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to other academic libraries in the same large metropolitan area) and have been researching these issues sporadically since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by [[User_talk:WeijiBaikeBianji/AnthropologyHumanBiologyRaceCitations | suggesting new sources]] through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human genetics to edit them according to the [[WP:MEDRS | Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles]], as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- [[User:WeijiBaikeBianji|WeijiBaikeBianji]] ([[User talk:WeijiBaikeBianji|talk]], [[User:WeijiBaikeBianji/Editing|how I edit]]) 17:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
_______


== Phrenology ==
Its just a comment for editors to keep noted.
As these articles become worthy, we will need to bring them in line so that consistancy and clearness are maintained in a hyper linked enviroment. Right now the articles refer to each other and say different things. We will have to coordinate these two articles in the future and we might save ourselves a bit of work if we build with this in mind.


I can't help feeling that [[Phrenology]] should probably be listed here - regardless of what it actually ''is'' as a discipline. Measuring the skull and expecting to find accompanying intellectual or cultural traits seems pretty linked to Physical Anthropology to me... —''[[User:Brigade Piron|Brigade Piron]]'' ([[User talk:Brigade Piron|talk]]) 08:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
: yes, they need coordination, but they don't need to 'agree', as it doesn't cause any insurmountable problems if physical anthropologists and biologists both wish to claim primatology as their own subfield.
The wikipedians would say disambiguate. But that is still in the future when the '''process''' of improving the articles has gone on: people will know more; natural divisions may appear; elegant solutions discovered.
Whatever the case we will be better able to deal with it . Even if we require a disambiguation page. As for consistancy and clarity minimum requirement is probably that we never say P is not equal to P.


== Belief in a European origin of humans is "scientific racism"? ==
When you say "physical anthropologists and biologists both wish to claim primatology", I think you are anthropomorphising arbitrary categories and making fun of multidiciplinary scientists. ;-]
I'm not naive enough to ask which one is '''right'''. ;-} [[User:Two16|Two16]]


I'm pretty sure that's a big NPOV. Otherwise we should call the "out of Africa" theory scientific racism as well. [[User:Hamstergamer|Hamstergamer]] ([[User talk:Hamstergamer|talk]]) 20:05, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
: that wouldn't be very scientific - a scientist would ask what to test next. ;-)


== Adding Forensic anthropology ==
Followers of Skinner gone bad might. ;-0


Does anyone object to adding Forensic anthropology under branches or does anyone propose a better alternative for placement?
______


[[Anthropology]] has it listed under 'Key topics by field: archaeological and biological' so I feel like it should also be mentioned here.[[User:Kuiet|Kuiet]] ([[User talk:Kuiet|talk]]) 23:37, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
142 it's bad form for me to leave a meassage for you on an encyclopia talk page: it suposed to be used for improving the article.


:Go for it. [[User:Boneyard90|Boneyard90]] ([[User talk:Boneyard90|talk]]) 05:58, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
You need to stop linking to so many empty pages.Don't highlight everything Find out what the wiki naming conventions do a search to see if there is something similar. If work has already been done, you will have more time to write [[brilliant prose]] All that red is hard on the eyes and we will have to untangle it. The mark up language has a way with pipes | that is elegant to use in prose.


== External link ==
A login is painless: choose handle authenticate pass word. Easy to sign
post with three of ~ . A user page for you to use or not and most importantly for me your talk page: a place to leave messages there is a lot you will want to know. I can give you simple tips to improve your effectiveness at writing for this enviroment.
[[User:216.129.198.41|216.129.198.41]] [[User:Two16|Two16]]


I have found a website about biological anthropology ([https://www.theapricity.com/snpa/index2.htm The Society for Nordish Physical Anthropology]), but I do not know whether Wikipedia will accept it. [[User:תיל"ם|תיל"ם]] ([[User talk:תיל"ם|talk]]) 14:02, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
== "Renowned Paleoanthropologists"? ==


==Wiki Education assignment: Information Literacy and Scholarly Discourse=={{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/University_of_New_Orleans/Information_Literacy_and_Scholarly_Discourse_(Spring) | assignments = [[User:TheDudeHotep|TheDudeHotep]] | reviewers = [[User:Mollykleze|Mollykleze]] | start_date = 2022-01-26 | end_date = 2022-05-21 }}
I have stumbled across this page while trying to find useful things about [[Johann Friedrich Blumenbach|Blumenbach]]'s kind of [[anthropology]]. I can understand that [[biological anthropology]] redirects to [[physical anthropology]], but why is there a list of "Renowned Paleoanthropologists" on this page? Could someone explain please? --[[User:KF|KF]] 11:04, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
:The list serves mostly to provide links. Paleoanthropology is one branch of physical anthropology. All Wikipeida articles are works in progress -- hopefully, somebody will one day begin a list of notable primatologists, population geneticists, and others who occupy sub-fields of physical anthropology, [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]]


<span class="wikied-assignment" style="font-size:85%;">— Assignment last updated by [[User:Mlclark1|Mlclark1]] ([[User talk:Mlclark1|talk]]) 13:23, 10 June 2022 (UTC)</span>
::Thank you! --[[User:KF|KF]] 23:28, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Now that there's a page for paleoanthropology and -ists, why keep *all* of them here? Were they all important to physical anthropology as a whole? --[[User:Joy|Joy <small><small>&#91;shallot&#93;</small></small>]] 20:06, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

== Franz Boas ==

Isn't it Boas that has been discredited?! Didn't he interpret the measurements on skulls falsely on purpose?
http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/current/boasskull.htm

:No. Whoever told you this is B.S.ing you. No contemporary of his ever suggested -- and no one has ever found any evidence to suggest, that Boas was deliberatly deceptive. Moreover, his findings have been confirmed by recent scientists. In fact, the most recent research on this data uses more advanced statistical methods than what were available to Boas, and have discovered that the evidence for Boas's findings ''is even stronger'' than what Boas claimed in his articles. Sparks and Jantz (mentioned in Wade's article) were no doubt sincere in their belief that they proved Boas wrong, but shortly after they published their article, it became clear to everyone that they misread or at least misunderstood Boas's argument; that the methods they were using were inappropriate; that a correct use of statistical analysis supports Boas's research. As to Pinker's claim that Benedict, Mead, and Montegue were blank-slate antibiology coscial constructionists, well, he is just ignorant. They certainly believed that many human beliefs and practices were socially constructed, but none of them believed that the mind was a blank-slate, and all of them believed that biology is important. The difference between Pinker and anthropologists is NOT that Pinker "believes in" biology and anthropologists do not. The difference is that Pinker believes that human biology limits human creativity and variety, while anthropologists believe that human biology makes human creativity and variety possible. The fact is, the views of anthropologists are supported by scientific research, and Pinker's views are not. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]]


==Population genetics is a branch of physical anthropology?==

Is there a branch of physical anthropology called ''populaton genetics'' that is distinct from the subject in [[population genetics]] and the link is misguided, or is the inclusion of population genetics as a branch of physical anthropology a bit of a reach? [[User:Pete.Hurd|Pete.Hurd]] 04:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
:Population genetics is most definitely one of the major sub-fields physical anthropologists specialize in. I have Nelson and Germaine's 8th edition textbook for intro to physical anthropology. This is not a good document for describing what physical anthropologists actually do, but it is a good document for describing what physical anthropologists consider to be the fundamentals of their field for undergraduate teaching: the first chapter of course is the introduction, and when introducing physical anthropology it highlights (actually, bolds) the main elements: paleoanthropology (the study of human evolution), anthropometry (measuring phenotypic variation among current populations), genetics, primatology, and osteology (including paleopathology and linked to forensic anthropology). I'd say that "anthropometry" and "genetics" understood within a Darwinian/Mendelian model together are important elements of population genetics.

The actual chapters of the book are (2) the development of evolutionary theory, (3)the Biological Basis for Live, (4) Heredity and Evolution, (5) an overview of living primates, (6) fundamentals of primate behavior, (7) models for human evolution, (8) processes macroevolution: mammalian/primate evolutionary history, (9) paleoanthropology: reconstructing early hominid behavior and ecology, (10) hominid origins, (11) H. erectus and contemporaries, (12) Neandertales and other archaic H. sapiens (13) H. sapiens sapiens, (14) microevolution in Modern Human Populations, (15) Human variation and adaptation, (16) conclusion.

I'd say that chapters 4, 14, and 15 cover most of what is called population genetics. Chapter 14 has a section called "population genetics." As I said, this book is but one piece of evidence as to how physical anthropologists present themselves to ''undergraduate students''. I think it would be more effective to look at the AAA's guide to departments and see how physical anthropologists identify their specializations, or see how journal articles are distributed among different journals and keywords, but I do not know if anyone has done that research and I don't have the resources or time to do it myself (plus it would violate NOR). [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 15:09, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

=Human Biology=
Should the term Human Biology be included in the entry?

=additional definition=
Here is a definition of Biol. Anth. from the University of Toronto website in support of the population genetics discussion.

"Physical or Biological Anthropology is the study of humans and non-human primates in their biological dimension. It examines the biological and social factors that have affected the evolution of humans and other primates, and that generate, maintain or change contemporary genetic and physiological variation. Biological anthropologists may focus their research on human genetics, the behaviour of non-human primates, primate palaeontology, medical Anthropology, forensics or evidence for ancient disease and nutrition."

== help! ==

Anyone who has this page on their watchlist, can you go to [[Virago]]? A who is putting forward notions of racial and identifying them with a notion of gender-difference, and I are in a conflict. Fundamentally, I believe he is a racist' his claims about race contradict everything I have read by physical and cultural anthropologists and as far as I can tell, his claims about gender at best seriously distort the literature.

You can see the difference here [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Virago&diff=31669558&oldid=31650135]

On the talk page, start here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Virago#What_I_just_did], and then just read the whole debate.

Comments from others needed. Thanks, [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 23:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 15:41, 31 October 2024

Citations list useful for updating this article and related articles

[edit]

You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Anthropology and Human Biology Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human genetics and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library system at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to other academic libraries in the same large metropolitan area) and have been researching these issues sporadically since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human genetics to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 17:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Phrenology

[edit]

I can't help feeling that Phrenology should probably be listed here - regardless of what it actually is as a discipline. Measuring the skull and expecting to find accompanying intellectual or cultural traits seems pretty linked to Physical Anthropology to me... —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Belief in a European origin of humans is "scientific racism"?

[edit]

I'm pretty sure that's a big NPOV. Otherwise we should call the "out of Africa" theory scientific racism as well. Hamstergamer (talk) 20:05, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Forensic anthropology

[edit]

Does anyone object to adding Forensic anthropology under branches or does anyone propose a better alternative for placement?

Anthropology has it listed under 'Key topics by field: archaeological and biological' so I feel like it should also be mentioned here.Kuiet (talk) 23:37, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. Boneyard90 (talk) 05:58, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I have found a website about biological anthropology (The Society for Nordish Physical Anthropology), but I do not know whether Wikipedia will accept it. תיל"ם (talk) 14:02, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

==Wiki Education assignment: Information Literacy and Scholarly Discourse== This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 January 2022 and 21 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): TheDudeHotep (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Mollykleze.

— Assignment last updated by Mlclark1 (talk) 13:23, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Biological_anthropology&oldid=1254555492"