Michael Alexeevich Popov's Posts - Open Anthropology Cooperative2019-06-20T15:08:56ZMichael Alexeevich Popovhttp://openanthcoop.ning.com/profile/MichaelAlexeevichPopovhttp://api.ning.com/files/bgqd5aFFwh4dkRD8sEjMVedeP8q0mWHkDMjnwr6GPag6ZpKaP5nohjJWgF3mEfAjWpChTxHyObgWVVZS0ffuv*KKDV1vQuOP/foto1.jpg?profile=RESIZE_180x180&width=48&height=48&crop=1%3A1http://openanthcoop.ning.com/profiles/blog/feed?user=33t7yjirr6hiv&xn_auth=noPalmyra.tag:openanthcoop.ning.com,2016-03-28:3404290:BlogPost:2274802016-03-28T13:08:09.000ZMichael Alexeevich Popovhttp://openanthcoop.ning.com/profile/MichaelAlexeevichPopov
<p><a href="http://api.ning.com:80/files/Y05Evaa5liHQ0sm7WbqzTrYDg6pry9qXUw7BQL0Gyq5qS7Lqtd5jaHdxnVjuFM*PwllcTCpUrvj6kJwSYypEwKNbhtMG85kA/MISHKAPCWIN_20160328_133649.JPG" target="_self">MISHKAPC%20-%20WIN_20160328_133649.JPG</a></p>
<p>"The Syrian regime with military help from Russia regime" are back in control of beautiful Palmyra. This success of one "of the vilest regimes on Earth" is not result of any particular British, French, Italian,American or Western policy... How could it be ? Was…</p>
<p><a href="http://api.ning.com:80/files/Y05Evaa5liHQ0sm7WbqzTrYDg6pry9qXUw7BQL0Gyq5qS7Lqtd5jaHdxnVjuFM*PwllcTCpUrvj6kJwSYypEwKNbhtMG85kA/MISHKAPCWIN_20160328_133649.JPG" target="_self">MISHKAPC%20-%20WIN_20160328_133649.JPG</a></p>
<p>"The Syrian regime with military help from Russia regime" are back in control of beautiful Palmyra. This success of one "of the vilest regimes on Earth" is not result of any particular British, French, Italian,American or Western policy... How could it be ? Was Palmyra a moral and cultural catastrophe of the West indeed? May be Neobarbaric postpostmodernism became new reality of 2016 ?</p>
<p></p>Anthropology and Becoming War. NATO Turkey downs Russian warplanetag:openanthcoop.ning.com,2015-11-24:3404290:BlogPost:2233952015-11-24T14:00:00.000ZMichael Alexeevich Popovhttp://openanthcoop.ning.com/profile/MichaelAlexeevichPopov
<p>In practice the war-peace process can be incredibly fragile : the slightest unreasonable disturbance will disrupt the delicate agreement and destroy any possibility of peaceful political computation.We are living in the period of becoming war and as anthropologists we must help to develop some error-correcting code of peace.There is rapid growth of computational complexity. Already now...</p>
<p>In practice the war-peace process can be incredibly fragile : the slightest unreasonable disturbance will disrupt the delicate agreement and destroy any possibility of peaceful political computation.We are living in the period of becoming war and as anthropologists we must help to develop some error-correcting code of peace.There is rapid growth of computational complexity. Already now...</p>War and Peace."Formalists" vs "Essentialists" in ethnic identity theorytag:openanthcoop.ning.com,2015-01-27:3404290:BlogPost:2155892015-01-27T16:09:29.000ZMichael Alexeevich Popovhttp://openanthcoop.ning.com/profile/MichaelAlexeevichPopov
<p>I afraid theory of ethnic identity became an important part of today’s world politics in wrong time when a dispute between “formalists” and “essentialists” on nature of ethnic identity is not discontinued and “hidden” collision of these two schools of thinking in social anthropology is continuing. As is known, formalists believe that ethnic identity ( as some social set of all sets ) is merely a political cognitive formal construction, correspondingly, it is not important. For…</p>
<p>I afraid theory of ethnic identity became an important part of today’s world politics in wrong time when a dispute between “formalists” and “essentialists” on nature of ethnic identity is not discontinued and “hidden” collision of these two schools of thinking in social anthropology is continuing. As is known, formalists believe that ethnic identity ( as some social set of all sets ) is merely a political cognitive formal construction, correspondingly, it is not important. For example, German speaking citizens of Federative Republic of Germany and German speaking citizens of German Democratic Republic in 1980s are different wholes or different ethno-cultural communities. Similarly, Russian speaking citizens of Ukraine’s Crimea and Russian speaking citizens of Russian Federation represent different wholes as well. Essentialists, however, suggest alternative paradigm – ethnic identity is not constructible and important. Hence, German speaking citizens of these two Republics represented two parts of the same whole divided by political circumstances of War ( similar interpretation could be achieved in the case of Russians in Crimea Autonomous Republic and Russia in 2010s ) . Because there is no such thing as <u>scientific theory</u> ( lack of systematic experimental foundations, narrative as main proof ,collective mind reading as a method, simplification and lack of mathematics) <u>of ethnic identity</u> now, following, for example, exclusively formalist argumentation, we are faced with unsolvable paradoxes and “suicidal” ways of doing judgements. In particularly, if we accept that Germany’s reunification of German people without any formal proof ( or National Referendum ) in 1990 is valid, we, correspondingly, must accept also that reunification of Crimea and Russia in 2014 with such sort of proof as Crimea Referendum 2014 as valid as well. However, some popular experts try to suggest that German reunification is “truly reunification” whereas Russian reunification is “wrong reunification”. Thus, following this kind of simplified logic experts can conclude that Western nations are “honest” to claim “to return “ people of Crimea Autonomous Republic into Ukraine citizenship, whereas Russians cannot claim similar things on people of German Democratic Republic. Hence, sooner or later illogical defence of the formalists attitude is able to lead to justification of …New Global War. Because it is not acceptable , correspondingly, we must consider alternative or essentialist way of thinking. Indeed, iif German ethnic identity of Western and Eastern Germans is the same whole and self determination is about Essential Ethnicity, then German reunification cannot be considered as Western annexation of German Democratic Republic, similarly, Russian reunification with Crimea cannot be considered as annexation of Crimea by Russia as well. Generally speaking, thus, incompleteness of ethnic identity theory is not innocent in our wrong time and it can contain unpredictable consequences. </p>Ethnic identity as natural phenomenontag:openanthcoop.ning.com,2014-01-28:3404290:BlogPost:2053312014-01-28T11:52:15.000ZMichael Alexeevich Popovhttp://openanthcoop.ning.com/profile/MichaelAlexeevichPopov
<p>Anthropologist and statistician S.M. Shirokogoroff in 1930s made an attempt to understand ethnic identity as an object of natural sciences ( incl funct anthropology ). He uses elementary equations of statistical thermodynamic in order to describe ethnogenesis as processes of statistical self-organization. In contrast, today social anthropologists and governments behave like they already had found complete proof of theorem on social nature of ethnic identity and all counterexamples are…</p>
<p>Anthropologist and statistician S.M. Shirokogoroff in 1930s made an attempt to understand ethnic identity as an object of natural sciences ( incl funct anthropology ). He uses elementary equations of statistical thermodynamic in order to describe ethnogenesis as processes of statistical self-organization. In contrast, today social anthropologists and governments behave like they already had found complete proof of theorem on social nature of ethnic identity and all counterexamples are usually considered as radical forms of inhumanism. For instance, following fashionable dogma, UK Government consider Scottish independence and Scottish ethnic claims as a sort of irrationality, political nonsense and public illusion. Correspondingly, British government behaves as therapist suggesting economic and political irrationality of independence (EU membership, oil prices, future of ethnical partition of Navy strategic fleet, etc ), but not experienced researcher. However, leaders of Scottish national movements try to describe Scottishness and sense of unsolvability in the terms of natural history ( in good agreement with Shirokogoroff ) :</p>
<p><strong>“A people</strong> sharing a common geographical space, history and culture is a common definition of what we now think of as a nation. In these respects Scotland clearly qualifies with its long-established boundaries and a shared history stretching back over 1000 years. But these objective factors would have little contemporary significance if not underpinned by a shared sense of identity. All the research work over the past thirty years has confirmed that a substantial majority of Scots see themselves as Scottish not British or more Scottish than British. Although 12% of people in Scotland were not born here, less than that proportion thought of themselves as not Scottish. So by the objective and subjective standards normally used to confirm national status, Scotland is a nation. Does this matter? “</p>
<p>I have some doubts that social axiomatic of theory of ethnic identity is well proven and it represents a fundamental fact of modern social sciences. Thus,I suppose,sooner or later, accumulation of the errors must change current social and cultural anthropology again and return of classical ethnography as natural science could be unavoidable. </p> Remark on the fieldwork in Anthropology of Science and Technology tag:openanthcoop.ning.com,2013-09-24:3404290:BlogPost:2014722013-09-24T12:00:00.000ZMichael Alexeevich Popovhttp://openanthcoop.ning.com/profile/MichaelAlexeevichPopov
<p>This remark is inspired by Marianne de Laet ‘s anthropological comments ( <i>Nature</i> vol 501: 164-165,12 Sept 2013 ) on Harry Collins (2013) new book ‘Gravity’s Ghost and Big Dog : Scientific Discovery and Social Analysis in the 21<sup>st</sup> Century ‘ (University Chicago Press ).</p>
<p>Harry Collins produced brilliant systematic sociological account of his almost 40 years (!) fieldwork among scientists in the field of gravitational ( relativistic ) astronomy.</p>
<p>It is important…</p>
<p>This remark is inspired by Marianne de Laet ‘s anthropological comments ( <i>Nature</i> vol 501: 164-165,12 Sept 2013 ) on Harry Collins (2013) new book ‘Gravity’s Ghost and Big Dog : Scientific Discovery and Social Analysis in the 21<sup>st</sup> Century ‘ (University Chicago Press ).</p>
<p>Harry Collins produced brilliant systematic sociological account of his almost 40 years (!) fieldwork among scientists in the field of gravitational ( relativistic ) astronomy.</p>
<p>It is important that mathematical physics of the gravitational waves is beyond of Alan Sokal’s anti-sociological scepticism because professional area of Sokal is algebra, ("physicalist") number theory and some algebraic applications of multivariative polynomials,Potts models ( 2 dimensional systems ) and even Roger-Ramanujan function in statistical mechanics and quantum field theory.Sokal is merely algebraist and not physicist. I suppose his applications of " radiculously simple generalizations " of the functions with the real and complex zeros combinatorially " defined polynomials ( of the Tuttle type )" ... to phase transitions in statistical mechanics have no real physical meaning at all. At least, I have doubts that Sokal ‘s computational algebra can have applications in real gravitational physics , correspondingly, possible Sokal’s refutation of Collins ‘work cannot be taken seriously today. Let us describe some forbidden aspects of gravitational waves history.</p>
<p>Gravitational waves were the first predicted by Einstein’s General Relativity in 1915 and, later, an existence of gravitational waves <u>was rejected</u> by Einstein ( together with N. Rosen ) in 1936 as well. Following Daniel Kennefick (1997),in his letter to Max Born, Albert Einstein reported that he arrived at the interesting result that gravitational waves do not exist at all, through they had been mathematically assumed in transitive period of formulation of General Relativity in 1915. Pure mathematically, Einstein faced with an existence of non exact solutions for nonlinear general relati-vistic equations ( described plane gravitational waves ) which cannot provide sufficient foundation for earlier prediction. Einstein and Rosen had submitted a paper entitled “Do Gravitational Waves Exist ?” to the <i>Physical Review </i> ( USA ) for publication (similar result with more dramatic refutation of Riemann geometry and Einstein’s time theory was published by Leningrad’s physicist Jakob Bronstein in 1935 ). However, Einstein’s paper was returned to him with … a critical referee’s report .As result, Einstein is withdrawing the paper and dismissing out the referee ‘s comments ( Einstein to Tate : July 1936, EA 19-086 ). In his letter to Editor (Konnefick 1997:2) Einstein in particular wrote :</p>
<p> </p>
<p> “<i>We ( Mr Rosen and I ) had sent you our manuscript for publication and had not authorized you to show it to specialists before it is printed. I see no reasons to address the – any case erroneous – comments of your anonymous expert .I prefer to publish the paper elsewhere “(!)</i></p>
<p> </p>
<p> As is known, in 1937, indeed, one modified version of this paper with Rosen was accepted for publication by the Journal of the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia and another (reduced ) version was published in the USSR. In his Soviet publication, N. Rosen showed that plane gravitational waves were <u>an impossibility</u> due the ineradicability of singularities in the metric of General Relativity. Later, new generation of theorists had found that Rosen did not distinguish sufficiently between coordinate mathematical singularities and physical singularities, which , nevertheless, could be detected experimentally ( Bondi, Pirani, Robinson, Landau, Lifshits, and Weber) Thus, contemporary ground - based interferometers ( for instance, LIGO ) as well as ESA-NASA space - based interferometers (LISA) which built to detect gravitational waves are based on Einstein –Rosen taking unsolved mathematical dilemma seriously.</p>
<p> Hence, thus, Collins (2013) sociological observations on the puzzling semantics of knowing of gravitational waves, his sociological intuition that experimental evidence in gravitational wave astrophysics has gradually shifted from true observation to a social consensus and expectations of real catastrophe among experimentalists are probably have a sense in the context of our story. </p>
<p>However, in accordance with de Laet (2013: 165) ‘Collins defies a best practice of anthropology – to examine one’s motifs and motivations ‘ of scientists… I suppose, nevertheless, that this feature of Collins’s social analysis of gravitational waves detections cannot be achieved even within current anthropology of science and technology, in particularly, because both today’s sociologists as well as anthropologists of science do not speak in mathematical language of scientists, they, correspondingly, have limited access to understanding of scientific literature produced by members of subculture.</p>
<p>Being anthropologist I am doing fieldwork in some post-classical anthropological manner among quantum physicists and quantum hackers from 1996. I started my investigations with training in mathematical language ( mathematics is language of scientific subcultures )of theoretical physicists and later in order to be confident in my fieldwork, I published original mathematical result in <i>Bulletin des Sciences Mathematiques</i> (1999). Hence, it is quite natural that my <i><u>language based ethnographic</u></i> approach produced and is producing different results. In particular, I have formulated for myself some elementary rules of the fieldwork in anthropology of science which I’d like to share with readers .</p>
<p> </p>
<p><i><u> RULE 1. Mathematical language of scientists is essential.</u></i></p>
<p> </p>
<p>It is well known principle of the field anthropology. Perhaps, Edmund Leach ( after Bronislav Malinowski) was the first mathematically speaking and mathematically educated ( Cambridge University ,1<sup>St</sup> Honour Degree ) anthropologist of science within British social anthropological tradition. Some his works on experimental “ethnographic algebra”(1945), binominal arithmetic of Jakobson–Levi-Strauss’s structuralism and symbolic logic of communication in social anthropology can, certainly, help to realize that understanding of the scientific subject and communications with scientists are almost impossible without mathematical language, indeed. Another story about Bruno Lotour can demonstrate an importance of mathematical language as well. Anthropologist Latour published results of his semiotic analysis of theory of Relativity where he expressed some doubts on logical justification of Lorentz transformations in Einstein theory and attempted to describe some sort of absurdity he had found in Relativity . In accordance with Latour, both Special and General Relativity “are accepted, more frames of reference with less privilege can be accepted, reduced, accumulated and combined, observers can delegated to a few more places in the infinitely large ( the cosmos ) and the infinitely small ( electrons ), and the readings they send will be understandable “(Latour, Bruno 1988 .A Relativistic Account of Einstein’s Relativity “ <i>Social Studies of Science</i> 18 :3-44)</p>
<p>As is known, number theorist Alan Sokal ( 2008 ), rejected B. Latour’s finding as ‘an example of nonsense ‘and had defined 40 pages of Latour’s article as typical ‘comical misunderstanding’ of real physics. He suggested that Latour ‘doesn’t understand what the term “ frame of reference” means in physics – he confuses it with “actor” in semiotics – he claims that relativity cannot deals with transformations laws between two frames of reference, but needs at least <i>three</i> [frames of references ]( Sokal, 2008.<i>Beyond the Hoax. Science, Philosophy and Culture</i>. Oxford : Oxford University Press p.155 ) Thus, old ethnographic rule about language training is also essential in modern anthropology.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><i><u>RULE 2. Participant – observation of scientific subcultures can include such sort of integration as observer’s scientific publications.</u></i></p>
<p><i><u> </u></i></p>
<p>This means that in comparison with sociologist, anthropologist can be completely integrated in scientific community, however, here, there is the risk of losing some levels of objectivity of observation. In my own fieldwork, I used this rule and have published physical article on quantum physics (2003) and have presented, recently, cryptographic paper at the first conference on Quantum Cryptography (QCRYPT 2011) in Zurich ETH (2011) in order to change a focus of acceptance and understanding of rapidly evolving subculture.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p><i><u>RULE 3. Anthropological Analysis of physical and even mathematical assumptions can discover something new indeed. </u></i></p>
<p> <br/> <a id="yui_3_7_2_1_1375963258974_1899" href="http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1835" name="yui_3_7_2_1_1375963258974_1899" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1835</a><br/><br/></p>Mathematical tradition in Anthropology. An Introduction 1. Edmund R.Leachtag:openanthcoop.ning.com,2013-03-28:3404290:BlogPost:1852852013-03-28T14:17:53.000ZMichael Alexeevich Popovhttp://openanthcoop.ning.com/profile/MichaelAlexeevichPopov
<p> </p>
<p>Anthropologist sees the world as a world of extreme complexity or as a series of Big Data ( NP hard ) problems , hence, some field complexities could be described as“ botanic rarities of the most exotic kind “ by literary forms , whereas another complexities are ready for scientific computational analysis.</p>
<p>As is known the first attempts to introduce systematic scientific analysis of culture as “ a set of mechanical devices “ ( Malinowski ) or as a sort of “computer…</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Anthropologist sees the world as a world of extreme complexity or as a series of Big Data ( NP hard ) problems , hence, some field complexities could be described as“ botanic rarities of the most exotic kind “ by literary forms , whereas another complexities are ready for scientific computational analysis.</p>
<p>As is known the first attempts to introduce systematic scientific analysis of culture as “ a set of mechanical devices “ ( Malinowski ) or as a sort of “computer software “( Leach ) were made by functionalists . In 1933 White <a title="White émigré" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_%C3%A9migr%C3%A9">émigré</a> Russian functionalist S.M. Shirokogoroff also used equations of statistical physics in order to describe self-organization effect of his “ethnoses theory “( used by Soviet ethnography, later ). In 1940s Levi-Strauss and Andre Weil attempted to use elements of modular algebra and becoming category mathematics in kinship classifications in the terms of structuralism. At the same time Levi-Strauss had found simplification of this mathematics in the form of Jakobson ‘s binary arithmetic ( “system of phonological distinctive features “), generalized the first by “functionalist-structuralist” Edmund Leach.</p>
<p>Probably, the best expression of becoming mathematical tradition in anthropology belongs Edmund R. Leach, Cambridge’ applied mathematician having engineering background. Some passages by Leach in this context are very impressive, indeed : </p>
<p><b> </b></p>
<p>“ I tend to think of social systems as machines for the ordering of social relations or as buildings that are likely to collapse if the stresses and strains of the roof structure are not properly in balance. When I was engaged in fieldwork</p>
<p>I saw my problem as trying to understand "just how the system works" or "why it held together."</p>
<p> </p>
<p>“ In my own mind these were not just metaphors but problems of mechanical insight; nor was it just make-believe. To this day, in quite practical matters, I remain an unusually competent amateur mechanic and retain an interest in</p>
<p>architecture which is much more concerned with structural features of design than with aesthetics “</p>
<p> </p>
<p>“ I had learned to work with binary arithmetic before I had ever heard of computing or of Saussurean linguistics. I recall that when, in 1961, I first encountered Jakobson' s system of phonological distinctive features my inner reaction was: "Ah! I have been here before!" “</p>
<p> </p>
<p>“ My engineering background also effected the way I reacted to Marxism “.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>“ My concern with design stability does not mean that I am unmoved by the aesthetics of great architecture, but it adds a dimension which less numerate observers probably miss. My private use of the concept of "structure" in social</p>
<p>anthropology is thus different both from the usage developed by Radcliffe - Brown and Fortes (where it simply refers to the skeletal framework of society without any consideration of design features) and from Levi -Strauss's transformational usage, which borrows from Jakobson's phonology, though my engineer's viewpoint is much closer to the latter than to the former.”</p>
<p> </p>
<p> “ In terms of my engineering metaphor, Fortes describes the social machinery and its component parts but is unconvincing when he tries to explain how the system works . Firth gives us an instruction manual for operating the machinery,but he does not tell us what the bits and pieces would look like if we took it apart. Or to pursue my art and architecture model: it is wholly appropriate that Firth should be entranced by the highly decorated solidity of the Romanesque Cathedral at Conques and that Fortes should have been overawed by the symmetrical Gothic fragilities of King's College Chapel “</p>
<p> </p>
<p>“ anthropologists are engaged in a scientific discipline which is capable of revealing facts of (social) nature in much the same way as experiments in physics reveal the facts of physical nature”</p>
<p> </p>
<p>“ I never had the makings of a true mathematician, but I was mathematically literate. I learned about "transformational" theory (in the form of advanced algebra and the nineteenth century developments of projective geometry) several years before I entered Cambridge as an undergraduate. If some of my anthropological work is"structuralist" in style, it is for that reason”.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>“ Another key point, about which I was also quite explicit, was that my use of "function" derived from mathematics and not from biology or psychology, as was the case with the followers of Radcliffe-Brown and Malinowski. Consequently, from my point of view, there was no inconsistency between " functionalism" and "structuralism" (in its then novel continental sense) “.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>“ Human society was made by man, so man should be able to understand society, in an engineering sense, e.g. why it holds together and does not collapse. Behind this there is the further perception that all the artifacts (including human society) which man thus "makes" must necessarily be projective transformations of what the human brain already "knows." This implies, to use computer terminology, that social products are generated by "software programs," operating through but limited by the computer-like machinery of the human brain. The "software" comes from our cultural environment; the "hardware" derives from our genetic inheritance.”</p>
<p> </p>
<p>“… being a functionalist and being a structuralist; I have quite consistently been both at once. But both my functionalism and my structuralism derive from my grounding in mathematics and engineering “.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>“ Furthermore, I have an engineer's interest in design, in how local regions of complex unbounded systems "work ." Indeed, I have consistently maintained that the social systems with which anthropologists have to deal are not, in any empirical sense, bounded at all. To discuss the plurality of cultures is for me nonsense…”</p>
<p> </p>
<p>[ “ Glimpes of the unmentionable in the history of British social anthropology “ Ann. Rev. Anthropol. 1984. 13:1-23 ].</p>
<p>Please see also :</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://www.alanmacfarlane.com/ancestors/Leach.html">Interview of Edmund Leach by Frank Kermode in 1982 (film)</a></li>
</ul>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>Remark on History of Anthropology and Mathematicstag:openanthcoop.ning.com,2013-03-01:3404290:BlogPost:1828802013-03-01T13:30:00.000ZMichael Alexeevich Popovhttp://openanthcoop.ning.com/profile/MichaelAlexeevichPopov
<p> </p>
<p>This remark inspired by David Mills (Department of Education, University of Oxford) paper "After Malinowski..." ( Ethnicity seminar at ISCA 1.03.2013 ). David described Malinowski style of doing anthropological seminar at LSE with its interactive way of presentation, formalism,"raumkunst" and, of course, pub. It became puzzling for today's anthropologists because mathematical aspects of Malinowski functionalist thinking ( as well as Levi-Strauss algebraist thinking) are ignored…</p>
<p> </p>
<p>This remark inspired by David Mills (Department of Education, University of Oxford) paper "After Malinowski..." ( Ethnicity seminar at ISCA 1.03.2013 ). David described Malinowski style of doing anthropological seminar at LSE with its interactive way of presentation, formalism,"raumkunst" and, of course, pub. It became puzzling for today's anthropologists because mathematical aspects of Malinowski functionalist thinking ( as well as Levi-Strauss algebraist thinking) are ignored usually in anthropological departments.Mathematically speaking, however, it is quite understandable - Malinowski was mathematician among anthropologists, he had training in Calculus,theory of functions, functional analysis and, purhaps, in theory of differential equations. Hence, he tried to reproduce traditional mathematical style of seminar with freedom to ask questions, freedom of associations, and with exactness of definitions at the same time in ethnography of 1930s. Even today such details of mathematical seminars ( including pub) remain unchangable.It is interesting that Malinowski had opposition to algebraic style as well ( his snobish remark on "kinship algebra", for example ). In comparison with Levi-Strauss, working under applications of category mathematics and modular algebra in kinship classifications ( together with Andre Weil ), B. Malinowski ,probably, could be defined as "topologist",indeed. As is known it is the most ancient division into mathematical thinking at all. Thus,mathematical aspects of anthropology history are also essential ...</p>Is Science simply "Mission of western white men " ?tag:openanthcoop.ning.com,2011-11-01:3404290:BlogPost:1408952011-11-01T11:58:51.000ZMichael Alexeevich Popovhttp://openanthcoop.ning.com/profile/MichaelAlexeevichPopov
New Scientist (29 October 2011 Issue number 2836) contains comments on Anthropology 1 ( Postmodernism based cultural anthropology ). In particular author suggests that such sort of imaginary anthropology rejects an existence of objective truth as well as assumes that "science was simply mission of western white men "? As a consequence - " A generation of journalists with a postmodern education decided that " objective" reporting was simply getting varying views of the story, but not required…
New Scientist (29 October 2011 Issue number 2836) contains comments on Anthropology 1 ( Postmodernism based cultural anthropology ). In particular author suggests that such sort of imaginary anthropology rejects an existence of objective truth as well as assumes that "science was simply mission of western white men "? As a consequence - " A generation of journalists with a postmodern education decided that " objective" reporting was simply getting varying views of the story, but not required to present controversial subjects, and to present them fairly." ? Two Anthropologiestag:openanthcoop.ning.com,2011-06-29:3404290:BlogPost:1191452011-06-29T12:30:00.000ZMichael Alexeevich Popovhttp://openanthcoop.ning.com/profile/MichaelAlexeevichPopov
<p>There are two different anthropologies – anthropology by historians and anthropology by physicists and mathematicians. The first is academically recognized social science ,whereas , the second is just emerging discipline inspired by results of cosmology of antropic (anthropological ) principle, space life sciences, computational theory of human limits, gravitational and quantum biology, mathematical evolution, experimental econophysics, quantum games applications,applied mathematics and …</p>
<p>There are two different anthropologies – anthropology by historians and anthropology by physicists and mathematicians. The first is academically recognized social science ,whereas , the second is just emerging discipline inspired by results of cosmology of antropic (anthropological ) principle, space life sciences, computational theory of human limits, gravitational and quantum biology, mathematical evolution, experimental econophysics, quantum games applications,applied mathematics and digital formalisms in anthropology.</p>
<p>Lack of formal training in physics and mathematics (correspondingly, a kind of ignorance ) in current anthropological education produces, unfortunately, a substantial gap between anthropologies. Mathematics is language of scientists, hence, misunderstanding of such tool of communication and experimental imagination by anthropologists may isolate anthropological community speaking in some ancient scientific language of the 19<sup>th</sup> century from brilliant achievements of modern sciences.</p>
<p>Some attempts of Levi-Strauss of 1940s to incorporate elements of modern mathematics ( category mathematics ) became forgotten today and feeling of uselessness of social anthropology became now predominant.</p>
<p>Some analogies with economics, perhaps, can help us to find some balanced approach in anthropology as well.</p>
<p>There exist two economics now - <em>traditional economics</em> used mathematical methods and statistics in political discourse and <em>econophysics </em> - "physical economics" used advance mathematics of quantum physics and relativity’s mathematical imagination. Now they are coexisting worlds, however, numerical economics rapidly evolves now towards econophysics. Similarly, anthropology 1 ( as a social science ) and anthropology 2 ( existing as applications of physical and mathematical methods in anthropology , i.e applications of antropic principle in astrophysics, human -oriented area of gravitational and quantum biology , mathematical theology, artificial intellect anthropology, game theoretical anthropology etc ) can co-exist as diifirent worlds and different imaginations. Their competition can help to develop a new scientific vision of future anthropology.</p>
<p>Generally, thus, sooner or later, economics as well as anthropology could become full scale experimental sciences. We may await, that Solipsism by anthropologists cannot be tolerated always . Scientific ignorance could be reduced However , we also can expect, that anti-scientific attitudes of modern politicians can produce merely another wave of Economic Catastrophes. In particular in EU, where trivial problem of mathematical algorithm of numerical analysis of budget and its provable presentation for public consciousness are usually understood as pure political or historical legacy problem…</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>