Most elements of the general paradigm are never examined, and they permeate human sciences. The general paradigm is one third right, two thirds wrong, and two thirds too small (for not accounting for subconscious motivations). Things that look alike, are not necessarily enforced or imitated. Linguistics demonstrate that things that sound alike, were not necessarily enforced or imitated. Sounds and meanings have arbitrary links, yet even in this thick layer of inherently meaningless styling, we tend to use similar sound combinations for similar meanings (Blasi et al 2000). Thus linguistic correspondence theory is easily misled.
In art, iconography, divinity and spirituality, meanings are archetypally linked to postures, species, items, functions, status, etc. Thus correspondence theory is easily misled by selective study of some features of universal meaning, into assuming certain 'inventions, diffusions and developments.' Human sciences are invested in maintaining common sense perceptions of culture or 'cultures'; and common or garden uses of 'cultures' such as 'education, preservation, curation, development', including various forms of appropriation, patronisation and commodificiation. Science is bad at studying itself.
Physics is doing much better, but it took a lot of technology success to force theory to explain recently observed features of nature. Some core issues remain unresolved (waves /forces /particles /observer effect), and unaccounted for in theory. Technologists just shut up and calculate; theory could come later. Public understanding of physics, and of nature, is far behind our use of technology. Incidentally, this lack of conscious comprehension invalidates McKenna's view of technology as 'evolution' of our artificial skin, while our physical and neurological wiring remains static. A species does not evolve by using its environment more intensively due to population pressure.
I expect that structuralist anthropology technology, such as artificial intelligence (AI) applications, will force anthropology theory to explain the features of culture that I have observed. Even when people generally understand subconscious behaviour as well as Freud's and Jung's defence mechanisms, our behaviour would remain predictable. I have posted many articles on popular anthropology, including two on this site. Popular anthropologists are poorly served by the science they partly admire, and want to contribute to. Anthropology has been compromised by politics and academic fashions in recent decades. I have posted a paper on an assessment of recent failures, successes and developments in anthropology here;
Blueprint of culture
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 22-Oct-19 07:07 by Edmond.