Extirpating Inherently Biased Rote Approaches, Replacing them with Critical Thinking-Based Interpretation of Evidence

Abstract

Physical anthropology embraces a hunger for understanding the ecosphere in which we live, its impact on the life and health and our impact environmental signature. This has been pursued tenaciously, utilizing speculative approaches, with lesser attention to assuring adherence to fundamentals. The resulting perceptions of the environment and of the people therein, both contemporary and ancient, have been subject to a variety of biases. Although many are obvious and discussed in detail in this manuscript, it seems appropriate to question why they have persisted. What benefit does the biased individual gain? Certainly not advancement beyond circular reasoning, which itself reinforces the proponent and their philosophies. It certainly is easy to pursue studies and their promulgation by rote, minimizing cognitive effort expenditure. It is easier to pontificate a technique, than to pursue and assure its independent validation. It is easier to assume that students are performing correctly, without expending the rigor/time of/for actually testing fundamentals and assuring the validity of one’s own techniques. It is easier to stalwartly defend the status quo that has defined one’s life to date, than to subject it to potential modification and thus to consider critical thinking as an existential threat. Perhaps that explains apparent aversion to and attempts to block promulgation of evidence that application of scientific methodology to physical anthropology provides an opportunity for meaningful contributions beyond salvage work. The latter has value, but physical anthropology can offer much more. Extirpating the biases would be a major step in that direction and resurrect logos.