Talk:Franz Boas/Archive 3
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Boas doctorate
The recent sources by Koelsch and Harris contradict Herskovits biography, so we should probably be sure that the issues of his professional formation is described accurately with some more sources. All sources agree that his doctorate was in physics, but his dissertation on the topic of the color of water was a psychophysics topic. The postdoctoral work in geography that HArris mentions must be the Baffinland expedition because he only mailed his dissertation back to Germany from the ship while he was oin his way to Baffinland. And from Baffinland he went to the US, to do museum work, so he never held a postdoctoral position in geography as such. I am getting a hold of the Koelsch source to compare it. But we probably need some more general biographies as well. I have his letters from the baffinland trip as well and will see what I can glean from them.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Then why is the Herskovits biography not cited, or even listed in the "Writings on Boas..." section? For that matter why are there no citations at all for the claim that his dissertation was in the field of psychophysics? The edits I made to the page did not "contradict other sources regarding Boas doctorate" within the context of the Wikipedia page because there previously were no cited sources on the page for any info on his doctorate. The mandate at the top of this talk page states "Franz Boas has been listed as a level-4 vital article in People. If you can improve it, please do." I added accurate, verifiable details with quotations and citations where there were none, as well as put the events of that time period in chronological order, I believe those count as improving it. With your blanket reversal of all of my edits you sent it back to the realm of unverified speculation and confusing chronology. Your blanket reversal also took out my edits that did not even relate to this psychophysics debate. While this technically is not vandalism by Wikipedia's stated standards, it certainly is frustrating to put a lot of time and effort in improving the accuracy and validity of the information only to have someone reverse everything back to a less robust state on a whim. Another aspect I do not understand is your insistence that researching the color of water is a psychophysics topic, why is that a psychophysics topic and not simply a physics topic? His dissertation was entitled "Contributions to the Understanding of the Color of Water," which according to Kroeber (1943) "dealt with the absorption, reflection, and the polarization of light in seawater"...in other words it was simply basic physics. Both Williams (1998) and Murray (1994) comment that issues he encountered during his doctoral research in being able to objectively perceive slight differences in color of water led Boas to consider the "relationship between the psychological and the physical" (i.e., psychophysics) but that was not the subject of his dissertation research. I am going to reinstate my edits, with some additional info/citations. If you have verifiable, documented information that contradicts (or contributes to) what I have posted then by all means add it to the text, but please do not reverse the entirety of my edits again. Sccgeography (talk) 05:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- The quality of the article currently leaves a lot to be desired. The Koelsch source you cited is extremely valuable and will be a great help in improving the coverage of the early years. Now having read it I learned a lot and understand the chronology of his interests better, and it seems clear that Koelsch replaces older sources such as Herskovits in many matters. As for the unpleasant experience of having your contributions reverted, I certainly understand and sympathize. But anyone who edits wikipedia will have this experience, because we work collaboratively and often other editors disagree with what we add. In those cases we go to the talkpage, present arguments and reach consensus. The relation of Boas dissertation topic to psychophysics is well entrenched in the literature, and Herskovits for example mention that three of his dissertation questions were psychophysics questions, two were geography and the sith about opera. The Koelsch article, due to its focus on geography, also leaves out the influences on Boas from other sources that can be found in works by Stocking and Herskovits. I am not going to revert your edits, but they come across to me less as an attempt to really understand Boas' intellectual trajectory than to claim him as an honorary geographer. Probably influenced by Koelsch's mission which was to show the relation between human geography of late 19th century germany and Boas thought, but which as I say therefore leaves out conflicting accounts. A better approach would be to write specifically that Koelch has argued that the main influence on his thinking was from geography, while others have maintained that his interest in psychophysics led him towards an interest in the cultural influences of perception, and his interest in geography led him towards an interest in the influence of environment on culture.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I certainly do not mind someone editing my contributions, by clarifying or otherwise enhancing them, or eliminating errors, that is expected; but I think blanket reversion of posts should be avoided except in extreme cases.
"The relation of Boas dissertation topic to psychophysics is well entrenched in the literature, and Herskovits for example mention that three of his dissertation questions were psychophysics questions, two were geography and the sith about opera." That sounds like something that should be included then. I am not familiar with that aspect of Boas dissertation, it was not covered in the History of Anthropological Thought graduate course I took (which just covered the physics/geography aspects, and we read Boas, Harris, and Bohannan and Glaser, all of which portray him as briefly transitioning to psychophysics after his dissertation, but we did not read Herskovits). Since you have that info I encourage you work it into the narrative.
As for my edits coming across "less as an attempt to really understand Boas' intellectual trajectory than to claim him as an honorary geographer," I think that simply reflects where Boas himself was at both intellectually and professionally at the time. Keep in mind his first academic position, after returning to Germany from Baffin Island, was as privatdozent in geography at the University of Berlin. At the time we are discussing he was not an honorary geographer but rather a full-fledged professional geographer. Maybe I did go a bit overboard in the detail I provide, but that was more a reaction to what I saw as an excessive, unsourced emphasis on psychophysics and not enough emphasis on his well-documented physics and geography influences. I did attempt to put his psychophysics interests more fully into the narrative, both contextually and chronologically, based on additional sources I dug into as this exchange has progressed. But again, I encourage you to elaborate on that aspect using (and citing) the sources you have. You are clearly very enthusiastic about Boas and his legacy, and have a particular interest in the psychophysics aspect of his career development, use that to enhance the article...but not at the expense of his other influences!
And thank you for both teaching me something I did not know about Boas and prompting me to dig further. Sccgeography (talk) 17:36, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
OK, I have obtained a copy of Franz Boas: The Early Years, 1858-1906 (1999) by Douglas Cole, a rather definitive study of Boas' life during that time period that unlike other biographies makes extensive use of the Boas Papers, a collection of 60,000+ personal correspondence and other items that was archived at the American Philosophical Society in Philadelphia shortly after Boas' death. Cole speculates that this rich resource was not used earlier because most of the correspondence from Boas life in Germany is naturally in German. This book is a fascinating read that includes obscure tidbits such as details of his several (at least 5) formal sword duels (mensur, in which the goal was to wound the opponent's face) throughout his college time that resulted in several scars, a prank that he and some other students did while drunk one night in which they put out a few gas lamps resulting in Boas spending three days in a "student jail," and the tragic loss of his best friend to accidental drowning while Boas was home on holiday after his first term at Heidelberg. It also goes into detail about his studies and the courses he took, and why he changed universities.
More to the point here, it clarifies a lot of what we have been discussing. For example my sources were incorrect about Fischer being Boas' dissertation advisor, it was physicist Gustav Karsten (which is what was originally stated on the Wikipedia page but was uncited). It also presents Boas' dissertation as being about basic optics and having nothing to do with psychophysics: "Reluctantly, Boas decided that it was best to follow his supervisor's (Karsten) choice, research dealing with the optical properties of water. He restricted himself to questions of water's absorption of light and the polarization of light reflected from water." (p. 52) Cole then goes into detail about the problems Boas had conducting his research on the optical properties of water, namely difficulty ensuring the purity of the water used in his experiments as well as difficulty finding suitable test tubes, both needed to get accurate results. At one point in June 1880 he realized that all of his results obtained since February had to be thrown out because of errors that crept into the measurements due to these issues, but he eventually got the problems resolved. There is nothing in here regarding questions about psychophysics, geography, or opera; if Herskovits did say these then I think his source was pulling his leg!
Boas graduated in May 1881, but: "Completion brought relief but scarcely exaltation. He had done what could be done, but the subject was a troublesome one...The dissertation was passable, but he knew it was "nothing special." "If someone had told me a few semesters ago that I would submit such a dissertation, I would have laughed at him. But one learns to be content."" (pp. 52-53) Cole goes on: "The frustration and disappointment of the dissertation research had already led Boas to reevaluate his career plans. The evidence is not complete, and his course was probably haphazard and even accidental, but he was clearly drifting away from physics. One symptom of the drift was a new emphasis in psychophysics...Boas was seduced by psychophysics...In November 1880, when he had overcome most of most of his laboratory problems and could see the end of his dissertation research, he entertained the idea of spending the next summer as Helmholtz's Berlin laboratory. There he could do some work that touched only indirectly on his dissertation subject, but for which there was no apparatus at Kiel. He doubtless meant to do something in psychophysics." (pp. 53-54) This draws a clear distinction between his physics dissertation and what he subsequently wanted to do in psychophysics. However: "The Helmholtz plan did not materialize. Though Boas devoted much of his summer (1881) to reading and writing up psychophysics investigations, this seductive field was not his main interest. He was unqualified in any other area of psychology, and it was a dubious area of physics...He had decided that his future lay in geography." (p. 54) Cole then uses the next 2 1/2 pages detailing the nature of this shift to geography and the likely role Fischer played in it. According to Cole, Boas' letters indicate he was completely done with psychophysics by March 1882, at which time he also wrote that he was prepared to "concentrate my powers entirely upon geography." (quoted on p. 65) This book downplays Boas involvement in psychophysics, only giving it a couple of paragraphs and presenting it as largely a brief distraction between his physics and geography periods and not indicating it having any lasting influence on his personal development.
At any rate, I will be making some edits to the Boas page based on this book, and cutting out many of my earlier references that are no longer needed. --Sccgeography (talk) 05:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- Sounds great. this page needs a rewriting and I have been putting it off for ages myself. My own view is that we should separate out his biography from his thought (subsections on the main concepts such a culture, fourfield andthropology, historical particularism, race and biological variation, language history etc.), his work (individual publications) and legacy (role in the development of anthropology, linguistics. folkloristics etc.) each of which should have separate sections, with subsections. I have been meaning to get Cole's book myself, but havent gotten around to it.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- There is a good article by Stocking that studies Boas relation to psychology , mentioning for example that many of his earliest publications from 1882 were in Psychophysics (Stocking Jr, G. W. (1992). 15 Polarity and plurality: Franz Boas as psychological anthropologist. New Directions in Psychological Anthropology, 3, 311.). Boas also himself mentions giving up his psychophysics work in a 1882 letter to his uncle reprinted inbStocking Frans Boas reader p. 44. The reason many like to stress the psychophysics work is because it seems to have been what led him towards the concept of cultural relativism, several studies consider his paper on Alternating Sounds (psychoacoustics and the precursor to the phoneme principle in linguistics) to be one of his main works. Also btw. I dont think we should remove any references unless they are of very low quality.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- Sounds great. this page needs a rewriting and I have been putting it off for ages myself. My own view is that we should separate out his biography from his thought (subsections on the main concepts such a culture, fourfield andthropology, historical particularism, race and biological variation, language history etc.), his work (individual publications) and legacy (role in the development of anthropology, linguistics. folkloristics etc.) each of which should have separate sections, with subsections. I have been meaning to get Cole's book myself, but havent gotten around to it.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Socking
|
|---|
ControversyThis article requires a Controversy section. I came here looking for it. Surprised it wasn't included. Particularly in reference to pseudoscience in the social sciences, and on Boas as one of the most influential pseudoscientists produced by the Cosmopolitan movement. And I'm kind of surprised at the 'heaping of unworthy praise', and the total abandonment of the NPOV in the article. We all love our heroes, but many of our heroes turn out to be largely wrong. Marx, Freud, Boas, Cantor, Mises, Rothbard and Gould were wrong - and the consequences will be the subject of study for centuries, just as Hayek had suggested ("...the century of mysticism") . That doesn't mean Boas didn't positively influence culture, but it doesn't forgive the fact that despite his claims of empiricism, he was engaging in not just bad science, but pseudoscience (and there is a difference). And it's only been since the beginning of the Pinker era that he's been incrementally corrected, and at this point largely discredited. Darwin, Weber, Pareto, Durkheim each with their flaws, but producing better work. Now, I am perhaps part of a new generation of thinkers, and I am perhaps more sensitive to pseudoscience because debunking it and preventing it is one of my areas of research, but facts are facts, history is history, and Boas requires a Controversy section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.115.97.109 (talk) 23:42, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
About historical context of Franz Boas life?About historical context of Franz Boas life? The page of Franz Boas have methaporical content because in time was alive the risk of their studies be censured was very high were too high. Franz Boas was wrong appropriated the term ethnocentrism of a political scientist who as social Darwinist, social theory that Boas loathed highly, after of the death of the scientist who scientist who had its proper concept by Boas. The risk of Boas studies be censured by the government of the United States was very high because his studies looming that the indians of the Western most territory of the United States have indigenous own cultures and indigenous own languages and show that the indians of the West coast are not only wild indians and who do not sense the Indians of the American West as wild animals, which must not be arranged in a indian village and and should also never be civilised and that also the indians should not be killed in name of the to make the country a country without Indians. The mentality of the government of the United States in the beginning of the twentieth century when switched on the churches and educators was aldear wild indians without fixed place and civilize the indians, however when it was connected to the population and to the progress the mentality was to kill all the Indians and put the remaining indians in circuses or ethnological or colonial exhibitions located in area populated, colonized and civilised party of the country or in Paris, London, Berlin, Hamburg, Amsterdam or Brussels. The metaphors is a remedy that hide the idea that is issued in the subversive content of an work, example, during the Brazilian military government, brazilian musician was made singles with metaphoric content to avoid the subversive content of the lyrics, Chico Buarque was used the situation when a father brings a glass goblet with red wine mixed with blood of killed people to a a youngster and the yougster ask away the Glass goblet with red wine mixed with blood in reference of the political repression[1]. - 201.81.64.163 (talk) 20:03, 15 May 2016 (UTC). References
Split the article for a new page on anthropological views?I've noticed the sections describing his anthropological views is rather lengthy, and could do with some expanding into a new separate article for Boasian anthropology. I am not an expert in this field however so I don't know if this is the best option. Thoughts? Mr. Anon515 07:22, 27 February 2017 (UTC) External links modifiedHello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 2 external links on Franz Boas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:22, 6 October 2017 (UTC) Bibliography, research in the Pacific Northwest, and needed rewriteThis article could really use a bibliography of Boas' writings. Also, it is rather weakly hinted at that his main research interest over a nearly 50 year period was the Kwakiutl Indians of British Columbia, and the article should describe or at least name some of the actual books he wrote on Pacific Northwest peoples: Chinook Texts and Kathlamet Texts, the first book-length publications by a single Native American author, Qqiltí or Charles Cultee, The Social Organization and Secret Societies of the Kwakiutl Indians (seminal at the time), Tsimshian Texts, The Ethnology of the Kwakiutl, which was a massive undertaking, etc. Why isn't George Hunt mentioned, his most important collaborator? I find that the insertion of a more basic chronology and recounting of his life is sorely needed, at least before discussing his accomplishments in more general terms. This is a biography, and it is especially weak after the turn of the century. As Maunus said above, the article needs a rewrite, but given the existing complexity of some parts that read like a Ph. D. dissertation, it may be too much to hope for that someone will undertake a major revision. Curiocurio (talk) 23:22, 6 May 2016 (UTC) Unorthodox punctuation
I had to go to the source to be sure I was understanding that sentence as intended. "The fact that American anthropology has included sociocultural anthropology, linguistics, physical anthropology, and archaeology—the so-called four fields approach—is partly a reflection of Boas's broad interests". Okay, so my and/with/and high-level parse was correct after all.
The original is not suitable for the reading audience of Wikipedia. It's the kind of thing you're required to read in graduate school, and mostly wish you didn't have to. No-one can read the original and name the four important things quickly, so it has effectively buried its lead, as well. I also take issue with descriptive linguistics thumbnailed as "the study of unwritten indigenous languages". Perhaps this is how Boas went about it, but it's not the high-level view presented in that article itself. — MaxEnt 01:56, 9 January 2020 (UTC) Did Boas die of a heart attack or stroke?There is some conflicting information. On the page for Levi Strauss, it states Boas died of a heart attack. MillsOrlando (talk) 00:46, 2 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MillsOrlando (talk • contribs) 20:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
|