> When anthropologists look at scientists, they’re trying to understand the species. But when viewed through the lens of Progress Studies, the implicit question

> When anthropologists look at scientists, they’re trying to understand the species. But when viewed through the lens of Progress Studies, the implicit question is how scientists (or funders or evaluators of scientists) should be acting. I have had a few recent exchanges with anthropologists and it doesn't seem they are interested in moralistic claims apart from defending the current academic framework. For example they were highly skeptical of science when it doesn't support the "nurture" side on the nature vs nurture debate, discarding scientific evidence as invalid using weak arguments. It was surprising to me how prevalent and an orthodoxy this is, and it seems they have contracted the relativistic disease that is prevalent in the social sciences for decades. I suppose most agree that progress is not an implied good (Plenty of comments here express that view). Pity because anthropology is IMO the most interesting social science. As for measuring progress in science, the problem is that the vast majority of scientists are content with the current system of small unambitious steps, low risks and easy content-free papers, so you won't easily find many supporters there.