Here's what I said. >> I guess it's possible that it has all completely changed since and Samoans have all colluded to lie and forget about it but it kind of s

Here's what I said. >> I guess it's possible that it has all completely changed since and Samoans have all colluded to lie and forget about it but it kind of seems pretty unlikely to me. Not you? So it is possible, sure. Seems implausible to me that Samoa is engaging in a national conspiracy for reasons unclear. Between any number of Samoans (sample size many more than 3) telling us about their culture it seems reasonable to believe the Samoans themselves using their own words about their own experiences rather than reports of what was said by 3 people to a third party that we'd have to acknowledge, seem far from certain in the light of subsequent statements. >...no way to verify Mead's empirical claims either way. It isn't false, it is unfalsifiable Yep unfalsifisble is not science. It is discredited. The information from the source interviews surely does look false too. I just can't give credence to a national, inter-generational conspiracy in Samoa, combined with a very radical and persistent cultural change all to discredit an american anthropologist. How would you even pull that off? Finding out would be more fascinating than the original research if it happened but I strongly doubt it did.