Prompt: EVIDENTIAL SUPPORT & CRITIQUE

The following appeared in an article written by Dr. Karp, an anthropologist.

"Twenty years ago, Dr. Field, a noted anthropologist, visited the island of Tertia and concluded from his observations that children in Tertia were reared by an entire village rather than by their own biological parents. However, my recent interviews with children living in the group of islands that includes Tertia show that these children spend much more time talking about their biological parents than about other adults in the village. This research of mine proves that Dr. Field's conclusion about Tertian village culture is invalid and thus that the observation-centered approach to studying cultures is invalid as well. The interview-centered method that my team of graduate students is currently using in Tertia will establish a much more accurate understanding of child-rearing traditions there and in other island cultures."

Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.

Dr. Field, a notable anthropologist, observed that in Tertia, an island community, the entire group and not solely the biological parents raise children. 

But, children in Tertia tend to talk more about their biological parents than other group members. 

This fact has been taken as evidence that the conclusion that the Tertian group is responsible for raising children may in fact not be valid. 

Furthermore, the same people who advocate this skeptical argument pin their own conclusion that the observation-centered approach to studying cultures is invalid on the same fact: Tertian children tend to speak more about their biological parents than other group members. 

While these may sound like rather reasonable doubts, further analysis reveals ambiguities that must be overcome before accepting the skeptical position and its proposed alternatives. 

Does Dr. Field have anything to say about the role of biological parents in the raising of their own children?  True, it was noted that the Tertian group raises the children, rather than the biological parents, but presumably, the biological parents are members of the group.  Are the children aware that their biological parents are in fact their biological parents?  If not, and they tend to talk more about these group members in any case, then we might wonder whether there is an implicit favoritism bestowed upon these children by their biological parents, and furthermore, whether these children recognize the favoritism, but not the true motivation behind the received blessings.  These children may in fact talk more about their parents, while not knowing that these kind souls are their parents, and therefore, the conclusion that the Tertian group raises the children and the fact that Tertian children tend to speak more about their biological parents than other group members are completely compatible.  Now, obviously, if this were the case, than an interview technique alone would be insufficient to the task since if the children are receiving favoritism by their biological parents, and this is forbidden by the group, then observation of the practices of the parents toward their unaware children would be a great advantage for the researchers attempting to understanding the child-rearing traditions of these island peoples. 

Prior to having this ambiguities addressed, judgment must be withheld concerning the skeptical argument.  In the meantime, further research might address issues that cut across methodological boundaries, and attempt to explain why observational and interview techniques are thought to be incompatible.