Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 1:
{{WPAnthro|class=start|importance=}}
* The pdf linked here has good review of many of the criticisms and critics of DIT - many of which are now in the new "criticisms" section. The "criticisms" section would likely benefit from a distinction between the semantic arguments against DIT (that certain words should or should not be used to explain processes in DIT) and substantive arguments (whether actual processes do or do not occur). http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/anthro/faculty/boyd/HenrichBoydRichersonHumNat08.pdf [[Special:Contributions/67.166.158.234|67.166.158.234]] ([[User talk:67.166.158.234|talk]]) 08:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
* I could not find a copy of the Kaufman article online. Though its short abstract seems to be a review of another article cited. [[Special:Contributions/67.166.158.234|67.166.158.234]] ([[User talk:67.166.158.234|talk]]) 08:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
*This theory is highly controversial among social scientists, historians, etc. A "criticsm" section would be very helpful. Unfortunately, while many of the component concepts of dual inheritance theory have been refuted by sociologists and anthropologists, I don't know anyone who's actually written a rebuttal of the theory as a whole. Combining separate, otherwise unrelated critiques in a wikipedia article could constitute original research, so we'd have to find an article specifically adressing it. If anyone knows of somebody who's written on this it would be nice to plug in a section covering the other viewpoints. [[Special:Contributions/85.154.169.140|85.154.169.140]] ([[User talk:85.154.169.140|talk]]) 10:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
| |||