objective proof for this emotion; no way to scientifically monitor it. Can we then say to believe in love is irrational? Many people would argue ‘No’, that they themselves have experienced love. And this is the first criticism of rationality. It is not concerned with personal experience that cannot be charted. Sometimes it is considered more rational to believe in things proven objectively (through scientific means) than perhaps your own experiences. What does this mean for the Anthropologist carrying out fieldwork? Benedict Allen in his documentary series ‘Medicine Man’ explored the world of shamans across the world. During filming Allen hurt his leg in an accident and had been taking antibiotics, which were not working. After three days he encountered a traditional healer, a shaman, whom he agreed could attempt to heal him. The shaman took the horn of an animal, prayed on it and stuck it directly into Allen’s wound. He then chewed up some herbs and spat them into Allen’s mouth. Two days later Allen’s wound had closed up. He believed it was the work of the shaman that had done this and that he had been involved in a magical process. However Western science does not permit this. What should the Anthropologist believe? Should science override the Anthropologists themselves? At times the belief in rationality can render the Anthropologists’ own perceptions and experiences null and void. What about this objective truth? Can we say there is such a thing? Social Anthropology as a discipline has become more and more aware of how personal opinions and prejudices affect the anthropologists’ work. This is also true in the ‘traditional’ sciences, the opposite of magic. Scientists are human beings, fallible creatures. It is highly unlikely that every scientist has shed their prejudices in a way that others cannot. Descartes once wrote ‘Judging requires n...
