Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorFeleppa, Robert
dc.date.accessioned2011-03-29T19:11:09Z
dc.date.available2011-03-29T19:11:09Z
dc.date.issued1995
dc.identifier.issn2041-6962
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10057/3456
dc.descriptionAccess to full text is restricted. WSU Libraries provides access to electronic copy of this article via commercial databases and library online catalog. A link to the journal: http://libcat.wichita.edu/vwebv/holdingsInfo?bibId=1442529en_US
dc.description.abstractProfessor Salmon argues that the controversies about Mead’s work and about cannibalism encourage healthy discussion of anthropological standards of evidence and definition, and provide an opportunity to consider the scientific status of anthropology. Her paper is broad in scope, concerned as it is particularly with how Arens’s criticisms make an impact across the discipline and apply to a number of general theoretical controversies. I would like to look in somewhat more detail at some of the issues on which her discussion of the cannibalism controversy touches.en_US
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.publisherWiley-Blackwellen_US
dc.relation.ispartofseriesThe Southern Journal of Philosophy (1995) Vol. XXXN;Supplement, pp. 147-154;
dc.titleAspects of the Cannibalism Controversy: Comments on Merrilee Salmonen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record