{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.026272577996715927, 'fraction_numerical': 0.003284072249589491, 'mean_word_length': 5.41578947368421, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Etics and Emics (Not to Mention Anemics and Emetics) in the History of the Sciences

In1954 Kenneth Pike distinguished etics, the application of our theories in analysing others' behaviour and institutions, from emics, the interpretation of others' worlds as they appear to them.' Pike's distinction memorably travestied by Gerald D. Berreman as cold, distanced, scientistic anemics versus sympathetic, engaged, intuitive emetics has occasioned prolonged and heated debate among anthropologists.' What are the limits of ernie interpretation and etic analysis? Should etics or emics have priority? Can emics dispense with etics? How far need etic analysis of a culture respect its emics? Etc. In the same period historians of science have agonized about the need to avoid anachronism by respecting past agents' explicit categories. In this article I shall suggest that the obsession with actors' categories is a hangover from an historiography of scientific ideas based on texts and doctrines. By contrast, the etics/emics debates have addressed the central issues of current historiography of the sciences, focusing as they do on problems of interpretation and analysis of others' perceptions, skills and institutions.