Dr. Karp must provide more evidence to establish his conclusion against Dr.

Field's methodolgy and results. Dr. Karp claims that from his interview-centered
method his team established that in Tertian cultures biological parents do indeed
nurture the kids, because the kids he interviewed talked much morea about their
parents than other adults in the village. Which is in contrast Dr. Fields. However,
merley talking more about their parents does not entail that nurturing is done by
their parents. It is simply not sufficient evidence. There could be many other
reasons for this supposed anomly. Dr. Karp would need to show that during his
interviews that kids clearly affirmed his hypothesis. It could be the case that,
even though the village as a whole reares the children but in their upbringing the
kids are taught to always care and love their parents. For example, one interviews
a kid from a normal family in the United States of America. This child spends
majority of time talking about Batman. Does this mean that Batman nurtured this kid
more than his parent? I suspect we would say, no.
Further, Dr. Karp suggests that not only were Dr. Field's results mistaken
but his entire methodolgy. Again, Dr. Karp must provide further evidence to show
that this is categorically the case. He must show that interview-centered method is
more accurate, but it doesn't seem like that is the case. Unless, Dr. Karp is able
to provide results which unequivocally demonstrate that his method was able to
acquire much more accurate data. The example provided in the passage is not only
sufficient but probably not accurate. As said above, a child simply talking about
their parent does not show Dr. Field's conclusion as false. Further, the Tertian
children might not pay attention to where their food, cloths and education is
coming from. It might be the case that the kids recieve their essential needs for
upbringin (food, education, etc.) by the village as a whole but their play time is
with their parents. This could easily be the reason for their admonishment of their
parents. For example, there are many families with an aunt or an uncle who are
referred to as the "fun" uncle or aunt. It is entirely feasible and possible that
in talking to the kids of the family, many might talk about their aunts and uncles
much more than their parents, but again this doesn't prove that they are reared by
their aunts or uncles.
Now, Dr. Karp can strengthen his or her argument by showing that the kids
talked about their parents more because the parents nurtured or reared them. They
could ask the children direct questions, or the adults direct questions. Further,
Dr. Karp could do further research on other island cultures. Areas where Dr.
Field's or other anthropologist have done observation-centered research but Dr.
Karp got contradictory or inconsistent results relative to Dr. Field's. Making sure
of the methodolgy, questions, the subjects and the subject's bias were all taken
into account and the resuls still negated Dr. Field's then, Dr. Karp shall claim
that his methods are superior to observation based methods. However, until then and
without Dr. Karp providing further scrutable data his conclusion seems hasty and
ill-informed.