Okay, give me an example of how science has 'dwarfed' ethnography.
Ethnography is useful in seeing how cultural construction of gendered identities can differ. It can be used to verify or dispute scientific theories: for example the claim that in all societies, females are subservient to men. Such a claim can be offset by the example of the !Kung, where extensive sexual egalitarianism, and considerable overlapping of the activities and spheres of influence of men and women has been observed.
It can TEST the pervasiveness of certain types of gendered distinctions. And I can give you a lot of scholarly work that argues ethnography is, in fact, a scientific technique.
Lets quote you again, shall we?
Oh, and without going into details, even science is based on what you call "opinions".
To do math, you have to opiniate that 1+1 = 2, that the world exists and that rationality is coherent. Everything has its axiomatic.
Hell, gravity is an opinion.
Where in your above comparison do you indicate merely a 'certain proportion of people disregard morals in order to attain selfish goals'?
You claim to represent a scientific approach, but can a 'scientific' thesis be opinion-based?
The axiom, as you describe it, "people are *******s", cannot be attributed to the list of famous scholars as if it boulsters your point! FIRSTLY, each of those names differs HUGELY in their methodology and their specific views - in what was is Freud communicative with Oscar Wilde?! SECOND, many of these arguments, though influential and interesting, do not align with current opinion.
FINALLY - no respectable scholar BEGINS an argument by making a huge assumption or a sweeping generalisation without any basis in evidence (which is the meaning of an 'axiomatic preamble').
You clearly have no comprehension of the litererature that exists.
Go and take a read of C. Fine's 'Delusions of Gender' (a basic introduction to a vast field of enquiry).
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Delusions-Gender-Science-Behind-Differences/dp/184831163X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1291105646&sr=8-1 Besides, to say there are differences between the sexes is VERY different to saying they are 'biologically determined'. Thats just a basic principle you seem to ignore.
It doesn't have to 'alter brain cells' to inform ones behaviour. Are you suggesting features of gender distinction are universally the same?
Biological determinism just doesn't work in relation to gender distinction.
Lets have a look at some proper arguments, shall we?
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/22/8801.fullI find it really hard to take you seriously. Have you taken a glance at any social science recently? The entire field of social anthropology hinges upon ethnography, which is employed by a whole host of other disciplines. You're simply wrong!