19th March 2010, 04:43 PM
mididoctors Wrote:competing ideas usually one will be better than an other ... yes it is not a contradiction to show pros and cons
breath in breath out.... the notion is commercial archaeology needs improvement. It has deteriorated and lost its way... not we should do nothing instead
I am the supervisor
OK here is an example we will take it one step at a time. lets examine confirmation bias as a precursor
For those that have dug in the City of London (molas wessex oxford PCA etc) the site method statement will no doubt include the following research objective
What evidence is there, if any, for the decline in activity on the site in the mid-2nd century?
that's a loaded question
this is akin to giving a load of biologists a bunch of data and ask
What evidence is there, if any, for the intelligent design in this data set?
Someone could find evidence for intelligent design in the data set because some things could be interpreted as such but clearly if they look at the data as a whole they will conclude those bits of evidence can b explained in a different way that forms a more consistent explanation.. evolution
but they are not being asked that they have been asked to cherry pick out those bits of data that could fit ID theories at the expense of other theories
The same thing is being asked of all the Londinium dig supervisors and if they lack insight and/or experience they tend to try and fit the data to the model of 2nd cent decline ...now at this point it is irrelevant whether 2nd cent decline model is correct or not what is important for our discussion is we both agree that you understand the point I am making concerning confirmation bias.
this 2nd cent decline model is passed from top down with unstated assumptions built into the way sites are approached
Do you understand this first point?
I'm not sure that what you are talking about is pros and cons, more wrongs and rights, as you state beforehand 'usually one [idea] will be better than an other' - will it? who has decided that? that too sounds like a autocratic statement made, perhaps passed the top down, based on an a priori decision about future decisions. How is that any worse than what you criticise below?
I'd agree that elements of it need improving but I don't think you've demonstrated it all needs improving.
Fair enough, your the supervisor but there is someone above you presumably making decisions, which I get the feeling you don't agree with.
Of course it's a loaded question, but until robots carry out excavations (goodbye jobs) then there is always going to be some presumptions made beforehand. We do not approach the site in a vacuum, just as biologists don't, it's called evidence and debate.
I simply can't tell what you are suggesting should happen instead.