17th February 2011, 12:34 AM
Natural Philosophy, yes...no shame there.
Leading Scientists (and probably engineers) certainly turn to philosophy for inspiration and meaning...it is the salt that makes everything a bit more palatable.
Knowledge is also not a preserve of the elite - to say that archaeology must re-focus on its only real p[product (ie knowledge) is not the same as suggesting archaeology should be more academic or exclusive.
In contrary there is substantial interest ('demand') for archaeology in public arenas - - knowledge and public access are mutually reinforcing, but also mutually diminishing when declining.
Knowledge Creation should be the centre of the Game Plan.
(anyway, a real philosopher would ask 'do you REALLY want fries with that?')
Leading Scientists (and probably engineers) certainly turn to philosophy for inspiration and meaning...it is the salt that makes everything a bit more palatable.
Knowledge is also not a preserve of the elite - to say that archaeology must re-focus on its only real p[product (ie knowledge) is not the same as suggesting archaeology should be more academic or exclusive.
In contrary there is substantial interest ('demand') for archaeology in public arenas - - knowledge and public access are mutually reinforcing, but also mutually diminishing when declining.
Knowledge Creation should be the centre of the Game Plan.
(anyway, a real philosopher would ask 'do you REALLY want fries with that?')