5th May 2011, 05:27 PM
And has been for a good while!
Hi there Prentice,
I think you?ve highlighted a flaw with this argument that underpins one of the central planks of the case for archaeology ? as pushed by everyone from the CBA to the CM&S Select Committee (from whom I presume you are using your figures ? counted at ?7.4bn for annual heritage tourism).
To quote you in full:
And to break the argument down into its constituent clauses:
This all sounds very reasonable, but to my mind it?s erring dangerously close to the fallacy of affirming the consequent. See below:
I realise that this isn?t exactly what you have written, but I have broken it down in this way to highlight the logic steps behind the ?archaeology benefits the wider economy? argument. Even if the first two steps in the chain are true, it doesn?t necessarily flow that the conclusion is secure. Archaeology is not the only sufficient condition for the heritage market being worth billions ? there are many other factors that account for this.
I would argue that archaeology has an extremely marginal part to play in the production and maintenance of those Heritage billions ? certainly the dirt archaeology that you and I and many on this forum practice. The Royal Family could also be counted as a major heritage tourist draw, and not surprisingly the same ?heritage billions? arguments are trotted out to protect them from the axe mans blade too.
Hi there Prentice,
I think you?ve highlighted a flaw with this argument that underpins one of the central planks of the case for archaeology ? as pushed by everyone from the CBA to the CM&S Select Committee (from whom I presume you are using your figures ? counted at ?7.4bn for annual heritage tourism).
To quote you in full:
P Prentice Wrote:The indisputably lucrative heritage market is based on millions spending billions in order to experience an historic environment that is understood through the lens of historical perspective. Archaeology widens and deepens historical perspective and thus promulgates understanding of the historic environment. Archaeologists are therefore essential to the ever-growing heritage market.
And to break the argument down into its constituent clauses:
- The heritage market is worth billions because people want to experience and understand the past through the lens of a historical perspective.
- Archaeology helps people experience and understand the past through the lens of a historical perspective.
- Archaeology is therefore essential to the ever-growing heritage market and consequently worth billions.
This all sounds very reasonable, but to my mind it?s erring dangerously close to the fallacy of affirming the consequent. See below:
- If the heritage market is worth billions, archaeology (an essential part of the heritage market) must be important.
- The heritage market is worth billions.
- Therefore, archaeology is important.
I realise that this isn?t exactly what you have written, but I have broken it down in this way to highlight the logic steps behind the ?archaeology benefits the wider economy? argument. Even if the first two steps in the chain are true, it doesn?t necessarily flow that the conclusion is secure. Archaeology is not the only sufficient condition for the heritage market being worth billions ? there are many other factors that account for this.
I would argue that archaeology has an extremely marginal part to play in the production and maintenance of those Heritage billions ? certainly the dirt archaeology that you and I and many on this forum practice. The Royal Family could also be counted as a major heritage tourist draw, and not surprisingly the same ?heritage billions? arguments are trotted out to protect them from the axe mans blade too.