12th October 2011, 09:12 AM
Moreno, from the other thread: "Archaeology uses scientific methods, but by no means in it's own right would I consider it a science. The problem for me lays in reconstructing a testable hypothesis. As we all know, how do you recreate an excavation where it can independently be verified by our colleagues?"
This is absolutely why archaeology is not a science, obviously it uses scientific techniques and even a scientific method of observation in certain circumstances but to suggest that all archaeology is a science is ridiculous, especially if you are not then going to back up your statement - Jack is hopefully a better scientist than he is a philosopher!
If all archaeology is a science then explain to me the science of trying to match up a field boundary shown on a tithe map to a feature in the ground, or thow interpretating earthworks or aerial photos fits, for a couple of examples. If your view of archaeology is narrow enough to just consider the 'scientific' process of digging then you need to get out more (or perhaps stay in more?)
This is absolutely why archaeology is not a science, obviously it uses scientific techniques and even a scientific method of observation in certain circumstances but to suggest that all archaeology is a science is ridiculous, especially if you are not then going to back up your statement - Jack is hopefully a better scientist than he is a philosopher!
If all archaeology is a science then explain to me the science of trying to match up a field boundary shown on a tithe map to a feature in the ground, or thow interpretating earthworks or aerial photos fits, for a couple of examples. If your view of archaeology is narrow enough to just consider the 'scientific' process of digging then you need to get out more (or perhaps stay in more?)