13th October 2011, 01:36 PM
RedEarth Wrote:That's all perfectly true and while I would concede that archaeology is or can be 'scientific' and, compares quite well to some other 'science' subjects, it so many other things too, depending on which direction you are coming from. You seem to take the view that it is and should only be a science, with anything else dismissed as 'story telling' and moving away from the evidence..
Yes. But story-telling using the evidence can be just as engaging as making it up.
Ignoring the evidence to make a better story often happens when the media 'interpret' scientific data. My favorite example was the drop in salinity measured in the gulf stream....erm overturning halide current..er whatever its called. Some scientists decided a while back to do a set of readings of salinity at its end where it drops and returns south...somewhere near iceland I think. the results were reported by the media as
'drop in salinity in gulf stream shows it may stop causing new ice age!'
It was such a good story that someone made a film about it, 'the day after tomorrow.'
But when the new ice age didn't happen folk seemed blamed the scientists who got it wrong again.
Now I actually read a more detailed account of the research in the NERC magazine. The scientists did indeed say that the salinity seemed low, and that if it got too low the current could stop and if that happened NW Europe would stop being warmed. But they also said that these were the first measurements taken and the natural variability was unknown. Further measurements were needed.
And lo and behold, when further measurements were taken, they found that the first measurements were probably within the natural variability of the system.
Thats what I mean about ignoring the evidence or going beyond the evidence to tell a story. You look very silly when someone comes up with more evidence that prove your treasured story wrong. Its the reason why scientific reasoning was invented.
The new ice age was a good story .......it was just a load of bollox though.
RedEarth Wrote:But it is ultimately about people not pots, as I believe someone once said, so without the stories is it really telling us anything? I quite like the idea of it being more like a philosophical or theorectical discipline, using science and even guess work (there, I've said it!) to come up with a realistic or sensible interpretation.
Trial and error is a viable scientific technique. Fabulous and engaging stories can be made using the evidence. Questions can be just as engaging as made up answers.
RedEarth Wrote:Wouldn't restricting it to just science make it a bit boring and limited?
Read all about it: pots had milk in them!
No.