2nd February 2012, 01:40 PM
quintaine Wrote:But why is it up to "the archaeologist" to prove anyone wrong.
Because that is our job/passion. Every theory needs to be assessed with a critical eye
quintaine Wrote:What is wrong with formulating and publishing your own theories and add them to the pool of other possible ones and let the public decide.
The 'public' are not qualified and/or experienced enough to understand the intricacies of the evidence or the inherant levels of confidence (i.e. error ranges) of each measurement technique or the wealth of past evidence, site reports, papers or discussion lying behind every acceptable near fact or collection of current theories and/or questions.
The peer review process of publish, criticise, publish argument etc etc is a major part of how archaeology or any science progresses
quintaine Wrote:Just because there are two or more distinct archaeological theories out there, must we choose one or be damned for all eternity? Likewise must we castegate others at the first opportunity?
Critical assessment, discourse and comparison are a major part of what archaeologists do. See above.
quintaine Wrote:To attack or defend pseudo-archaeologists. Are they the only options? If one of your archaeological associates has a different opinion than you, would you attack it, ridicule it, grind it into the gound, or would you put forward your own and discuss it, keeping in mind that it's not a war, no one has to win, and both of you come away a little more enlightened. Must it always be win/lose black/white. Can I not choose the third option of understanding where pseudo archaeologists are coming from, be entertained by the colourful theories scant as they often are on evidence after all the first keepers of the human story were, aparently, the story tellers.
See above