21st August 2008, 03:45 PM
Hmmm... it would appear that I have set the metaphorical pigeon amongst the metaphysical cats.
Firstly, I'm paradigmatically challenged... just never sure which side of the processualist / post-processualist schools I sit in(probably why I didn't do that well on theoretical archaeology classes). Similarly, the 'everything is ritual' thing... sorry, my brain is not just wired that way. I leave all that theory stuff to proper theorists. TAG just leaves me confused (sorry to all you TAGist people).
Anyway, for what its worth, I don't think it possible to be truly objective (in archaeology or anything else for that matter). Nor, do I think that anyone can be wholly subjective (nasty little facts can get in the way of a good story / lie). Personally, I think there are three sides to every story... yours, mine and the truth.
Objectivity is a virtue all in itself, something that Buddhists fight to attain and businessmen pretend to have. Simply using the same method of thinking as most of the Western world doesn't at all confer objectivity. It's just thinking, which is a process (as opposed to consciousness, which is a state of being). People more often than not slant their thinking to conform to some imagined or wished-for reality. Everyone who's ever heard an excuse or confronted an bigot (archaeological or otherwise) knows that. Furthermore, modern science kind of choked itself when it discovered (to its complete and total dismay) that there cannot (logically) ever be such thing as an objective observer. A person watching an experiment, even if they are in a different room and touches nothing--he/she still affects the experiment...just by watching.
Yet, I believe in consensus. Scientific consensus is the collective judgement, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of science at a particular time. Scientific consensus is not, by itself, a scientific argument, and is not part of the scientific method; however, the content of the consensus may itself be based on both scientific arguments and the scientific method (thank you Wikipedia) It is different to, and should not be confused with, objectivity... scientist may agree at one point in time but later discover that this consensus represented a subjective point of view.
... and, with that in mind, I think that most BAJRites agree that Uof1's postings are a bit weird.
Firstly, I'm paradigmatically challenged... just never sure which side of the processualist / post-processualist schools I sit in(probably why I didn't do that well on theoretical archaeology classes). Similarly, the 'everything is ritual' thing... sorry, my brain is not just wired that way. I leave all that theory stuff to proper theorists. TAG just leaves me confused (sorry to all you TAGist people).
Anyway, for what its worth, I don't think it possible to be truly objective (in archaeology or anything else for that matter). Nor, do I think that anyone can be wholly subjective (nasty little facts can get in the way of a good story / lie). Personally, I think there are three sides to every story... yours, mine and the truth.
Objectivity is a virtue all in itself, something that Buddhists fight to attain and businessmen pretend to have. Simply using the same method of thinking as most of the Western world doesn't at all confer objectivity. It's just thinking, which is a process (as opposed to consciousness, which is a state of being). People more often than not slant their thinking to conform to some imagined or wished-for reality. Everyone who's ever heard an excuse or confronted an bigot (archaeological or otherwise) knows that. Furthermore, modern science kind of choked itself when it discovered (to its complete and total dismay) that there cannot (logically) ever be such thing as an objective observer. A person watching an experiment, even if they are in a different room and touches nothing--he/she still affects the experiment...just by watching.
Yet, I believe in consensus. Scientific consensus is the collective judgement, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of science at a particular time. Scientific consensus is not, by itself, a scientific argument, and is not part of the scientific method; however, the content of the consensus may itself be based on both scientific arguments and the scientific method (thank you Wikipedia) It is different to, and should not be confused with, objectivity... scientist may agree at one point in time but later discover that this consensus represented a subjective point of view.
... and, with that in mind, I think that most BAJRites agree that Uof1's postings are a bit weird.