12th September 2012, 12:44 PM
'Although archaeology uses these same methods, there is obviously no corresponding existent (historical) "reality" against which models could be tested. '
I diasgree.
Archaeology can be measured against 'reality' as much as any other science can be.
There is plenty of stuff in other sciences that mirrors this, for instance where a particle, force or astronomical body cannot be directly measured or observed, but is done so through its effect son other things.
Look at electricity.....we think of it as a flow of electrons from one terminal in a circuit to another? This is not the case, its just an analogy. Even the 'reality' of electron probability clouds moving charge from atom to atom migrating 'holes' in the direction of the 'electricity' is still an analogy. The effects can still be modeled, measured and used. The reality still eludes us. How can it be any other way as to observe the system at work changes it.
In archaeology the 'reality' to test the models against is the same as in any other science......its called evidence.
Weight of evidence has 'proved' the theory of evolution as much as anything can be proved.....what is the 'reality' that this can be measured against other than observed evidence? Darwin didn't go back in time and watch apes evolving into hominids. He used evidence to construct a theory, which was tested....although I contest that eventually someone observed survival of the fittest at work in the case of the peppered moth.
scientific fact - an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true (although its truth is never final).
Like for example comparing a 'pit' apparently dug in antiquity to tree-throws, natural fissures etc. Using experimental evidence, other excavated examples, the artefactual contents, the nature of the fills to scientifically 'prove' that someone dug the feature and it wasn't naturally formed.
That theory can then be tested and re-tested by others looking at the primary record, or even the original feature.
As in, say quantum physics, each 'measurement' has its own inherent errors that must be considered in reaching the most likely explanation.
It boggles my mind sometimes how archaeologists think they are not performing a science somehow. I blame their science teachers. Or maybe science is so embedded into our mind s that we don't notice it at work?
I diasgree.
Archaeology can be measured against 'reality' as much as any other science can be.
There is plenty of stuff in other sciences that mirrors this, for instance where a particle, force or astronomical body cannot be directly measured or observed, but is done so through its effect son other things.
Look at electricity.....we think of it as a flow of electrons from one terminal in a circuit to another? This is not the case, its just an analogy. Even the 'reality' of electron probability clouds moving charge from atom to atom migrating 'holes' in the direction of the 'electricity' is still an analogy. The effects can still be modeled, measured and used. The reality still eludes us. How can it be any other way as to observe the system at work changes it.
In archaeology the 'reality' to test the models against is the same as in any other science......its called evidence.
Weight of evidence has 'proved' the theory of evolution as much as anything can be proved.....what is the 'reality' that this can be measured against other than observed evidence? Darwin didn't go back in time and watch apes evolving into hominids. He used evidence to construct a theory, which was tested....although I contest that eventually someone observed survival of the fittest at work in the case of the peppered moth.
scientific fact - an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true (although its truth is never final).
Like for example comparing a 'pit' apparently dug in antiquity to tree-throws, natural fissures etc. Using experimental evidence, other excavated examples, the artefactual contents, the nature of the fills to scientifically 'prove' that someone dug the feature and it wasn't naturally formed.
That theory can then be tested and re-tested by others looking at the primary record, or even the original feature.
As in, say quantum physics, each 'measurement' has its own inherent errors that must be considered in reaching the most likely explanation.
It boggles my mind sometimes how archaeologists think they are not performing a science somehow. I blame their science teachers. Or maybe science is so embedded into our mind s that we don't notice it at work?