12th October 2011, 11:31 PM
(This post was last modified: 12th October 2011, 11:59 PM by GnomeKing.)
(applause) very well said Jack.
RE: " 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." - ---------------- DARK MATTER - DARK FORCE - THE BIG BANG - GENETICS - EPIGENETICS......need i go on? (not really; Jack has already said it)
[oh, and BTW : Palaeontology....]
Why talk ourselves out of science? how does this help? - - truly, there are no fundamental distinctions, just a continuum of human thoughts about what may or may not be Real.
Science began before Newton. >.
the 'Scientific Method' is itself a philosophical theory written to describe how 'scientists' appeared to work..
>>Cosmology, Biology, Geology and other natural sciences all derive from systematic observation, not a strong concept of Experiment/Repeatability/Thesis-Anti-thesis >>> these concepts develop historically along with the development of of ever greater sophistication of devices (i.e. Natural/observational vs Instrumental/experimental practitioners of 'science'
>> ..'Scientific Method' + Institutional Science has been show by many 20th c thinkers to be far from infallible in regard of Truth or freedom from Subjectivity....(insert appropriate refs at will, though I remain forever fond of my former tutor Stephanie Koerner, she (and her own former tutors) are as good a place to start as any....)
We should consider seriously basic issues of linguistics - - 21st c. minds are very conditioned to perceive in terms of opposition and duality - this creates huge towers of flawed reasoning and unnecessary complexity.
In that regard: consider; Science should be a noun, not a verb. Science ('objective' knowledge) can be conceptually 'possessed', but can not be 'done' - in the same as I can 'have' knowledge/education/perspectives, but i not 'do' knowledge/eduction/perspectives.
Science then is an end result, more than it is a process. Experiments, for example, are a tool, not a defining activity.
So - does it all matter?
Yes! - 'science' is not boring/remote as some seem to think (no more boring than a Roman CBM report anyhow).
Nor do Real Scientists find archaeology laughable - in fact (if you meet any, if they really exist) Real scientist are more often deeply fascinated by insights that archaeology provides. Many 'Great Scientists' have had close connections with archaeology and anthropology (not to mention art, music ect)
Most importantly however for a sustainable future for UK professional archaeology : we should affiliate closely with the values and tools of 'science', just as we might call ourselves Social Scientists, and just as we harness the power of Social Benefit for archaeology, or concepts of Shared Heritage and 'imagining the past'.
Don't talk the science out of archaeology (or vice-versa) - who benefits?
there are no dualities - just horses for courses.
[A final thought : archaeology is only indirectly about people - in my Excavation i have no end of natural processes of abandonment and disposal, decay, soil formation, timescapes etc.....but never the people - They are precisely what is missing.]
RE: " 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." - ---------------- DARK MATTER - DARK FORCE - THE BIG BANG - GENETICS - EPIGENETICS......need i go on? (not really; Jack has already said it)
[oh, and BTW : Palaeontology....]
Why talk ourselves out of science? how does this help? - - truly, there are no fundamental distinctions, just a continuum of human thoughts about what may or may not be Real.
Science began before Newton. >.
the 'Scientific Method' is itself a philosophical theory written to describe how 'scientists' appeared to work..
>>Cosmology, Biology, Geology and other natural sciences all derive from systematic observation, not a strong concept of Experiment/Repeatability/Thesis-Anti-thesis >>> these concepts develop historically along with the development of of ever greater sophistication of devices (i.e. Natural/observational vs Instrumental/experimental practitioners of 'science'
>> ..'Scientific Method' + Institutional Science has been show by many 20th c thinkers to be far from infallible in regard of Truth or freedom from Subjectivity....(insert appropriate refs at will, though I remain forever fond of my former tutor Stephanie Koerner, she (and her own former tutors) are as good a place to start as any....)
We should consider seriously basic issues of linguistics - - 21st c. minds are very conditioned to perceive in terms of opposition and duality - this creates huge towers of flawed reasoning and unnecessary complexity.
In that regard: consider; Science should be a noun, not a verb. Science ('objective' knowledge) can be conceptually 'possessed', but can not be 'done' - in the same as I can 'have' knowledge/education/perspectives, but i not 'do' knowledge/eduction/perspectives.
Science then is an end result, more than it is a process. Experiments, for example, are a tool, not a defining activity.
So - does it all matter?
Yes! - 'science' is not boring/remote as some seem to think (no more boring than a Roman CBM report anyhow).
Nor do Real Scientists find archaeology laughable - in fact (if you meet any, if they really exist) Real scientist are more often deeply fascinated by insights that archaeology provides. Many 'Great Scientists' have had close connections with archaeology and anthropology (not to mention art, music ect)
Most importantly however for a sustainable future for UK professional archaeology : we should affiliate closely with the values and tools of 'science', just as we might call ourselves Social Scientists, and just as we harness the power of Social Benefit for archaeology, or concepts of Shared Heritage and 'imagining the past'.
Don't talk the science out of archaeology (or vice-versa) - who benefits?
there are no dualities - just horses for courses.
[A final thought : archaeology is only indirectly about people - in my Excavation i have no end of natural processes of abandonment and disposal, decay, soil formation, timescapes etc.....but never the people - They are precisely what is missing.]