11th September 2012, 06:10 AM
(This post was last modified: 11th September 2012, 06:19 AM by kevin wooldridge.)
I think there is a contradiction in the critique. If as the writer says archaeology cannot be considered a science as the historical record is incomplete and can never fully be known, surely the same could apply to any number of 'pure' sciences. Biology, geology, botanics etc etc. As it is I agree I think with John's general analysis - to my mind archaeology is an unbounded discipline that uses techniques from 'sciences' as tools towards specific ends. Archaeological scientists are in general nerds, the same as most other scientists, but who just happen to have a lot more fun!!
PS There is an ongoing debate in GIS along much the same lines as to whether the 'S' should stand for 'systems' or 'science'.....Does it matter much at the end of the day? Not really but I guess in some peoples minds one is administered by technicians, the other by scientists. However observed by other scientists (or technicians!!), the two species are hard, if not near impossible, to tell apart
PS There is an ongoing debate in GIS along much the same lines as to whether the 'S' should stand for 'systems' or 'science'.....Does it matter much at the end of the day? Not really but I guess in some peoples minds one is administered by technicians, the other by scientists. However observed by other scientists (or technicians!!), the two species are hard, if not near impossible, to tell apart
With peace and consolation hath dismist, And calm of mind all passion spent...