Archeology is not science

[hawkwind]

I actually approached this and I m not quite sure of what to do out of that high level of retardation:

I moved this threads from the Blackfoot Physics in hopes to get more people involved in the discussion. I still maintain my contention that archeology is not a "real" science. Real science as I see it are math, physics, chemistry and the like. They have scientific laws. No one can argue that 1 + 1 + 2 that's real, but 20 people are still debating what kind of point Charlie Hatchett has. That's a real point, but no science involved and no science real, no real, soft, hard quantatative or qualatative is ever going to resolve the debate. Coogs I agree that science and art are mixed throughout our culture, previous and future cultures. For example, a car runs because of science, but driving is an art that enough people have mastered, cooking relies on science, but to combine ingredients at proper temperatures to evoke a succulent dish that gathers you friends, family and neighbors every time you make it is an art, building construction (this one is for you Scalp) is based on science or the structure would collapse, the plumbing wouldn't work and it would burn down because of faulty wiring, but to make it appealing is an art. Enough. Archeology is the same thing. MJFLINTY can be in Ohio and dig meter deep shovel tests in 100 degree temperatures until he melts into a pool of liquid goo, but that isn't scientific even if he is screening his dirt and saving artifacts. That hole can never be excavated that way again. If he doesn't properly record what he found and where he found it, what the soils were etc. etc. etc. then he dug a hole ad saved some rocks still no science done. Now, if he can make it back to the lab and analyze some cultural material we can do mass flake analysis use a a genie index and come up with a good guess about the reduction sequence at the site. Some science is involved all statistical. Now use the same approach to a coastal site in the Mid-Atlantic where the package size of the lithic resources is small cobbles and you get a completely different result with the same reduction trajectory. This experiment can be repeated throughout the world, but without the art of interpretation it would be a meaning less bar graph. You can attach a bit of science to anything but that doesn't mean it is science. I'm going to take a poll of all of the archeologists in the office tomorrow and ask them if "archeology is a real or hard science" meaning one that is bound by scientific theory and law. I'll repost tomorrow. Flinty your not going to like the results.


Yeah of course it's all semantics. If we can't agree on a definition of what something is then we can call it whatever we want and say its semantics? That doesn't make sense. Without agreement on definitions, social law right and wrong then you no longer have a society, you have chaos and lawlessness. Semantics matter. Your dictionary doesn't make sense either. I have knowledge of a lot of things that are not science. Callahan has a Masters of Fine Arts and is one of the most knowledgeable flintknappers in the world, therefore by definition he must be a scientist but his degree is in art. I guess it's semantics. More directly, digging a hole and collecting artifacts can be done with minimal training that can be done by anyone physically capable, recognizing and collecting artifacts takes a litttle more traing, but the same guideline applies, recording provienience is more metal training than phsical, washing artifacts has minimal training, labeling artifacts is the same thing, turn over and curation of artifacts is the most complex part of this process and not a single bit of scientific training was needed and this is what a lot of people in CRM do all the time. As far as Postulating a theory and testing it, that doesn't happen in CRM very often. We just report on what we found. We don't re-write the archeology of the states we work in. In fact the reports we produce are considered "gray literature" because there is no peer review.
So let's look at it like this a police officer must also be a scientist. They spend most of there day doing mundane daily things. Every once in a while they go to a crime scene collect evidence, place it in bags, record the provienience, take photos, do crime scene drawings and reconstruction, send the samples to various labs who send them their findings that they put into a report for the prosecutor to use in court. I don't consider a police officer to be a scientist either.


J.

[Lord Poe]

"Archaeology is not an exact science."

--Belloq

[Bounty]

Archaeology in it's own is not an exact science. It collects it's data using the principles and techniques of the exact sciences, but the interpretation of that data is always subjective. The discipline itself acknowledges this.

However, it is still science.

[Darth Wong]

I believe that archaeology is an example of applied science, since it employs many scientific principles. I cannot recall any examples of an actual scientific principle being discovered by an archaeologist. If any archaeologists out there care to enlighten me on any such incidents, feel free.

Meanwhile, engineers have come up with many scientific principles, yet we consider ourselves to be an example of applied science. I think that archaeologists simply call themselves a "science" out of tradition, since the practice of archaeology probably dates back to well before the development of the modern scientific method and the consequently improved codification of what science is.

[Dartzap]

One can only hope InnerBrat never comes in here...

[Darth Wong]

One can only hope InnerBrat never comes in here...

Why? I wouldn't mind getting a tongue-lashing from InnerBrat

[Dartzap]

One can only hope InnerBrat never comes in here...

Why? I wouldn't mind getting a tongue-lashing from InnerBrat

I doubt she's around these days anyway - probably off digging up ancient Roman quad bikes somewhere for her degree.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

One can only hope InnerBrat never comes in here... :)

Why? I wouldn't mind getting a tongue-lashing from InnerBrat :)

I doubt she's around these days anyway - probably off digging up ancient Roman quad bikes somewhere for her degree. :)

Except that you're completely wrong. She's a Doctoral student at UCL in Paleobiology, which is unquestionably a real, hard science.


*Can't let misinformation about IB stand. Love her to much. Like eating Tapas and drinking Sangria with her to much.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Indeed. IB is simply doing what I did, but for really, really, really, really old squishy things, as opposed to the cutting edge modern squishy things.

And I, too, wouldn't mind a tongue-lashing. Oh well, you'll have to do, Marina.

[Darth Wong]

Indeed. IB is simply doing what I did, but for really, really, really, really old squishy things, as opposed to the cutting edge modern squishy things.

And I, too, wouldn't mind a tongue-lashing. Oh well, you'll have to do, Marina.

Bad idea. If Marina chooses to give your genitals a tongue-lashing, she'll cut them off first.

[B5B7]

Modern archaeology uses a lot of computer analysis that is scientific. Also the approach archaeologists take to their work is scientific, and also the way their results are subject to peer review, etc. So, in every way that counts, archaeology is real science. It shares a lot of its methodology with paleontology. Also, that scientifically trained archaelogists can find one result and creationists can "find" another, is because one side is using a scientific approach and the other an authority based approach.

As far as scientific principles go, I don't know what they have achieved, but they have certainly done much development with carbon-dating, dendrochronology, etc.

[Darth Wong]

Modern archaeology uses a lot of computer analysis that is scientific. Also the approach archaeologists take to their work is scientific, and also the way their results are subject to peer review, etc. So, in every way that counts, archaeology is real science.

Did you not bother reading my fucking post at all? Engineering meets all those criteria as well, and it is considered an example of applied science, not an actual science in itself. Why is archaeology different?

It shares a lot of its methodology with paleontology. Also, that scientifically trained archaelogists can find one result and creationists can "find" another, is because one side is using a scientific approach and the other an authority based approach.

As far as scientific principles go, I don't know what they have achieved, but they have certainly done much development with carbon-dating, dendrochronology, etc.

See above.

[Kuroneko]

It seems as if the author of that text considers archaeology to be limited to excavation and application of scientific results. Here is a kind of caricature of the process--there's plenty of opportunity to involve the results of geology even in the actual digging, not to mention dating and conservation methods, and probably many others still of which I'm simply ignorant. Still, although all of that can no doubt get very technical, involving computer analyses or whatnot, it makes a poor case for being an actual science in itself, at least in the sense of "real science" that the author uses.

But is that really all archaeologists do? What about actually using those artifacts to piece together a picture of the society that produced it and its development, both cultural and material? This may not make archaeology a "hard" science, but it still has the essential qualities: observations, a theory or model, a prediction (in particular, that future observations will follow some pattern and not overthrow said model). In the last respect it is similar to astronomy and to some extent geology--those make predictions of a similar nature, as direct experimentation is usually impossible in practice.

The sophistication of the methods of excavation in the end does not matter one whit. They're that way to preserve evidence regarding ancient cultures. It's what the archaeologists do with this evidence that determines whether archaeology is a "real" science. Even if it is nothing but revising their methods to preserve more (but hopefully not just that), it would still be a step up into being a science. Perhaps an archaeologists here could clarify on that issue.

On an only vaguely related note, I don't agree with the author that mathematics is a science. An eminently technical field to be sure, but not a science.

[Darth Wong]

It seems as if the author of that text considers archaeology to be limited to excavation and application of scientific results. Here is a kind of caricature of the process--there's plenty of opportunity to involve the results of geology even in the actual digging, not to mention dating and conservation methods, and probably many others still of which I'm simply ignorant. Still, although all of that can no doubt get very technical, involving computer analyses or whatnot, it makes a poor case for being an actual science in itself, at least in the sense of "real science" that the author uses.

But is that really all archaeologists do? What about actually using those artifacts to piece together a picture of the society that produced it and its development, both cultural and material? This may not make archaeology a "hard" science, but it still has the essential qualities: observations, a theory or model, a prediction (in particular, that future observations will follow some pattern and not overthrow said model). In the last respect it is similar to astronomy and to some extent geology--those make predictions of a similar nature, as direct experimentation is usually impossible in practice.

The sophistication of the methods of excavation in the end does not matter one whit. They're that way to preserve evidence regarding ancient cultures. It's what the archaeologists do with this evidence that determines whether archaeology is a "real" science. Even if it is nothing but revising their methods to preserve more (but hopefully not just that), it would still be a step up into being a science. Perhaps an archaeologists here could clarify on that issue.

On an only vaguely related note, I don't agree with the author that mathematics is a science. An eminently technical field to be sure, but not a science.

I've been working with the assumption that the term "real science" should exclude engineering because it is considered an applied science rather than a pure science field, so any definition which includes engineering must be incorrect. There are a number of definitions of science whereby archaeology could easily qualify, but under those definitions, engineering would easily meet the requirements as well.

[Kuroneko]

I've been working with the assumption that the term "real science" should exclude engineering because it is considered an applied science rather than a pure science field, so any definition which includes engineering must be incorrect.

In as far as simply applying science is not enough, I fully agree. That's what I believe that having a sophisticated excavation and preservation techniques that are motivated by scientific principles (the earlier example intended to show that archaeology is a science) does not make it a science. The real question is what's done after all of that data is gathered, which may make it a "soft" but still "real" science--in as much as it makes models of ancient societies and makes a kind of testable predictions of further observations (see previous post). If that sort of thing is still a part of archaeology (rather than, say, anthropology), it makes a much better case.

There are a number of definitions of science whereby archaeology could easily qualify, but under those definitions, engineering would easily meet the requirements as well.

I'm leaving open the possibility that archaeology is a "very soft" but still "real" science, depending on what sort of theory/model-building it does with all the artifacts it collects. I'm not aware of anything substantial in that regard, but I don't want to say that there isn't, because it's not something I'm knowledgeable about. For example, where exactly archaeology ends and anthropology begins is also something on which I'm unclear.

[Darth Wong]

Even the formulation of theories is routinely done in engineering; the line between the development of a new fabrication method and a scientific discovery is often quite blurred. And yet engineering remains firmly categorized as "not science", which always suggested to me that the definition of a "true science" requires a lack of involvement in direct applications.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Since engineering design involves the use of all sorts of scientific principles, the very act of drawing up plans for anything to be made can be considered hard science. Making them is obviously just the acting on such scientific teachings. Regardless, there is plenty of science that can go from being purely theoretical to being applied to the real world in practical concepts, formulation chemistry for instance.

So with that in mind, archaeology is certainly scientifically based and more ground in the hard category than, say, sociology.

I also see the differentiation between engineering and science as simply down to the idea that one is entirely based on being practically applied, rather than remaining abstract and theoretical. Not much point in an engineer who doesn't design things to build or fix objects with his knowledge.

[Durandal]

Engineering is a subset of the scientific disciplines, so all engineering is science, but not all science is engineering. As I've always understood it, the line between science and engineering is more about intent. Engineering leverages the scientific method to solve practical problems. Scientists use the scientific method to describe the universe.

Archaeologists can and do make theories which contain testable predictions, like where a certain artifact will be located based on travel patterns and settlements. And they do describe the universe, not mathematically but qualitatively. But in that vein, it's more akin to detective work. So if archaeologists are scientists, then so are detectives.

The qualifications for what a science is are rather fuzzy these days. It seems like everything under the sun gets to be a science. Computer science is obviously a branch of mathematics, as is statistics. Yet we have computer science and statistical science. There are even "parks and recreation sciences".

It seems that any study which is pursued empirically qualifies as a science now. That means pretty much anything except art and theology.

[Kuroneko]

Even the formulation of theories is routinely done in engineering; the line between the development of a new fabrication method and a scientific discovery is often quite blurred. And yet engineering remains firmly categorized as "not science", which always suggested to me that the definition of a "true science" requires a lack of involvement in direct applications.

Could you elaborate on the sort of thing you're referring to?

If the subject of those theories fall under other sciences rather than engineering proper, then the following dilemma may serve as a counter-argument. Consider a physicist developing a new mathematical technique. If in doing so he is motivated by solving some physical problem or increasing understanding of a physical theory, this may be taken to mean that he's still behaving like a scientist, and only secondarily a mathematician. If he has no such motivation, then he is acting like a mathematician and not a scientist. For an engineer, it would be analogous: an engineer that investigates toward a new theory ordinarily falling under a scientific field is either only secondarily a scientist or is not doing engineering, depending on circumstance. In either situation, there is no indication that engineering itself is a science. [*]

On the other hand, if those theories are genuinely about engineering (methodologies, general theories of design, etc.?) rather than being parasitic on other sciences, it seems that forbidding the study of its own methods only precludes characterizing archaeology as a science of excavation and preservation of artifacts.

Not being an engineer, I may be suffering from a failure of both knowledge and imagination here, in which case please correct me, but the above cases appear to cover everything.


[*] This may mean when archaeologists behave like scientists, they're actually doing anthropology instead. But the general discussion is more interesting than just archaeology anyway.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

I personally thought the difference lies in how fundamental the research is. Physics deals with the nitty gritty details of how all things behave, whereas Engineering is trying to determine how best to make use of the behaviour to do the work.

[Imperial Overlord]

Archeologists often work with falsifiable theories. A proposal might read something like "the dig at site X will hopefully reveal data about the social system and technology of people Y that will confirm or refute the current theories about people Y's social hierarchy and technology." The data collection is rigorous, but not all theories generated from the data are easily falsifiable. My father, who is an archeologist, would classify archeology as a soft or social science.

[B5B7]

Modern archaeology uses a lot of computer analysis that is scientific. Also the approach archaeologists take to their work is scientific, and also the way their results are subject to peer review, etc. So, in every way that counts, archaeology is real science.

Did you not bother reading my fucking post at all? Engineering meets all those criteria as well, and it is considered an example of applied science, not an actual science in itself. Why is archaeology different?

It shares a lot of its methodology with paleontology. Also, that scientifically trained archaelogists can find one result and creationists can "find" another, is because one side is using a scientific approach and the other an authority based approach.

As far as scientific principles go, I don't know what they have achieved, but they have certainly done much development with carbon-dating, dendrochronology, etc.

See above.

Well, as other posts have indicated, archaeology is a ]'soft'] science (archaeologists may disagree with that 'soft' assessment). As to engineering - maybe because that is what engineers want? Engineers may consider themselves a separate branch from scientists in a greater classification, just as monks & priests are similar. Engineers consider themselves practical men (or women) and may not want to be known as scientists. You are an engineer, so what would you prefer to be known as - an engineer or a scientist?

[brianeyci]

Use of scientific method is insufficient to define a field as a science. This is rather obvious: believe it or not, humanities takes a rather rigorous approach to essays now. You fucking have to, because there's so many people going into humanities, so in lower level essays at least they are looking for certain observations supported from evidence from the text.

Sorry to computer science students, but computer science is not really a science unless you're on the cutting edge, the same that software engineering is not really engineering. The English language has many meanings for different words, including science, but the science definition which the first post talks about is trying to differentiate between academic science and the science of layperson. The defining aspect of science seems to be discovering the physical laws of the universe, not application. To me a scientist will always be the man hunched over the desk working for arcane theories of things that already exist.

There is another way to look at it, borrowed from science fiction debates. Eventually we may know all the fucking physical laws of the universe. We will be able to model the entire universe. Then science will be a dead end, a stagnant field. Meanwhile applied science, or engineering, or any application, will never be completely stagnant because we'll always need to make new things with new applications based on people's whims.

The defining aspect of science seems to be the possibility of perfection or complete understanding, while for application there's no such lofty pinnacle.

[Zixinus]

Whether something is academic science or not I decide by two simple yes/no questions:

1. Is its objective to study?

2. Does it use the scientific method and all its principles (objectivity, Occam's razor, etc)?

Archeology answers yes to both, therefore it is a science. Granted its a HUMAN science not a NATURE science, but I think my method to decide is best.

Well, that's the theory at least. The word "science" has many meanings in English, as it can refer to a profession.

[Turin]

The primary difference that I can think of is that engineering is the application of scientific methods, oriented to the production of a piece of technology (in the broadest sense of that word). Whereas archeology is the application of scientific methods, oriented towards the expansion of knowledge.

This would make the distinction of "science" vs "applied science" about the desired end result.

My guess is that under this definition there will be some fringe cases where people who we call engineers because of their particular education and/or job title are actually doing science as opposed to engineering, but I don't think these necessarily break the rule.