-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Are archaeologists "scientists"?
- Thread starter gnostic
- Start date
David M
Well-Known Member
So the degrees and Phd's that they in archaeology are what? Of course it requires study in science.
Yes, they are scientists if you are talking about professionals rather than amateurs.
The question is non-trivial. The Humanities often have considerable hardships in attempting to follow the Scientific Method.
Unfortunately, I'm not sufficiently aware of the facts to opine about Archeology. I will say that many fields attempt to be recognized as sciences without really earning it. Archeology, however, has at the very least some techniques such as soil analysis that aren't completely ideological and/or subjective, so it has better odds than its parent discipline, Anthropology, usually manages to get.
Unfortunately, I'm not sufficiently aware of the facts to opine about Archeology. I will say that many fields attempt to be recognized as sciences without really earning it. Archeology, however, has at the very least some techniques such as soil analysis that aren't completely ideological and/or subjective, so it has better odds than its parent discipline, Anthropology, usually manages to get.
outhouse
Atheistically
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I accept archaeology as a genuine science. What makes this discipline difficult is the interpretation of the findings as it tends to be hard to uncover and piece together things from the past, and interpret them from silence.
Religion at times tends to obscure any rationality in the findings if it proves to affect a held belief in a negative and/or unfavorable light, as this is obviously one of several scientific fields that can potentially make or break a religion by way of discovery.
Religion at times tends to obscure any rationality in the findings if it proves to affect a held belief in a negative and/or unfavorable light, as this is obviously one of several scientific fields that can potentially make or break a religion by way of discovery.
outhouse
Atheistically
read the link I posted it tells you more.
when a group starts a dig, there already going in for targets with a agenda at hand.
They dont dig to find artifacts to debate about. religion generaly has no play in the dig at all
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Archaeologists are the organ transplant doctors of ancient history. They are demigods who know just about everything... I'm talking about the old ones, not the yuppie PhD.
outhouse
Atheistically
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
I've read a TON of archaeology, and they are so good that I can't correct them.
Sometimes five years later I find a good conflicting view, but the guy correcting the first one was actually holding the material in his hands.
I just can't believe how much work they do and how much they know. Damn.
Definitely, there have been some debates over the "hard" and "soft" sciences; anthropology has definitely had a contentious history over just how scientific it may be depending on the various sub-disciplines within. Archaeology, cultural, linguistic and physical anthropology butted heads in the 70s and 80s (partly due to the boom of hominid fossil finds) so archaeology and physical anthropology broke away and focused more on a positivist approach (essentially an adherence to the scientific method like other scientific disciplines and a drift away from a "softer" sociological approach). Even Stanford broke physical anthro' and archaeology into their own anthropology departments away from the culturally based ones due to their focus on empiricism and only reconciled the various anthropological departments in 2008.
So yes, archaeology and physical anthropology follow the scientific method and both are evidence based research so they are sciences.
Last edited:
ellenjanuary
Well-Known Member
Nah, man; they're trash pickers. 
Kidding. I took an anthropology class, that was kinda soft; but anthropologists have to study a gank of stuff... and as for myself; I can't imagine taking any classes without taking science and math - man, what's the point of studying if you can't study something good? If I gotta take Literature, I gotta balance it with a Calculus class... I mean, that's simple logic...
Of course they're scientists.
Kidding. I took an anthropology class, that was kinda soft; but anthropologists have to study a gank of stuff... and as for myself; I can't imagine taking any classes without taking science and math - man, what's the point of studying if you can't study something good? If I gotta take Literature, I gotta balance it with a Calculus class... I mean, that's simple logic...
Of course they're scientists.
Yes, they do.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Archaeology is scientific... it's not experimental but I don't think it harms the field.
Of course I have to admit to a certain amount of bias... archaeology and anthropology are both two of my favorites subjects. I would have minored in one or the other if I had time.
wa:do
Of course I have to admit to a certain amount of bias... archaeology and anthropology are both two of my favorites subjects. I would have minored in one or the other if I had time.
wa:do
gnostic
The Lost One
Sorry. I've forgotten that I had created this topic.
I supposed that's true.
Perhaps, my problems with some archaeological finds are like what have Nowhere Man and Painted Wolf have said, which I agreed - interpretations and certain bias from some of the archaeologists.
I have noticed that some archaeologists have already set opinions, which may cloud their interpretations. And some would jump into the media and announce their interpretations of their findings, before they have completely and properly completed their analysis; it's what I'd call the proverbial "jumping the gun". This is what I find unscientific.
Perhaps it is the media archaeology. Some of these so-called of these documentaries on history and archaeology that I have seen, are disgraceful.
BTW, Painted Wolf. I love archaeology too. I supposed I like anthropology too, though I've not study it at all.
david m said:
I supposed that's true.
Perhaps, my problems with some archaeological finds are like what have Nowhere Man and Painted Wolf have said, which I agreed - interpretations and certain bias from some of the archaeologists.
Nowhere Man said:
Painted Wolf said:Archaeology is scientific... it's not experimental but I don't think it harms the field.
Of course I have to admit to a certain amount of bias... archaeology and anthropology are both two of my favorites subjects. I would have minored in one or the other if I had time.
I have noticed that some archaeologists have already set opinions, which may cloud their interpretations. And some would jump into the media and announce their interpretations of their findings, before they have completely and properly completed their analysis; it's what I'd call the proverbial "jumping the gun". This is what I find unscientific.
Perhaps it is the media archaeology. Some of these so-called of these documentaries on history and archaeology that I have seen, are disgraceful.
BTW, Painted Wolf. I love archaeology too. I supposed I like anthropology too, though I've not study it at all.
Last edited:
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Every field has those... it's human nature. Like Einstein refusing to accept quantum mechanics or Feduccia refusing the dino-bird link.
Agreed... the media wants to sell advertising space, not educate. Hookum puts butts in seats.
Oh it was a tough choice as a student... Indiana Jones, Roy Chapman Andrews or Richard Leaky?
wa:do
David M
Well-Known Member
I recommend Time Team from Channel 4, its speed archaeology and almost entirely concentrates on UK sites, but they definitely don't make outrageous claims about what they uncover. Unless its blocked for your country you can find it on youtube.
I think if one were to look at the vast majority of media coverage of science in general it's equally vapid and misleading, though the Discovery Channels and their ilk tend to air really bad pseudo-science and feature pseudo-archaeology more often than not. But even legitimate scientific discoveries are distorted or exaggerated by media outlets normally trustworthy: National Geographic's unveiling of Archaeoraptor was irresponsible but the media's subsequent coverage of the fossil ignored the fact that plenty of paleontologists were skeptical of its validiy not to mention National Geographic isn't the place to submit scientific studies for peer review.
Another example was the misleading media coverage of Darwinius, aka Ida. As editor of the PLoS paper and anthropologist John Hawks observed of the media's stories on the fossil find:
And I'll also point to what basically equates to media hysteria over the Human Genome Project. Venter may or may not be underestimating the impact of the project and he's a controversial guy (particularly over his profit oriented approach to scientific studies), but I certainly agree that the hype far outweighs the practical impact of the project:
SPIEGEL: So the Human Genome Project has had very little medical benefits so far?
VENTER: Close to zero to put it precisely.
It's a great interview. Venter is a no nonsense kinda guy who's not particularly impressed by the media's reporting of science and he's not too subtle about other scientists in the field... scientists like Francis Collins.