This is both a response to Chris and Jessee' ongoing and somewhat acrimonius debate over
methodology, epistemology, philosophy, etc., and an attempt to steer the discussion in a
direction that may be more relevant to an archaeology list.
All this philosophical discussion is interesting, but its epistemological and methodological
focus (modernism, post-modernism, Zen non-thought, and so on) is being done pretty well in an
an ontological vacuum about ontological status of the the objects responsible for the
archaeological data. How can we make a coherent claim about the former without clarifying what
we aspects of the latter we think are most relevant?
With regard to the general epistemological aspect, without question no scholar can
tolerate the arbitrary imposition of what will count as truth claims - whether the
justification of the imposition arises from the exercise of public assertive social power (the
governing body asserts the truth) or from the ruling body of an academic discipline. In that
sense, in my view scholarly work - including the work of archaeologists - has to take the
epistemic relativist approach. However, I also think that one cannot hide behind this as an
excuse to make no epistemic conclusions. I think that each researcher is responsible to
present a coherent argument establishing her/his reasons for opting for one or another model,
explanation, interpretation, etc., and if she/he cannot do this, then she/he must make this
and the reasons for it clear also. The rationale can include any sources she/he wishes to use,
including authoritative claims from professional bodies (or political bodies, for that
matter). In no way do such claims force others to accept since, presumably, we are in an
ongoing debate on all issues. If a Zen methodology results in insights about the nature of the
conditions responsible for the archaeological data, others can assess these claims, including
the methodology, and accept or reject or bring up alternative possibilities. Where is the
problem? It seems to me this type of debate and ongoing "hermeneutic spiral" is precisely what
we have all been doing, in any case. As Roy Bhaskar points out, epistemic relativism does not
condone judgemental relativism. If nothing else, our sanity requires us to assume that, given
alternative models of the same phenomenon, one or another would seem to be closer to the
reality that each attempts to outline. But this does not mean that any of them is a good fit
and so the pursuit of understanding goes on - in the spirit of free debate.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|