>"The problem is the notion of truth".
>I think that the concept of truth is a real metafisical illusion.
Sure is.
>For some people the truth does not exist.
And that's a truth for them. Truth is all around us, even though an illusion.
>And in the field of
>the Humanities of Social Sciences, the concept of truth is being
> considered just a lie.
That's stupid, isn't it. Because the concept "lie", needs the concept
"truth", for its own existence. Otherwise it would make no sense.
>And the ilusion of being objective is also a lie.
I don't think so. I'm sitting here now typing. Time is 17.15, it's tuesday.
That's an objective truth. But only an objective truth in the here and now.
>The perspectives of how we approach to our objective are
>alienated with our social experience, so an social researcher
> will never be objective.
I don't understand this, please elaborate.
> "My idea is that they are right if you speak from a
> correspondence theory of truth perspective"
> They probably be "rigth" in the sense that they relate the facts
> (archaeological record) with the theory. But what they build,
> are real interpretations of a past?
Exactly. Interpretation could only be "real". If they were unreal, we could
not know them.
> Maybe they are using the "scientific method". But this "scientific
> method" could assure us "real" interpretations?
Yes.
>"I say it is a scientific discourse"
> So, is a science or a discipline?
Both.
>A science must generate laws. Does the Archaeology generate laws?
Absolutely. I think Binford's hypo-deductive method were quite succesful in
generating laws.
>Maybe the problem is that as Archaeologists we tend to have an
>holistic vision of the facts, thinking that the "truth objective" is at
>hands.
>But as far as I am concerned that "truth objective" does not exist.
>We have aproximations based on our owns constructions, since a
>particular theory.
Yep! And if you build your approximations on logical and rational
reasonings that are faithful to your theory, they are objective.
Objectivity is always related to that certain framework where it came from
in the first place.
>But are this aproximations based on real past?
No. The approximations are approximations from your theoretical
perspective. But they are *projected* to the illusion of a"real past".
>So if Archaelogy is a methaphisical way of treating reality.
>A science could be metaphisical and not objective?
It could. It could also be metaphysical and objective.
>Does a metaphisical knowledge is an objective knowledge?
I think so.
Bjorn
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|