Ken Jacobs wrote:
> I think it depends on how one defines "testing." Obviously the sort of
> replicability of an experiment one can achieve in physics or any other
> "strict science" cannot be achieved in archaeology or paleoanthropology
> [my personal chunk of turf]. At the same time, a certain logical rigor
> can be applied. I always have been impressed by the notion of
> "consilience of inductions" introduced by William Whewell in the early
> 19th century: the more independent facts that one can line up that all
> point in the same direction, the far more likely that ones core
> interpretation is close to the truth. It's an elegant version of "if it
> walks like a duck, swims like a duck, quacks like a duckk...it's most
> likely a duck"....
I think that what I've wrote in the first part for Mike covers the
above. If not so, pls. drop me a line more.
> All of this leaves open the question of what is an observation and what
> logical system is required (the recurring positivism/relativism/realism
> morass).
Point noted, but if we are to restrict ourselves according to the
nature of this mailing list and to the original question, then one has
little trouble about what an observation is and what kind of a logical
system is required when it comes to "truth in archaeology".
I would even dare to say that a totally insignificant part of
scientific garbage (which is not the same as pseudoscientific, a
totally different matter) is owed to problems of observation and/or
problems arising from a non reliable logical system (contrary to what
many philosophers may smilingly imagine). Full negligence of any logic
in order to fit selected facts according to one's prejudices (as in
pre-judge) is -imho- the rule.
But this is probably bringing/presenting an owl to Athens. :-)
> ...my capacities in the language being street survival skills
> whenever I am there.
But you wouldn't risk a philosophical conversation, would you? :-)
(It's nice that you do visit us.)
You have been obviously "tortured" at length on the whole subject (is
it because of the North American education problem on evolutionism, or
hasn't that reached Canada yet?), so apart my sense of consensus, I
can't see that I could have had anything to add, or clarify. Again, if
I am wrong, I'll gladly hear about it.
> Natural selection was never "proven" in a classical
> experimental sense until people started breeding fruit flies.
Evolution's theory does interests me a lot (from a philosophic view),
but this is an archaeology list and so, I'll hold my tongue. :-)
Thank you, it's been a pleasure.-
Christos
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|