On Thu, 2 Dec 1999, John Hooker wrote:
> I don't disagree with you here, but I think we have to realize that
> the amount of evidence available to us in some areas will always be
> insufficient for a statistically valid conclusion. Nevertheless, if we
> do have both a large and representative sample of what existed in the
> past, then scientific methods can be applied. The trick here is how do
> Science can also lead us to false assumptions, even if the science is
> correct. In recent years, mitochondrial dna has been used rather
> irresponsibly by some archaeologists in studies of ethnicity. As this
John,
I think we are arguing over whether the cup is half full or half empty.
But we seem to be basically agreeing that we should try to use the
scientific method.
Several years ago, I overheard a discussion between
two relatively new grad students who were discussing the archaeology as a
science. One of them made the statement that it wasn't and we basically
shouldn't waste our time with complex research designs, since archaeology
is not a science. That attitude is not one that I can accept, and why I
try to defend the notion that archaeology is a science.
Jeff Baker
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|